Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:18, 4 December 2013

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

Memory of water issues

I have been interested in the memory of water debate from the start, having heard a lecture by Jacques Benveniste on his research even before the publication of his paper in Nature. As a theoretical physicist, I have been interested in the way fallacious arguments are frequently used in an attempt to prove that the claims are impossible. In an invited lecture in a meeting organised by the Foundation of German Business (SDW), I addressed a number of these arguments, demonstrating why they are incorrect. I think it would be good if some balance were given to the memory of water article by including a link to the lecture, which has been archived on our university's media server (the section dealing with memory of water begins at 6:55).

Re the reliability of this as a source, I note first my own credentials, e.g. as having a Cambridge Ph.D. in physics, being a Fellow of the Royal Society (UK), and having published in notable physics journals such as Physical Review Letters. On the verifiability issue, my discussion of flaws in the usual arguments is very straightforward, and comprehensible to anyone with a basic understanding of the issues involved (for example, I cite the difference between ice and water, a matter of common knowledge, to argue that one does not have to add molecules to water to change its properties significantly).

This reference would support a statement along the lines of

According to Josephson, many of the arguments used to dismiss memory of water out of hand are unsound.

. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

1. ^ http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1422061. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Don't think this is an RS question, since Josephson is presumably a reliable source for Josephson's view. The questions here would be around weight and neutrality, starting - I suppose - with a question about whether this view has been discussed (or otherwise expressed) in reliable, secondary, published sources. Alexbrn 16:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see how a short report of a lecture (oddly, in German) can be deemed a reliable source. Assuming that you are Josephson, you should be able to place your talk on a personal blog or website which would be identifiably yours, then it would be a matter of the notability of the view articulated, as Alexbrn says. Paul B (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. That is just what I have done -- look for the link to it in the last sentence of my first paragraph ('link to the lecture'). As regards notability, I see that there is remarkably little discussion in the article as it is at present on the question of whether memory of water is theoretically possible or not, only the red herring relating to networks that really should not be there. But I can say at least that the first point re water memory in my talk, that you don't need extra molecules for there to be an effect, is very well known to people in the field and there must be many references to it. The point is so obvious (except to the sceptics who keep bringing up the false argument) that I would not expect much note to be taken of my reiteration of the same point.

Again, I would guess that another false argument, the last one mentioned in this part of my talk, that if water had a memory it would remember everything it had come into contact with, must have been addressed in the literature, even if not with the precision that an experienced theoretician can bring to bear on such issues.

Even though the meeting was held in Cambridge UK, the audience consisted exclusively of native German speakers, so it is not that surprising that the summary of the meeting was published in German by the German sponsoring organisation. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I clicked on the wrong link. I'm listening to the recorded version of the lecture now. Paul B (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but for me this falls into the category of "expert outside his field of expertise". With regards to weight: the fact that some fallacious arguments are used by one side in a debate is not, per se, remarkable - I'd expect this for both sides in any discussion that involves more than a very small group indeed. I'd only include this if there is evidence that the criticism has been picked up as significant by some outside sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Outside my area of expertise? You are clearly the person speaking outside his area of expertise and I demand a retraction. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What we have here is (I suspect) a case of an editor who (for reasons I will not speculate on here) latches on to the fact that my comment suggests that I'm not that familiar with the literature on homeopathy (not my area of expertise), and wrongly infers from this that I am not expert in the particular technical issues that I am addressing in my comments. This kind of superficial analysis by editors is what gives wikipedia a bad name. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You suspect wrong. You are an expert in physics. Water memory, on the other hand, is a pseudo-science - it may appear to use the apparatus of science, but it's not science. Dealing with this is a special skill different from physics, or indeed science in general. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you say that is not your reasoning. But the 'reasoning' you give above is a textbook case of 'proof by declaration', which is no proof at all. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Let the people here judge whether or not the memory of water work is scientific. A lecture given by Benveniste at the Cavendish colloquium is available on the web. In what way is that kind of activity pseudoscience? Does Schulz consider that the mere investigation of a phenomenon that most scientists dismiss is pseudoscience as such? --12:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As Alexbrn notes, the chief issue here isn't really one of "reliability" of the sources with respect to the attribution of the opinion or any quotes—there's not really any question that Josephson said what he says he said, when and where he said it. The question is whether or not Josephson's personal opinion on this topic is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant special mention in water memory. It would stretch WP:WEIGHT past breaking to juxtapose Josephson's personal opinion (commentary made at a – presumably un-vetted, non-peer-reviewed – speech to the UK chapter of the Foundation of German Businesses) and proper, published, high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific articles. As an aside, it also strikes me as disingenuous to wax eloquent about fallacious arguments and the narrowmindedness of the mainstream scientific community while ignoring completely the fact that the American Physical Society offered to fund and carry out (another) double-blinded test of water memory in response to a challenge by Josephson himself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing sinister (as Randi and others try to make out) about the fact that the proposed test involving the APS never took place (by the way, you can't do 'double blind tests' on a system such as a sample in a test tube that doesn't know what is going on; 'blind test' is what you mean). Considerable negotiation about a possible test took place between Benveniste, and Park acting on behalf of the APS. The difficulty was that it was not enough just to 'do an experiment'; the experiment had to be such that if it gave a positive result sceptics would agree that the result was positive (and sceptics are very good at finding reasons for not accepting a positive result). Some proposals by the physicists were just not practical. Various possibilities were discussed and in the end Benveniste, who thought it of more value to investigate the phenomena further than to satisfy sceptics, announced that he did not want to proceed further. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

...And I'm sure that that perceived lack of value or practicality had nothing to do with the fact that other properly-blinded trials attempting to reproduce his previous work were negative in their outcomes. But seriously, you're attempting to turn an article on a scientific non-phenomenon into a soapbox for your personal opinions on the nuances of scientific debate, and that just isn't what we're here for. Stephan Schulz hits the nail on the head up above. The fact that a few of the arguments made against 'water memory' as a plausible physical phenomenon might be specious – or might be interpreted in such a way that they become specious – is pretty much irrelevant to the topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades comment of 23:27 19 November, this is a weight issue. Where is there any substantial discussion of the material from the suggested source? - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Just another vote for the "pseduo-science doesn't belong here" - as more than one comedian has noted if water had a memory, what about all the poo that's been in it? Does it forget about that?Smidoid (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether Brian Josephson is an expert in "water memory", as it's clear that the sources he wants to use are not reliable in themselves. This is very difficult to determine, as there is no agreement that there is a field there, at all. He has not established his expert credentials in the relevant areas of physics or chemistry, although he has established himself as an expert in some relevant aspects of physics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

GERAC

1a) Three primary sources:

• Endres, Heinz G.; Diener, Hans-Christoph; Maier, Christoph; Böwing, Gabriele; Trampisch, Hans-Joachim; Zenz, Michael (2007). "Akupunktur bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen". Deutsches Ärzteblatt 104 (3): C101–C108.
• Endres, Heinz G.; Victor, Norbert; Haake, Michael; Witte, Steffen; Streitberger, Konrad; Zenz, Michael (2007). "Akupunktur bei chronischen Knie- und Rückenschmerzen". Deutsches Ärzteblatt 104 (3): C109–C116.
• Scharf, Hanns-Peter; Mansmann, Ulrich; Streitberger, Konrad; Witte, Steffen; Krämer, Jürgen; Maier, Christoph; Trampisch, Hans-Joachim; Victor, Norbert (2006). "Acupuncture and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Three-Armed Randomized Trial". Annals of Internal Medicine 145 (1): 12–20.

1b) One secondary source:

• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss / Federal Joint Committee (Germany) (27 September 2007). "Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses "Ärztliche Behandlung" des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen, chronischen LWS-Schmerzen, chronischen Schmerzen bei Osteoarthritis" (in German). Retrieved 5 November 2013.

2.) German Acupuncture Trials
3.) These trials are notable because they led to acupuncture being reimbursable by the German statutory health insurances. The sources are being used throughout the article.

a) The primary sources are being challenged on the basis that according to MEDRS, primary sources should better not be used. As far as I know, that applies only to claims of medical efficiency or conclusions/results of trials. In this case, however, the primary sources are only used to describe the set-up and findings of the trials.

b) The secondary source has been challenged to be not reliable (no rationale for this assumption given yet).

Thanks, --Mallexikon (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Assessment from involved editor. The primary medical sources can't be used for health related content per WP:MEDRS. The German Federal Committee are a reliable source for information about themselves, but not for health-related content. If they are to be used for information about what they've done, a secondary source discussing their actions should exist to establish weight. Alexbrn 07:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:MEDRS doesn't ban primary medical sources, it just makes a big deal out of trying to make sure that they're not mis-used. I don't see how the use of these sources in GERAC presents a reliability issue. Podiaebba (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Using a primary study from six years ago to state (e.g.) "this implied both real and sham acupuncture being significantly more effective than standard therapy" is about a clear a misuse of a primary medical source as it is possible to get; even if this was a secondary source it would be getting to old for this per WP:MEDDATE. Alexbrn 11:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In what way is that a misuse of the source , which states " Low Back Pain Improved After Acupuncture Treatment For At Least 6 Months. Effectiveness Of Acupuncture, Either Verum Or Sham, Was Almost Twice That Of Conventional Therapy."?? WP:MEDDATE is also not relevant since the article is about these specific trials - you can hardly apply the same standard of "recent publications preferred" as you would to the main acupuncture article. At most you could argue that the out-datedness is an argument for deleting or merging the article. Podiaebba (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. The primary sources in this case are simply background information for the main point, which is that the German committee approved acupuncture for reimbursement. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS: "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge"? This article takes the majority of its space relaying the findings of out-of-date primary sources which have subsequently been questioned by reliable secondaries. Alexbrn 12:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an argument for deleting or merging the article, not for complaining about reliability of the sourcing as it stands. Podiaebba (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have nominated it for deletion. This thread was started by an editor wishing to defend the sourcing (and keep the article as-is). Alexbrn 14:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Using a source to describe itself is WP:OR / WP:DUE. We need sources independent of the subject matter. I share Alexbrn's concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Using a source to describe itself is WP:OR - no it isn't, and it's absurd to say so. It's a line of thinking which basically asserts not merely that primary sourcing needs to be used very carefully (and avoided if possible) but that it's banned completely. It's a tenable position I suppose, but not one supported by WP policy at all. Podiaebba (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In terms of normal Wikijargon I think Podiaebba is right. This is a case of a primary source, and not what we would normally call an OR or DUE problem. Primary sources are not forbidden but we use them carefully.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources seem to support that there were trials in Germany that lead to approval of reimbursement. There doesn't seem to be an RS issue with that. It seems a due and notability issue. What source supports that this is notable? The claim of notability is a WP editor's statement, "These trials are notable because they led to acupuncture being reimbursable by the German statutory health insurances." that is an editor's opinion/OR. What source supports the statement that the trials are notable? Where is the due weight argument to support an article on such a narrow topic that is supported by outdated and disputed studies? This seems like it might warrant two sentences in the existing acupuncture article. Summary: Marginally RS for content no RS support for weight or notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability is not really a subject for this forum, but I would say notability is not normally a case of finding a source which directly says something is notable. Often it necessarily involves "common sense" discussion between editors, because notability is relative to what an article is about. If there is an article about government attitudes to acupuncture, then...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Section break

See GERAC. Using a source to describe itself is obviously a gross WP:WEIGHT violation. We must use sources independent on the subject matter. The GERAC trial itself is being used in the article. Using a primary study from six years ago is obviously a gross WP:MEDRS violation. Editors think it is okay to use any source they like and continue to ignore policy. The primary sources in this case are being misused to describe in extreme detail about the trial itself, among other low level details. The article is littered with too many primary sources. For example, The Joint Fed. Committee is a primary source because they were part of the event. Even if the The Joint Fed. Committee was a WP:SECONDARY source there are now newer sources on the topic. That means The Joint Fed. Committee fails MEDRS and SECONDARY. The article should be mainly about how the results of the trial influenced policy in Germany. The trial itself in not what this article is supposed to be about. The details about the trials itself is not notable and not the direction of an encyclopedia entry. Editors have turned the article into their own personal WP:COATHOOK article. Here is the current discussion on the talk page. An editor thinks identifying a primary source is pointy. The editor's explanation on the talk page makes no sense. The source is indeed a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Using sources to describe themselves is very common and accepted on Misplaced Pages. That does not mean there is no other problem here, for example perhaps the lack of MORE sources in addition to that. A very common warning made about using primary sources is not to ONLY use primary sources for any specific article. Is that closer to what you want to argue? OTOH, if there are now newer sources, the best thing to do normally would be to add them, rather than subtract something else. It is not necessarily a good idea to delete sources' own primary comments about themselves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Using primary sources to describe unimportant low level details is inappropriate for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. The primary sources are used to discuss low levels details that are not about how a clinical trial impacted society and politics in Germany. The entire article is mess. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials to read comments made by other editors about the many problems. There are now newer sources, but the newer sources do not verify the low levels details that do not belong in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources are being dumped inside the reference section. QuackGuru (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I made this change. The low level details remain in the article for no valid reason. I propose we delete the entire section. See WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No. It's reliably sourced material, and I don't see a WP:WEIGHT issue here. The article is about the GERAC. Check the title. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You did not address the concerns made by other editors. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

What concerns? And why debate them here? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The concerns now are about the coatrack information that have been restored again. QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Federal Joint Committee source

• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (27 September 2007). "Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses "Ärztliche Behandlung" des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen, chronischen LWS-Schmerzen, chronischen Schmerzen bei Osteoarthritis" (PDF) (in German). Retrieved 5 November 2013... This a review of the GERAC and several smaller acupuncture trials. There is a summary in English, on page 2.

QuackGuru and Alexbrn would like to throw this source out. Their rationale is that it constitutes a primary source regarding the GERAC, since based on their own report the Federal Joint Committee (Germany) decided to include acupuncture to the list of services that have to be reimbursed by the German statutory health insurances. Could I get some feedback whether the FJC source is permissible (as a reliable secondary source) to describe the background and set-up of the GERAC? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what I have said. Given that the consensus is that this article should be about the event at hand (the granting of insurance eligibility to acupuncture in Germany in 2007), what I wrote about this source was this: "It's not independent of the events and so far from ideal except maybe for the most mundane facts, or things which are otherwise validated by good secondary sources; for anything in the biomedical space (details of the trials e.g.) it fails WP:MEDRS and cannot be used." The key concern here is about biomedical information; you are trying to use this source as a loophole in WP:MEDRS to admit health information boosting acupuncture into Misplaced Pages with is both outdated (per WP:MEDDATE) and explicitly refuted by subsequent high-quality secondary medical sources. As MEDRS states in its opening paragraph: "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge". Alexbrn 08:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you are misrepresenting the consensus. The article of course still is about the GERAC; it's just notable for the "event" you talk about and the article should take that into account (in regard to its content)... This source is not outdated (since it's not used in regard to its assessment about acupuncture in general, but only as a source to describe GERAC itself), and it clearly is an independent, third-party review. If the article's name was "The Federal Joint Committe's decision of 2007" - yes, you might have a point about this source being primary and not independent. But it's not. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The key point is it's not RS for the kind of dubious health information you want Misplaced Pages to include such as (in Misplaced Pages's voice) "This amounts to significant superiority of acupuncture and sham acupuncture over standard treatment, but no statistical significant efficacy difference between real and sham acupuncture". Even it is was a WP:MEDRS-compliant source (and it isn't) such statements would be inadmissible as they are out-dated and discredited. It's pure coat-racking. Alexbrn 08:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You took this quote from the Knee osteoarthritis trial subsection - it's clearly not meant as a generalized assessment of acupuncture. I'm going to be more than willing to make sure this article doesn't dole out dubious health information. And I'd like to quote an editor from the AfD discussion: "I'll just point out that if I didn't like acupuncture, I might very well want the page to remain. The results suggest that the effectiveness of acupuncture is basically no more than sham acupuncture..." . You are misinterpreting my intentions here. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the information is "pro-acupuncture" or "anti-acupuncture": we don't include dubious health information (such as that I quoted from the article) on Misplaced Pages through using unreliable sources for it, period. That means removing all the discredited primary biomedical material that has been laundered via this non-WP:MEDRS source. As far as I can see your intention is to keep this material in by having a loving detailed exposition (including tabular data!) from all these discredited sources. It would be a little bit like having a detailed explanation of the research behind supposed links between vaccination and autism in the Andrew Wakefield article (which of course we don't do). It's troubling. Alexbrn 09:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The bigger problem is this source and other sources are being used to discuss low level details. On Misplaced Pages we summarise the sources. The article is about the event. It is not an article about the trials itself. The medical information about the trials itself is coathook information. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's an article about the trials... That's why its title is "German Acupuncture Trials". Can we get some feedback from uninvolved editors here please? --Mallexikon (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Your using the same disputed primary sources again. QuackGuru (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's clearly a secondary source... --Mallexikon (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is clearly a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we get some feedback from uninvolved editors here please? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, never mind. Let's close this thread and start afresh further down below. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The new thread you started did not explain there are many concerns about the coat rack information. You did not explain to other editors that it is an article about the event according to comments made by uninvolved editors at the AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul dundas is reliable source?

Paul Dundas is a reliable source for citing about religions other than Jainism? His reliability has been questioned here at Talk:Jainism and Hinduism, due to the original research and false interpretation. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Bladesmulti's main reason for asking this appears to be his statement "Dundas is a pro-jain source, certainly lacking the account for writing about other religions." Writing about Jains doesn't make one anti-Hindu. And of course that he (Bladesmulti) disagrees with Dundas's view. He's reliably published academic and the only objection seems to be a disagree with his views (and a claim that he is fringe, which doesn't seem to have any basis). Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, I didn't called his claim to be Fringe, only questioned that if he's presenting wrong information about Vedas, it should be accepted? Like other user had pointed too. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Then attribute it. If other academics disagree, show their views also, attributed. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

In subjects where there are differences of opinion amongst experts, the best solution is normally to find MORE sources, showing the other arguments, not to try to delete the sources we have on the basis that they have a POV. In such cases, trying to argue that one source is more POV than another is often a never ending discussion, so not very practical.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dundas is an established academic, working on Indian religions generally. Reliable for such topics Itsmejudith (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dundas in many people's opinion may be a reliable academic but I find his knowlwdge of Hinduism shallow or he has not gone into depth of Hindu philosphy -

For example in article Jainism and Hinduism Dundas is cited as saying:-

The scriptures known as Vedas are the foundations of Hinduism. As per Hinduism, these scriptures do not have any author and are present since the beginning of the universe This position was countered by Jains who said that saying vedas as authorless was equivalent to saying that anonymous poems are written by nobody. Jain scriptures, on the contrary, were believed by them to be of human origin and hence had greater worth (citation given :Dundas, p. 234.)

The above line in article seems to be original research, as Vedas In Hindu tradition are the creation of Brahma. See search link - --- going by that can Dundas be accepted as a reliable source ??? I think Dundas did not research well before writing or his academic credentials are not worthy. Jethwarp (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If Dundas wrote anything like that, I'm a Dutchman. (And I'm not, as it happens.) Based on your citation from our article, I think the first question is: what did Dundas really say? Can anyone verify? Andrew Dalby 10:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@ :Andrew Dalby - I do not have resources to verify that as I do not have the book. But I had raised this same question at Talk:Jainism and Hinduism earlier and the editor, who is also creator of article said he has quoted same from the Dundas book which is available with him. That is why I raised the question that perhaps Dundas knowledge of Hinduism is shallow or poor. Jethwarp (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Also some of the claimed information from the book of Dundas certainly can't be verified either. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have provided the full citation in the page Jainism and Hinduism. I am providing it here again:

• Dundas, Paul (2002). The Jains. Routledge. p. 234. ISBN 978-0-415-26606-2. Yet, despite such evidence of social and religious interaction, the Jains consistently attacked the foundations upon which Hinduism rested. The prestige of the Veda, the supposedly revealed collection of scriptures whose mastery enabled the brahman class to exercise ritual and social authority, was challenged by the Jains on the grounds that it was of the same human provenance as any other type of literature and that the brahman claim of absence of an author for it could no more be sustained on any logical grounds than an argument that anonymous poems were not written by anybody. The Jain scriptures, on the other hand, through being conveyed by the omniscient teachers, were deemed to be of human origin and manifestly greater worth (VTP pp. 72–101).

That's very useful, thanks ... and, yes, it is difficult material to summarise or paraphrase. Dundas is not saying directly what Hindu views are. He claims to report the opinion of "the Jains" about the views of "the brahman class" and also about the origin of the Jain scriptures. I was, to be frank, most uncomfortable with the phrases "as per Hinduism" and "are present since the beginning of the universe": well, in fact, they are not in the source anyway, which reassures me :) So, I'd say, this sentence could serve us as a source for Jain opinions, including Jain opinions about Hindu arguments, but not directly for Hindu opinions. Andrew Dalby 12:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Dalby, so you indirectly said that Dundas is only good for the topics that are 100% jain, and if it involves Hinduism, he should be avoided? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not exactly what I mean, Bladesmulti. I'm commenting on this sentence -- which is far from being an easy read :) -- and pointing out that it does not claim to say what is Hinduism: it claims to say what Jain thinkers considered to be Hinduism. That's how I read it, anyway. Let's remember that the book is about The Jains, after all.

This board deals in specifics, but in general, I would certainly say (like Judith, I think, above) that Dundas should be regarded as reliable on Indian religions. Andrew Dalby 12:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby, So it means that Dundas is not making any comparison between Hinduism and Jainism, per say. He is only expressing opinion of what Jains thought of Vedas or Hindu scriptures. He himself, therefore, is not drawing any opinion, is what you feel ? Also he is not going into depth weather what Jains thought of Hindu scriptures is correct as per Hindu philosophy. Correct!!! Further, he also has not bothered to go into detail, which Jain philosopher said that (Vedas) were....anonymous poems were not written by anybody. Am I right ? Jethwarp (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Up to your last sentence, I agree with you 100%. As to that last sentence ... it really is difficult material to summarise ... He says that Jain philosophers argued as follows: the Hindu claim of "no authorship" (of the Vedas) is as illogical as a claim that "anonymous poems" (in general) "are not written by anybody". This is not a statement that any Jain philosopher said that Vedas or anonymous poems "are not written by anybody": it is the exact opposite, in fact. It is a statement that Jain philosophers would have regarded such an opinion as nonsense. Andrew Dalby 10:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your views. It means that Dundas is not comparing Jainism and Hinduism and even if he is he is doing it into superficial basis. Which means he is saying what Jains thought about some Hindu scripts but is not saying What Hindus thought of Jain scripts or views. And therefore, as said earlier and also agreed by you that Dundas not going into depth weather what Jains thought of Hindu scriptures is correct as per Hindu philosophy. Now, that exactly was the point of argument - Whether Dundas can be cited as a reliable source - when we are comparing two religions of Indian sub-continent like Jainism & Hinduism or Hinduism & Buddhism or Budhhism and Jainism. In my opinion and also of Bladesmulti - he is not a Reliable source when comparing two Indian religions. Jethwarp (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Non sequitur argument. --Rahul (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

He lacks the knowledge about Vedas, when compared to the scholary sources that are listed all over in the pages such as hinduism, vedas, etc. So it should be noted already, that he can't be used as a source when it's about comparing Jainism with other theory. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that opinion isn't justified by the quotation and discussion above. Andrew Dalby 17:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Institute profiles/bios for views

• In Joseph R. Stromberg article at this diff removal of with special interests including United States foreign policy, and the "War on Terrorism". He has been a fellow for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute from The Independent Institute profile/bio here. Edit summary reads in part "Remove undue and non-RS content. "
• In Ralph Raico article at this diff removal of he writes about the history of liberty and the connection between war and the state. from Ludwig von Mises Institute bio here. Edit summary reads "Remove primary source description of vMI publications"
  

These are two bio stubs I just started beefing up and it seems views described by Institute sites are useful for providing a context for the article as well as a focus for further research. Thanks Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

For consideration, seeing as you 'just started beefing up' these articles, are these the only sources that make these claims or have you found more? AnonNep (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear what you are asking for on this noticeboard. Per the instructions above, "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." But the two talk pages have developed very little/no discussion on the edits. I suggest the question be re-stated as a BRD on the two article talk pages. In any event, the straightforward institution descriptions of Stromberg & Raico should be considered RS in context. – S. Rich (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As SRich knows so well the editor(s) in question are highly biased against the sources in question, and the subjects of the biographies, so given there are two similar incidents, it's a waste of time to hear the same biased arguments I've heard a thousand times from them on two different talk pages. And it would be against BRD for me to revert their edits.

To User:AnonNep: Really just starting and obviously better additional sources needed. I like to get a listing of all sources before I start adding more, so I start with easiest overviews like those. Unfortunately, the editor (and his close collaborators) keeps me and a couple other editors busy dealing with their activities on a number of bios of individuals they distain, i.e., deletions of NPOV material, threats of AfDs, adding of loads of questionable, often poorly sourced material that requires repeat visits to WP:RSN and WP:BLPN, etc. So it's a process of putting out the worst fire every day. With all the disruptions it's hard to get enough done given I'm just a volunteer with just a couple hours a day to spare.

Anyone know any way to get them to hold off for a while as we actually get some constructive addition of material done? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit nonplussed when I saw this. Stick with the processes and (how many more times?) skip the sniping, please, If people are being disruptive then get some admins involved. The sources s/b ok for basics such qualifications unless they are contradicted by other sources. I don't see any particular problem with using them for the quotes that you give but it probably would be better if you could find other sources because someone, somewhere might say that it is just publishers' spiel etc, the sort of stuff you see on the back cover of a book. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Striking whining. Thanks for advice. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you review the rest of your edits for the past week or so and strike the rest of your PA and other off-topic remarks. You have able collaborators here and your fellow editors are here to strengthen WP -- even when you disagree with, or do not understand, their thinking. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Stepping away from the nonproductive personal sniping, what is the supposed problem with the sources here? In both cases it appears that the sources in question were previously used in each article and continue to be used after the reverts. @SPECIFICO:, since you mentioned "non-RS content" in one of your edit summaries, can you explain what the concern is? Superficially the claims don't seem particularly controversial, and for non-controversial content an organizational bio seems acceptably reliable. If they were making claims of stature, like "widely renowned" or "recognized expert", then I would think differently, but that's not happening in these edits. --RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing us back on topic. My original posting gives the edit summaries but the editor or deleted the material has not chosen to defend them here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello @RL0919:. I think the primary-sourced bio text about special interests in whatever is gratuitous. These bios frequently contain promotional or boilerplate items. Presumably if Mr. Stromberg specializes in these areas we can find publications to add to his pubs list and secondary independent RS discussion of his contributions in these areas. Thanks for the question. SPECIFICO talk 04:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a concern about the reliability of the sources. I would think an institutional bio page should be reliable as to what types of topics the subject works on. Whether the mention of that is gratuitous or promotional is a legitimate question for discussion, but it isn't a matter of source reliability. My two-fold suggestion is 1) for User:SPECIFICO, don't say "non-RS" in edit summaries when the concern is really POV/due weight, because it confuses the issue; and 2) for User:Carolmooredc, do try to use the article talk pages, because discussion there would have refined what the dispute was, so that even if it didn't resolve it, you could have escalated to a more appropriate forum. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. My understanding of RS is that it relates to our confidence in the truth of what the source states. I have found in general that primary sources which describe various institutions, their affiliated individuals, or their programs may stretch the truth or state subjective views and evaluations as if they were fact. If the site stated that an associated writer is 6 feet tall or that he was born in Detroit, or some other verifiable/falsifiable fact that seems easy to accept. When the site states here are his interests or here's what he's noted for or some other subjective statement, even when its not intrinsically extreme or controversial, those statements seem problematic. I wouldn't have a POV/weight problem with stating his specialty if I were sure that independent sources considered it to be as identified. I agree with you, RL, that there was no reason to jump the gun and post this RSN to sort out a straightforward issue about a simple statement. Should we agree to close this and move back to the article talk page? SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the claims in this case are particularly subjective (as I stated above, I would have a different position if the wording was evaluative/promotional), but I agree that this should go to the article talk pages. --RL0919 (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Because this is similar edits related to two articles and because SPECIFICO, the editor who removed the material, even objected to almost a dozen WP:RS for one factoid in this bio brought to WP:RSN, it seemed like a waste of time to discuss it on the talk page since the discussion was predictable. No one has made a substantive comment on the talk pages since I posted notice of this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if you don't expect great results, it is still best to start with article talk. If there is problematic behavior by one or more editors, shortcutting isn't likely to resolve it. --RL0919 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. Left a note on both threads couple days ago that, given no objections, I soon will revert back material, so we'll see if there are any. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Doc Halo page

Sources: John Lynn (2013-03-28). “HIPAA Compliant, Secure Texting Doc Halo App Lands Key Contract with Premier Healthcare Network” (http://www.emrandehrnews.com/tag/doc-halo/). EMR, EHR & HIT News. Retrieved 2013-11-05.

Joanne Maly(2013-09-27). "Doc Halo Reports That Omnibus Implementation has Healthcare Organizations Scrambling for 100% HIPAA Compliance for Secure Messaging" (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/9/prweb11164305.htm). PR Web Retrieved 2013-11-05.

• These sources and the majority of the content were deleted from the Doc Halo page by an editor. But I believe them to be reliable, legitimate references and informative content.

Article: Doc Halo

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doc_Halo&diff=582291368&oldid=582289527

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doc_Halo&diff=582289527&oldid=582288153

25.35 (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, EMR, EHR & HIT News: "EMR, EHR and Healthcare IT news is an extension to the EMR and HIPAA network of blogs.""The genesis of this EMR, EHR and healthcare IT news site is that I get a couple emails every day with EMR related news. This website is an outlet for me to post the various EMR news that I receive." A reposting of emails recieved by a blogger. NOT RS.

PR Web is a promotional site, for a fee they will publish a "press release" or for a larger fee they will write one for you. NOT RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand now, thank you for your help! I have added a few more sources that are not press releases or blogs- changes listed below. How many sources are necessary before I can remove the "notability" flag??

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doc_Halo&diff=583233681&oldid=582291748 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doc_Halo&diff=583434900&oldid=583233681 25.35 (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

demographia.com

http://www.demographia.com/

We really need some viewpoints on this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Note reliable. Here is a link to an article about them in Vancouver Magazine. It is run by Wendell Cox's company, and its objective is to promote automobile use and road construction. TFD (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If this isn't considered reliable, then the UN urban agglometation data and the CIA country population data should be removed as well in my opinion. Just because they are considered reliable sources, that doesn't mean that they area reliable. I've already worked to disprove that the CIA is a reliable source at User:Elockid/Source Comparison. The UN's World Urbanization Prospects, is a poor source and was so poor in fact that it was nominated for deletion. Demographia's data in my view is much reliable than the UN. First off, unlike the UN, Demographia has a consistent definition that can be used to compare entry by entry. Since there is no universal definition of what a metropolitan area/urban area/agglomeration is, other lists become problematic since they employ different methodology for each entry. Probably the best one I've heard is the London vs. New York argument. The common argument is that if London had the same definition as New York, the population would be X million. At least with Demographia, there's an explanation of their methodology and in doing so, readers can actually compare between entries. Even with an official data available, the UN has grossly underestimated data for some entries. Demographia has some consistency with official data. See below for some examples:

City	Official	Demographia	CityPopulation	UN
Jakarta	23,308,500 (2000)	26,746,000 (2013)	26,400,000 (2013)	9,769,000 (2011)
Osaka	19,342,000 (2010)	17,175,000 (2013)	16,800,000 (2013)	11,494,000 (2013)
Seoul	25,721,000 (2012)	22,868,000 (2013)	25,800,000 (2013)	9,736,000 (2011)

There are other entries where the UN grossly underestimates data. Comparing it to the sources available, Demographia has more consistency than the UN. Elockid 03:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

UN figures are lower because the use the population for the city rather than the metropolitan area. They say they get their info from national governments. However Democraphica says (p. 4) that it gets its information national governments too, when it is unavailable they make their own estimates or use UN estimates. Citypopulation also says it takes its figures from government sources. There is no reason to use Demographia, you just need to decide whether to use city or metropolitan figures. TFD (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For major cities we surely need to give all the main population estimates, explaining any discrepancies. All this stuff is in the public domain. Each country publishes its census results and these publications are reliable. The UN estimates are also worth mentioning. I can't see that this website adds anything. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

After running into a problem while trying to edit an article that had had deleted material Wendell Cox/Demographia, I was kindly directed to this discussion. How bad is the spamming of this disputed resource? And I agree that if there are (reliable) conflicting population estimates that they should be included.24.0.133.234 (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces (talk · contribs): That is blatantly not true. No source will tell you that Tokyo has a CITY population of 35+ million. I can go on and will take more than a page. Elockid 14:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Not following you. Demographia says that the "Tokyo-Yokohama Metropolitan Area had a population of 34,472,000 in 2005, while Tokyo prefecture had a population of 12,571,000." They provided Japan Statistics Bureau and Statistics Center as a source. The UN provides a total of 35,622,000 for the "urban agglomeration" of Tokyo. Most of the difference is accounted for by Demographia excluding Yamanashi. In any case, why would we cite Demographia, when they get their numbers from elsewhere? TFD (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look at the links I've removed and I can't see any evidence of them showing their sources or their calculations. If their sources exist, it would be nice to review them and perhaps see if we can reconsider, but at the moment, I don't see how it's possible to consider Demographia a reliable source. That's ignoring the potential conflict of interest that exists as it's not really an information resource but a consultancy with various business interests. Nick (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

UN figures are lower because the use the population for the city rather than the metropolitan area. How does that exactly hold true when you just stated the UN provides a total for Tokyo for "urban agglomeration" rather than city? There are plenty of data where numbers are not readily available for metropolitan areas/urban agglomerations/urban areas. Chinese cities (they don't come up with a metropolitan area figure and even just counting the urban cores for those cities leads into SYNTH/OR problems). Pakistan (their last census took place in 1998 and I have yet to find their metropolitan areas/urban agglomerations/urban areas), and Egypt, Russia are some examples where metro/urban/agglomeration data is not available. Even if they were available and we were to use solely official, we would get back to the London vs. New York debate. Elockid 17:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is taken directly from the UN site: Population of urban agglomerations with 750,000 inhabitants or more in 2011 (thousands) Urban agglomerations are not cities and it's common knowledge that they are not the same. Common perception of what an urban agglomeration is that they are similar or to but not necessarily the exact same as a metropolitan area or urban area. They are also often interchangeable. Are you saying that despite the UN having a vastly different number it is still a reliable source despite the fact that the official source for Seoul puts the metropolitan area at 25+ million or the fact that other sources say otherwise? While I agree that it's important to include disputed numbers, but when the data is just obviously wrong not even remotely matching that from the established data or other comparable data, then common sense dictates that it's not reliable. Elockid 18:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@Nick: it's in page 5 (page 7 if viewing pdf) of the report that I linked above in the table. Elockid 18:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not we should use UN statistics is not particularly relevant here; the key is that Demographia is not a reliable source. I pointed to a number of reasons on User Talk: Jl2047a, foremost among them being there is clearly no editorial oversight with a history of fact-checking. The grammatical quality of the document indicates a non-professional production. And it is known that the author is an advocate for a very specific form on city planning which presumably would/could be affected by population statistics. Finally, there is no reason to believe that Cox's definition of the urban area is equivalent to Misplaced Pages definition, especially since he explicitly states that he's making his own decisions based on satellite imagery. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant. What I am pointing out is that if you consider Demographia to be unreliable then the UN is just as if not more unreliable. Why should we consider them reliable? Because of the perceived notion that they have editorial oversight? I suppose you even say that the CIA population data is reliable for countries such as Turkey or the Phililppines? No they are not. It's quite obvious that the large disparity in data even comparing to that of official sources blatantly shows clear lack of editorial oversight or a lack of effort at fact checking. What I am getting that is the data presented by Demographia is more reliable and of which I've already outlined above. If you guys say the data from Demographia is questionable, then prove it by showing data that's says otherwise. Elockid 00:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Elockid, the UN figures you linked to in your table represent the city population while the figure of 35M for Tokyo you just threw out represents the metropolitan area. So the UN provides both, you must choose which to use. Or use another reliable source, just do not use Demographia.. TFD (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Not true again. The Osaka figure is not that of the city population. Like I said in my expanded comment, those are data for "urban agglomerations". Elockid 00:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The UN data for Osaka shown above is Osaka Prefecture, while the numbers from Demographia are for the Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto region (Keihanshin). And guess what else. The UN's figures for New York City will probably differ from Demograhia's figures for New York State, and vice versa. Why on earth does any of this matter? TFD (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not correct again. Kobe is in the Hyōgo Prefecture which is included in the UN figure. This matters because there's source bias at present. In any report, paper, article, etc. the most important thing you do is always check your sources. Even though there are considered reliable sources, they are perceived notion, not actual reliability. The most logical approach is to see if really in fact the source is reliable. I said previously that the metropolitan/urban/agglomeration data is not released by all census authorities. In situations like these, why shouldn't Demographia be used? People have stated that the UN should be stated but why? I am under the assumption that because of source bias, in these type of situations, the UN data despite the number inaccuracies/inconsistencies, will be preferred by those saying that Demographia is unreliable while also considering that the UN is. What I am trying to get at is that we are not really doing our jobs in determining the reliability of a source but using source bias instead of concrete evidence to do so. There's not a comprehensive review of which I mean looking at other sources to help determine the reliability of the data. I do really appreciate that you tried to find concrete evidence to support your stance and prove that Demographia is unreliable. Elockid 21:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I said that Osaka was in the Osaka prefecture, not that Kobe is in the Osaka prefecture. Still not following your logic. If the UN figure for Hyōgo Prefecture is accurate, what does that matter if one of their lists provides the population for that prefecture? TFD (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

When you said, The UN data for Osaka shown above is Osaka Prefecture, I assumed that you meant that the UN figure I listed above is based on Osaka Prefecture. I am saying that this is not true because Kobe is not part of the Osaka Prefecture. Kobe is included in the figure shown above. So the figure can't be based on Osaka Prefecture. In other words, the 11 million figure given by the UN neither matches the official nor is it with agreement with other sources. It's not the Osaka Prefecture or Osaka + Hyogo. Furthermore, going back to the statement you made above how the lower figures are attributed to the city population being used, how reliable is a list then that uses a metropolitan definition for one, a city definition for another, or an urban agglomeration definition according to the UN, etc.? I don't care that this the UN. What I care about is that they are 1) consistent with the official source, 2) consistent with other sources or 3) have some methodology/consistent definitions. In any comparison study, if the definitions for data are different for each entry, then that would not be a reliable study. The UN source fails at 3. Not all the numbers are bad or inaccurate as seen in cities like Tokyo. But the fact that point 3 is lacking means that it is not reliable. Readers want to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. At least with Demographia, there is consistency with definition/methodology.

I am saying that source reliability shouldn't be based on reputability. Not everything a source publishes or releases is reliable. All sources make mistakes. No source is perfect. This is why it is important to take information from multiple sources. However, the UN has consistently published data that doesn't match the criteria I listed above. Just because it's the UN, it doesn't mean that we should include it (there is an argument above that they should be included) especially when multiple editors/readers have highlighted the problems with the urbanization study. However, disqualifying Demographia on the basis that it adds nothing extra, wouldn't the UN not add anything extra either? Basically, treat the sources fairly. Elockid 14:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I was directed here because my edits to the Wendell Cox, which is also the redirect page for Demographia page, were reversed. I'm still waiting for clarification on what if anything that has to do with this matter.

Also, there is quite a bit of information which explains exactly where Cox is getting the Demographia numbers from in the pdf. yearly report which btw contradicts what some of you have been saying here about the data. Such as the fact that satellite is used. Yes it is used, but the reasoning is explained that satellite photos are not being used to count or estimate population but to find areas that were otherwise not mentioned. Copied from the 2013 Annual Report are the sources from where the information is derived--Sources for Base Population & Land Area Estimates A: National census authority data agglomeration data (land area or population). B: Demographia land area estimate based upon map or satellite photograph analysis. C: Demographia population from lower order jurisdictions, including reduction for rural areas. D: Population estimate based upon United Nations agglomeration estimate. E: Demographia population estimate from national census authority data. F: Other Demographia population estimate. L: Demographia population estimate from local authority data. N:Combined urban area using national census authority data http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf a comprehensive listing of urban area (agglomeration) population and densities (edited to add24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)) I'm not totally convinced that the data is bad even if Mr. Cox has some kind of contentious or unpopular, or self-serving, agenda. And I'm not convinced that the editor who was adding Demographia numbers and info. to the multi-infoboxes was operating under a COI either. Is it possible that those numbers/info-headings are available on international Wikipedias and that the editor speaks another language? I'd like to see if that editor returns to answer questions or comment on what it was they were trying to do there. Although they were asked to please slow-down, and they are a single issue account I'd like to assume good faith here until proven otherwise.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think the editor will be coming back. I strongly believe that this user was editing under good faith and was blocked harshly. While the massive additions may seem like spamming, they definitely were not in my view. I would even venture to say that anyone who is involved with demographic statics would agree with me that they were not spamming. We're not the only project that uses Demographia. We have some of the largest projects such as Spanish,French, or Italian projects also who use Demographia. If they were really spamming, believe me as someone who blocks a number of spam accounts, I would have taken action or intervened myself (I had already noticed this user adding Demographia before the issue was brought up with the editor). Elockid 02:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't able to access the Vancouver Magazine article earlier but now I can (this was mentioned above). From what I can see, there's some strong or at least elevated liberal bias/anti-conservative bias in there. Even non-neutral sources can be reliable but news articles should strive for neutrality. The bias in the article leads me to believe that there is at least some liberal agenda in the article. In my opinion, this article reads much more of an editorial. Elockid 02:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have a consensus of this board. Not reliable. The UN and CIA issue is a red herring. A city's area (administrative) is determined by its national government. The area of its agglomeration is determined by geographers and demographers. Its population is ascertained by a census. There may be inconsistencies across countries; we have to live with them. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, no one (with the exception of one) has given any strong or reasonable proof why it's unreliable. They have neither given evidence to disprove the reliability of the source. Rather personal analyses were presented without any links or evidence to prove why it's unreliable. The only user who was obtained any sort of concrete evidence was TFD. Elockid 21:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't have to give proof. It doesn't add anything to what is already known about city populations. It just crunches stats that are already available in reliable sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, Elockid, but I think it's the other way around. We need "strong or reasonable proof" that it is a reliable source. I think Qwyrxian hits the nail on the head with his above post starting with "Whether or not we should use UN statistics is not particularly relevant here...". There are just too many indications that this is not a good source. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

@Judith: not giving proof is ridiculous. In any debate, you must have proof when you are questioned. If you insist on saying that Demographia doesn't have anything to ask, would you mind please finding me then the metropolitan/agglomeration/urban population (not the city, county, prefecture, province, etc.) of Cairo or perhaps Karachi from the official sources?

@Anna: I am going to be in disagreement. I have attempted to prove that the data is reliable by showing that it is reliable using other reliable sources. In any debate or argument, like statements made in an article, you must show support for statements with evidence. What are these indications? For example, what exactly in the source (specific passages) would make people agree that it's not a reliable source. What is written in the passage that leads to question the data? Part of a debate or argument is for everyone to give concrete evidence, not for one to. If the opposition can't come up with evidence or even refute the data I have presented, then I see no basis for the arguments being made by the opposition. Elockid 23:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we have to prove that it is unreliable. Strong indications that it is unreliable are enough to disqualify it. We have to trust a source beyond a reasonable doubt. There is doubt, by several editors, for several reasons.

You say that it is reliable because some figures seem to make sense. Well, an unreliable media source may get the facts in lots of stories right, but that doesn't mean we should consider it a reliable source. We have to examine such factors as the source's agenda, the presence of editorial oversight, and yes, the grammatical quality. Would we really trust an online newspaper that failed in those respects? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No source can be trusted beyond a reasonable doubt. Even "considered" reliable sources fail at times. U.S. cities even challenge the Census bureau sometimes and wins. Also, the fact that the CIA has been on this noticeboard multiple times further shows that "considered" or "perceived" reliable sources are not trusted beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why you merit other factors such as comparison between other sources when able.

I can also argue that there are strong indications that the source is reliable with no willingness to show proof either. But that doesn't really give any basis to my argument. The Urban Area Report grammatical quality is far from terrible, unprofessional, or a source with elementary grammatical skills. I don't see anything in the publication that has a negative agenda. I don't see any indications of spam or promotion either. If we were to discredit sources based on source agenda, then sources such as MSNBC or FOX would qualify. But the source agenda doesn't disqualify them as unreliable for a number of people (Personally, I think both these sources fail in more than one areas of what a qualifies as a reliable source). I'm sure there are other similar sources out there. If the facts or data are wrong then there isn't much of a presence of editorial oversight. However, there is information that is believable and correlates with that of established data. It's not like the data was pulled out of thin air either. Please note that 24.0.133.234 mentioned about the sourcing above. Elockid 02:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As explained, the source has an agenda - it opposes public transit. Also, it gets its numbers from somewhere else. The oil companies that support the site do not visit all the cities of the world and count inhabitants. TFD (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm, you do make good points, but I still think there are too many indications that it's a bad source. I think we should err on the side of caution and select alternate sources. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@TFD: How does a source that opposes public transit make it a bad agenda? Also, this was taken from 24.0.133.234 above. "Also, there is quite a bit of information which explains exactly where Cox is getting the Demographia numbers from in the pdf. yearly report which btw contradicts what some of you have been saying here about the data." It's not like the data is made up and it's quite evident that they're not.

@Anna: The problem is that there are not many alternate sources. In many cases, from what I have seen, official sources can be difficult to find due to a language barrier. Sometimes even if there is an English version, they are not as comprehensive or lacking in information that would be in the country's native langauge(s) or they simply do not release a figure for metropolitan data/agglomeration/urban. Even though some official sources like China release urban core figures, and suburban figures, combining figures can be construed as OR or SYNTH as they are not official definitions. A study done by Forstall gives examples of other available sources out there which are WorldGazetteer, CityPopulation, Mongabay, and CityMayors. The links for WorldGazetteer are dead, Mongabay uses Misplaced Pages as a source and CityMayors use UN data for an agglomeration list (it's essentially a mirror). There was previously another website that published similar data but they have gone through an extensive revamp and they do not have their data publicly online. We could use Forstall's study but many editors have pointed out that the figures are outdated and there are many other cities missing from the list (it only goes to top 25). If were to not use Demographia, CityPopulation and the UN would be really be the only sources available. Readers like to compare cities and get an idea of how big a city is. So another one of the points why I included the UN is that readers are unable to compare cities. We really don't have alternate choices to choose from. Elockid 16:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Readers like to compare cities, yes, but the info may simply not be there. The EU has defined a Larger Urban Zone and we could cite area and population for those using Eurostat. In other areas the work on ensuring comparability hasn't been done, except by the UN. It isn't a one-off website that is going to get that comparability. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of being repetitive, let me summarize. You have provided no evidence that Demographia is reliable. And your evidence against the UN is based on comparing figures for different population areas.

Let's look at one example in Demographia: "the Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa metropolitan areas...are combined into a single combined urban area." It also says "Toronto, ON, Canada: Includes Hamilton and Oshawa." Since they provide a population of over 6 million, they are clearly referring to the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTA). The description is however a little misleading, because both Oshawa and Toronto are part of the Greater Toronto Area. Of course using the GTHA makes sense for Demographia, because the area is served by Metrolinx, a public transit authority. But other than providing the population for the GTHA article infobox, what use is it? Even then it is problematic because it does not actually say it is describing the GTHA. And it does not provide the population for the GTA, Toronto, Hamilton, Oshawa or any of the other municipalities inside the GTHA.

TFD (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. Unlike the other commentators in this thread who quote, "we don't have to give proof" or "I don't think we have to prove that it is unreliable", I have actually attempted to give proof on more than one occasion. For example, I did so by explaining where to find the sources they've used. In fact, 24.0.133.234 went ahead and copied the whole section. Not only that, but I also showed that the data is consistent with other sources. Again, it would seem that the opposing editors lack of proof has been criticized by 24.0.133.234 as I already mentioned above. The proof you have given yourself has bias as I explained above. If you want me to go into finer detail by highlighting the specific passages that show bias, then I will. The description is however a little misleading, because both Oshawa and Toronto are part of the Greater Toronto Area. This is incorrect in terms of official definition. As you can see here, the statistics bureau of Canada does not include Oshawa in their CMA definition. Unless I'm missing something, that is the only definition that they use. The source that states Oshawa is part of GTA is not an official one. Elockid 21:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Result of debate

I see four editors who consider this an unreliable source. I think consensus for acceptance as quite unlikely. I propose that we remove the occurrences of figures with accompanying demographia references from the remaining articles where they occur. Some helpful links for that purpose:

• Link search
• WikiProject Spam list
• Articles containing the url

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering that there a lot of pages, it would be a much better idea to first inform other users such as in WP:WikiProject Cities, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Urban studies and planning or the affected pages. With 1,540 watchers as of this post, I'm pretty sure most people don't watch this page and as such, it doesn't represent the wider of view of editors who might happen to have a different opinions than either myself or yourself. Even just looking at the talk pages where Demographia is mentioned, there really isn't anything definitive. Elockid 21:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I endorse your suggestion and have posted at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Urban studies and planning#demographia.com. Very best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion

Coming here afresh from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Urban studies and planning (I worked as an urban planner in the UK for 30 years), I'm slightly bemused by the intensity of this discussion and the suggested actions. Obviously, different sources using different methods of analysis and definitions will come up with different population figures. There is no bright line between "right" and "wrong" figures; they are all estimates - but, obviously, we should use the most accurate and up-to-date, and best researched, estimates, and explain (or at least link to) the basis for them. Equally, there is no bright line between "reliable" and "unreliable" sources. The idea that any information provided by a source that is perceived to have an agenda should necessarily be discounted, and any references to it should be expunged, is surely misconceived - it would mean that any information provided by (using UK examples) newspapers such as the Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, etc. should be automatically removed from WP as they each have a clear editorial political agenda; such an action would be absurd. Just because a source is perceived to have a political agenda, it does not necessarily mean that the information it provides should be disregarded; it depends on their reputation for checking facts. This discussion doesn't lead me to conclude that Demographia has any better, or worse, reputation, in that regard than any of the other organisations cited. I can be convinced either way on that. But, even if it is less perfect than other sources, it still should not mean that all references to the site should be expunged. Editors should look for better sources, use them wherever they can, and - if Demographia is the only source for a given fact - its limitations should be set out. I am opposed to simply expunging Demographia-sourced information from articles because of what editors perceive as the political agenda of its source. The limitations of the source should be mentioned, and where necessary information should be tagged for checking and improved sourcing by other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC) PS: I now see that this discussion was initiated by the actions of User:Jl2047a, which were, and are, unexplained (but not WP:SPAM). Clearly, they need to explain and justify their actions in adding that material. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oral Citations (2)

Background info

• Related discussion from Dec 2012
• detailed investigation
• Wikimania 2013 slides

Request

I'd like to approach this noticeboard before actually adding any oral citations. There was a discussion in December about Achal Prabhala's (aprabhala) WMF-funded project. The community here wasn't very perceptive of the idea, partly due to concerns about intellectual property (uploading files on Commons to back up article claims), partly due to a general resistance to the idea.

My colleague Maja and I found several weaknesses in both the general approach of the en.wp editor community and in the particular roll-out by Achal. We pre-released a book chapter, and I gave a talk at Wikimania Hong Kong, both with the aim to re-activate the discussion. Roughly, we claim that:

1. Indigenous knowledge (IK) is knowledge
2. Misplaced Pages wants to be the sum of all knowledge
3. Misplaced Pages therefore should aim to include IK

and that

1. All knowledge is documented in reliable sources (RS) of some sort
2. IK is documented almost exclusively in non-written form
3. Therefore some non-written sources are reliable

I would be happy if some of you had the time to go through this argument and the supporting documents, and either prove us wrong or allow oral citations. If neither happens, which would somewhat be the expected result, :) we plan to put this to a test in 2014, taking a few topics for which no/little RS can be found, and develop content based on oral citations. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is too general for this board. Yes, there can be a tension between WP:V and our concern to avoid systemic bias. You should take this to the talk page of WP:V, because it goes to the heart of what Misplaced Pages is about. Either that or the village pump. Wherever you take it, giving some examples would be very helpful. Can you show that indigenous knowledge is not available in written (codified) form? Perhaps all knowledge is indigenous until it is codified? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Although I am sympathetic to the broadening of Misplaced Pages coverage, this proposal is problematic across numerous policies. In particular, oral sources are WP:PRIMARY, which means that the WP editor is effectively creating WP:NOR by selecting the source and content that is used. Wikipdeia aspires to include all human knowledge, not 'everything anyone has ever said'.Martinlc (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In effect the aim of this proposal is to publish things for the first time, which is not the aim of this community, nor the way it is set up. It would require fundamentally different ways of working that would make the rest of Misplaced Pages difficult to continue. So the more obvious approach is to try to develop a new Wiki?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Indeed, the proposal is broad. I brought it here first because it was discussed here before. It touches WP:V --- the paper and the slide show referenced above argue that it is absolutely verifiable. A real-world example is difficult to give at this time because IK is just not available in writing. Template {{cite}} would also need adaptations. Hypothetical examples would be (Sorry, I have no idea how to restrict the {{Reflist}} template to just show the two relevant sources):

The village of Ovitoto was founded in the 1860s by Herero Chief Tjamuaha.

The OvaMbanderu people use the fresh leafs of Securidaca longipedunculata to heal menstruation pain.

1. Kauraihe Meroro, Deputy Headman of Ovitoto, speaking on the occasion of the centenary of Ovitoto Roman Catholic Church (14 December 2013)
2. Himeezembi Karokohe, medicine man of the Erindi-Roukambe community, speaking on the occasion of the annual Violet Tree leaf harvest (1 September 2013)

@Martinlc & Andrew Lancaster: Oral knowledge is published orally: A village elder delivers a narrative, other elders listen and correct him if necessary by telling their version of the narrative. It is not just something that happens to be said, it is a ritualised session of knowledge transfer, predictable both in time and content.

Generally, do you contest that Indigenous knowledge is knowledge? If not, do you contest that WP should be the sum of all knowledge? --Pgallert (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the sum of all knowledge and never can be. See WP:NOT for some of the important things that we aren't. 99% of the important and useful knowledge that you and I have is tacit and uncodified, like how to get from my house to the greengrocers, or whether the light is bright enough for me to be typing at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. But the matter of the fact is that there is real knowledge out there that is not available in writing, and that's what I'm talking about. Did you check the examples in the documentation linked at the top? --Pgallert (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the emphasis you have placed on verifiability is a distraction. To answer the question about Indigenous knowledge, my view is that it may be knowledge but it is difficult for it to be treated as encyclopedic knowledge since the criteria developed for the selection of sources and content based mainly on print culture cannot be readily replicated for oral sources. However it would be straightforward for an expert in oral traditions to select and gather information from the bes evidence as encyclopedic as a shortcut.Martinlc (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew Lancaster's point above that a Wiki could handle this kind of source, and could develop into an encyclopedia of oral knowledge, but it couldn't be this wiki. Both reliability and verifiability are at issue. Wikipedians need to be able to verify that the source is reliable and has been reliably reported: those questions arise frequently on this board, and in the two examples you give I don't see how they could be answered. Just for example, what was the speaker's name for Securidaca longipedunculata and is the identification valid? That's exactly the question that I would ask if I found such a report in a printed or online source, and I wouldn't add the information to the page Securidaca longipedunculata unless I could cite a source that (a) I considered reliable, but also (b) the next Wikipedian would be able to check, and, if necessary, dismiss as unreliable. Andrew Dalby 11:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@Martinlc, Andrew Dalby: 'Encyclopedic knowledge' surely is what writers of an encyclopedia (=us) consider valuable. From 'IK is knowledge' and 'WP aims to present the sum of all knowledge' necessarily follows 'WP aims to present IK'. That's a syllogism; if you accept the premises you have to accept the conclusion.

As for your second argument, Wikipedians are not just the white-collar workers in developed countries. We have Wikipedians in Epukiro, in Donkerbos, in Otjinene, and for those it is not at all a simple thing to verify facts on WP. Assume they want to verify a fact referenced to the Library of Congress. They would have to learn English. They would have to travel to another country. They would have to learn how our knowledge is organised---Do you remember your first time with a library catalogue? Finding a book is by no means easy. And then they would have to convince the knowledge keeper (the librarian) to give them access. A San in traditional attire might have a hard time lending a book.

It is thus maybe not too surprising that for somebody not acquainted with an African rural IK setting, verifying an oral narrative is not easy. You would have to learn the language. You would have to travel to that country. You would have to learn how IK is organised, how it can be retrieved, and how it has to be understood. After gaining the trust of the local community, oral knowledge might be presented to you for verification.

I am slowly developing into an expert in oral knowledge, and I can already tell you that western scientists misunderstand so much that their representation of an elder's narrative is about the worst source of knowledge you can get. We miss the context, the non-verbal communication, the subtleties in translation, the reason for 'publishing' (orally), and so on. I am publishing in the field---do you want to treat my writing as a reliable source, denying the original author, who didn't get half as many things wrong, the same recognition? BTW, 'primary source' is a red herring in this case: As long as I do not attempt to abstract from an elder's narrative, my writing is still a primary source. --Pgallert (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The examples you give above are your "representation of an elder's narrative" ... right? So it's lucky you're different from all the other experts, or your material, also, would be "about the worst source of knowledge you can get". Forgive me if I've misunderstood something :) Andrew Dalby 20:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

:) The examples are entirely hypothetical, simply because I do not possess much IK. But no, of course not, thanks for asking. I don't speak the indigenous languages, and my representation would indeed not be better. It is supposed to come from a native speaker who is also fluent in English. We are currently busy developing them into Wikipedians, for now using written sources. I often challenge them by showing how poor certain articles are developed, and they tell me all the content. If I ask them where they know it from, it invariably is the parish priest, the chief, the traditional midwife. --Pgallert (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I get it now: I didn't understand fully.

Misplaced Pages developed quite a long way while still accepting material based on what Wikipedians know or have been told by people they trust. Some other-language Wikipedias still do, but here on en:wiki the drive towards reliable sourcing has been going for years: it is deep-rooted and still intensifying. Even the things that everybody knows have to be sourced (... if anyone asks ...) with a source that others can verify. En:wiki differs from academic writing precisely in that it is edgy about primary sources and won't accept "personal information from ...", "letter from ...". So, given this culture, can you get en:wiki to accept "information from an elder"? You have a fight on your hands! I'm telling you what you already know. Andrew Dalby 12:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So true :) But I want even more. I want en-Wikipedians to understand that the information from an elder in all likelihood is more reliable than the respective writeup from an anthropologist. And I want to convince an audience anchored in a culture of writing that oral knowledge transfer is alive in these days and times. It happens in institutionalised settings, and if someone voices a fringe opinion, then this opinion is attacked by the listeners. It is thus not quite the same as a "letter from ...". The best analogy I can offer so far is a museum guide. When asked about a certain item, or at certain rituals (e.g. guided tour) they will always come up with more or less the same explanation.

Of course we could go to the OtjiHerero incubator or to the Afrikaans Misplaced Pages, nobody is going to ask for sources there. But I think en.wp is missing out on some really exciting and important knowledge without IK. --Pgallert (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The knowledge contained in Misplaced Pages is whatever a Misplaced Pages editor inserts. If the knowledge is not published, there is no way to verify that the so-called knowledge is not a lie. Misplaced Pages can never contain oral knowledge because Misplaced Pages does not have a mouth. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the act of predictably and reliably narrating a piece of history, technology, or culture to an audience, is a way of publishing. Or, the other way round, that en.wp's definition of publishing deliberately excludes all oral knowledge, to the detriment of Misplaced Pages's vision and mission. --Pgallert (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This version of Misplaced Pages's vision is contrary to WP:TRUTH. The disadvantages of the possibly-faulty transcription or summary are outweighed by the chance for editors to consider the Reliability of this secondary source, in my view. Somebody can compile oral traditions into a fixed form, and that can be used by Misplaced Pages editors if they consider it reliable, so it is not true that WP excludes all oral knowledge, it only excludes that knowledge which falls outside the scope of Primary, RS, and Verifiability policies. Martinlc (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given access to the sum of all human knowledge --- If that was contrary to WP:TRUTH then that would be no problem, WP:TRUTH is just an essay. But it isn't contrary. Oral knowledge is verifiable. Not easily verifiable, not without an effort, but it isn't hearsay. And if I have to convert oral knowledge into 'a fixed form' before I can use it, then oral knowledge is excluded. Or did I misunderstand something? --Pgallert (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In order for oral traditions to appear in Misplaced Pages they need to be fixed by someone. You are proposing that WP editors do this directly, and this proposal has been considered problematic as cutting across numerous policies. I have suggested you do so indirectly (ie fix first then into WP), this would be unproblematic.Martinlc (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I properly understand 'fix' in this context. If you mean recording the narrative and uploading it to Commons, that has been rejected by this very board in the past, for doubts on the ethical implications of indigenous communities' intellectual property. --Pgallert (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No I meant transform from its primary, oral, form, into a secondary, textual, form, either as a transcript, summary or analysis. Misplaced Pages is a text medium, so at some point somebody has to do that transformation. If the text version exists outside of WP it can be used as a source. Martinlc (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this reliable?

The source for the genre is from this link, , in which I think is a not reliable because the whole book is not about The Simpsons, nor if I think the book is completely fiction. The source is referencing this content:

The Simpsons is an American adult animated sitcom created by Matt Groening for the Fox Broadcasting Company.

As of that sentence is the first from the article is which is supporting the reference. The user who added it claimed that the source is reliable, in which I'm opposing to the statement that it isn't.
Blurred Lines 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't waste time over this. It's common knowledge that The Simpsons is appreciated by both children and adults. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Exactly, so does that mean the reference is not reliable? Blurred Lines 20:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, by saying No in the edit summary, you were probably trying to say that it's not. Blurred Lines 20:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The book was published 1994 and it's categorised in Amazon as Crafts and Hobbies. Not reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought, thanks for responding! Blurred Lines 20:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The non-fiction book: Fashion & Merchandising Fads (Haworth Popular Culture) by Frank Hoffmann and Beulah B Ramirez (Aug 11, 1994) is a reliable source and supports the information except for the "Adult" portion. I would say to exclude that or source it better to a specific citation. It has a reliable publisher (Routledge (August 11, 1994) ) and the authors appear to be notable for works on pop culture.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on that one, because I noticed that something was wrong when I was looking at the adult part. Blurred Lines 20:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

*Update: The user AmericanDad86 has taken Mark Miller's suggestion to choose a different source, and this is what he choose, . Now is that source reliable, or it's just the same? Blurred Lines 22:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

25thframe.co.uk

• The source in question: 25thframe.co.uk
• The article: List of highest-grossing films in the United Kingdom

The above website is used to source the first chart in the article. I have reservations about this source because i) there seems to be a couple of corrections in our chart attributed to other sources and ii) I can find scant information about who runs this site, and the level of editorial oversight. I've been overhauling the list with an eye on FL promotion but I have concerns that the source in use would not withstand an FL review. So in a nutshell does this source pass muster or should I look for an alternative? Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any identification of who is responsible for the website, how they get their numbers, what editorial board or oversight there is. This alone makes me think this is indistinguishable from any other self published OR. Are there examples of RS's using this site for numbers? Any discussion of the site or its numbers in RS? What gives the site reliability specifically for that matter credibility? Without answers to these questions I'd suggest looking for another source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I agree with your points. It doesn't look wrong—it looks like an SPS site that simply duplicates the charts. However, the the lack of insight into its publication process doesn't really enable us to ensure that it is correct either. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Songkick.com

Is songkick.com a reliable source for concert dates, locations, and their opening acts? --Jpcase (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I will hazard a guess and say no going by what they say here: "Songkick was founded in 2007 by Ian Hogarth, Pete Smith, and Michelle You: three friends who thought it was way too hard to find out when their favorite bands were coming to town." It seems to be self-published by three friends, meaning there is no separate editorial oversight. Looks like a useful site but doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's RS criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'd be hesitant to discredit the site just on the basis that it was founded by three friends; any professional organization could start up that way. But I'm still on-the-fence enough about using it, that I'll refrain from doing so unless any one offers up a different opinion. Would anyone happen to know of another website that specializes in providing this kind of information and meets the RS criteria?

By the way, it's nice to run into you again Betty Logan. You may not remember, but you really helped me out a lot when I was working on Hoodwinked! and still learning the ropes of how to write an article.--Jpcase (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Biography Published by Business Week magazine of a business owner.

• Source: Business Week magazine article here http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=11255770&privcapId=2263285&previousCapId=2263285&previousTitle=Sapias,%20Inc

• Article: James McGibney.

• Content: That, in addition to his other claimed educational degrees, McGibney also has an Associate's Degree from Chadwick University, along with a BS or BA degree.

There has been some disagreement on the talk page of the article as to whether or not Business Week magazine is a reliable source. This publication has been in business for nearly 100 years and is a billion dollar company in the business of reporting on business. It clearly meets the guidelines for reliable sources per Misplaced Pages policy here (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources). And it also meets the guidelines involving verifiability, that are found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability). Dead Goldfish (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick has indicated that the subject of the article has stated that the information is incorrect and is discussing this with business week. To me the source is of questionable reliablity as there is no author. I feel the information should be left out of the artiicle until we verify the credilibilty of the source. An earlier version of the article discussed how the university that this degree comes from is a diploma mill. That is enough to be a BLP problem. GB fan 00:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The source is businessweek.com, not the magazine - I don't believe the large volume of company and personnel profiles is published in the magazine. However, as a company information database published by Bloomberg Businessweek, it clearly counts as a "reliable source" by Misplaced Pages standards. Reliable sources can and do make mistakes... if there is a claim from the subject that this information is wrong, then I'd suggest agreeing a reasonable amount of time for the subject to communicate with Businessweek and potentially amend the database entry, and then see what happens. If no change is forthcoming after, say 1 month, then the info stands. Podiaebba (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Podiaebba, that's like saying that the source is Time.com and not the magazine Time. Business Week and Business Week.com are one and the same. And while reliable sources can make mistakes, there is ZERO indication that this was the case. Because of all the activity involving sock puppets trying to edit the article and remove the information I tend to think that this is just a lame whitewashing attempt and not a legitimate issue. Also, how do you know that it is a legitimate issue and not just the subject of the article trying to whitewash things from Misplaced Pages? It seems a useful way to game the system to me. Dead Goldfish (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

We're not really disagreeing, apart from the fact that I think it matters a bit that Time.com publishes editorial content not in the magazine in much lower volume than businessweek.com seems to, and much of its online content has names attached (AFAIR) - it's not an ideal comparison. I also think the most likely thing is that the information is correct and the subject just finds it embarrassing; but we should give some opportunity for them to address a potential problem. Podiaebba (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Lack of authorship does not mean the source is not RS. It only means the strength of the source is not as strong as one with author information. Many times these sources use un-credited staff writers and that alone is not a reasoning to exclude as non-RS. However...being accurate is our utmost responsibility no matter what. If an editor questions whether the source is actually accurate, that must be addressed as to ignore it is not within the spirit or letter of Misplaced Pages.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note. The website of an organization is not "one and the same" as a publication by the organization. Read WP:Identifying reliable sources there is often content on the websites of many organizations/publications that are not subject to editorial oversight and fact checking. Note that even in publications generally regarded as reliable sources there are peices by columnists, editorials, guest editorials, letters to the editor etc. these are not RS. The lack of an author increases the concern as having an author with some credentials and reputation would lend some credibility to the source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this an OTRS issue or is User:Sphilbrick in contact with the subject of the article on his own? If this is an OTRS issue please provide the ticket number. Gamaliel (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It is an OTRS issue, ticket number 2013112810001642. GB fan 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

GB fan is correct, it is an OTRS issue. In addition, Wikimedia legal counsel has been alerted. There's more to this than meets the eye.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the subject of the article is working fast & furious to whitewash embarrassing information. Sphilbrick let us please hear the details in the interests of openness and transparency so that we can be certain that no shenanigans is going on here undercover and behind the scenes. Dead Goldfish (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Dead Goldfish, OTRS refers to the Misplaced Pages:Volunteer Response Team, a group of volunteers who work with living individuals who have concerns about the information about them on Misplaced Pages. A person has the right to dispute the information in their article and those volunteers work with them to address those concerns as best they can. They don't automatically do whatever the person asks and it may well turn out that the reference is returned to the article, but until this matter is concluded it must remain out. I've examined the ticket myself and I assure you that there is nothing inappropriate about this matter. Please be patient and do not use Misplaced Pages as a forum to make unsubstantiated allegations against other editors or the subject of the article. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. As you know from past history, events done in secret are often times subject to abuse and misuse. Dead Goldfish (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but we must balance transparency with privacy in matters like these. The only thing secret are the private communications between volunteers and the affected parties, and these can be examined by other volunteers such as myself if there is any reason to suspect inappropriate actions have been taken. If, after this matter is resolved, you have a reason to believe that inappropriate actions have in fact been taken, the matter can be examined again by myself or another OTRS volunteer. Gamaliel (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As an FYI to you, I contacted Harvard College directly and got an email response saying they've never heard of the guy. So it seems that he also has a fake degree from Harvard. Dead Goldfish (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down there. The source says Harvard Business School not Harvard College and it only says "attended", not "graduated". If you asked the wrong question (or wrong institution...) that might explain that. Podiaebba (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this link reliable?

Source: .

Article: The Simpsons

Content:

Due by too many unconcerned content made by AmericanDad86 that had nothing to do with the source whatsoever, I have made a newer discussion. Blurred Lines 00:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The source is reliable, but not in this context. A book dealing with issues of psychology is not the best choice for determining the particular genre of a television series. There has been plenty written about The Simpsons so it should be an easy matter to find such a citation in a book about the show itself, or a work of media studies. Gamaliel (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, per WP:SOURCE, that the subject matter of the entire book doesn't focus solely on The Simpsons or animation isn't a breach of Misplaced Pages's policy for reliable sources. Scholarly sources can range from mainstream newspapers, magazines, tertiary sources sources, etc., which do not focus completely on one particular subject matter but rather a multitude of subject matters. If sources had to focus completely on the subject matter, tertiary sources, newspapers, and magazines would not be considered reliable. Although this technically does indeed qualify as a reliable source for the edit in question, I can understand your desire to have a bit of a stronger focus on the subject from a subjective standpoint. So per Gamaliel's comment, I have gone ahead and sourced the edit with books directly related to The Simpsons and animation.

As a last and final note, BlurredLines clearly needs to read over WP:SOURCE and WP:SCHOLARSHIP and educate himself on what and what does not qualify as a reliable source. He has contended many times now that these scholarly books I've been using to source material aren't at all scholarly. He clearly is unaware that books published by established publishing houses are considered reliable sources and needs some lessoning in this department as it is making his editing obnoxious to deal with. At the end of the day, all my sources used for this particular edit have been from reliable books unbeknownst to BlurredLines which has been quite irksome. And to make such an elaborate fuss over the reliable sources I've used for this edit that has nothing to do with a living person or medicine but over a television's genre is honestly quite disruptive. AmericanDad86 (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This strikes me as a bit odd. Does this book really say (in straightforward words) that the Simpsons is classified as adult programming? Sure there is no non-obvious interpretation required there? Even then, in a case like this we have to be careful of using one single source for an obviously unusual claim.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

User:AmericanDad86, this comment isn't remotely helpful. It appears there is a lot of backstory here that I am unaware of but there is precious little discussion on Talk:The Simpsons and a lot of threats and borderline namecalling. Unless you and User:Blurred Lines are willing to discuss this with each other instead of talking at each other, this matter will not be resolved, and if the edit warring continues without appropriate discussion, I'll lock the article until the editors on that talk page can sort this matter out. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is getting out of hand, however, Blurred lines has not been acting in the total right here. I also think that they (and perhaps all involved) need to review Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. A source basically has 4 points that determine the strength and reliability. The publication itself (the book or article), the author , the publisher and the context. In this instance the context of the source is simply very weak. But that is the limit here as everything else seems to meet RS. The source does come out and call "the Simpsons" an adult cartoon, but I would rather a source that is written by an expert in media or television be used, but Andrew Lancaster is mistaken in that this is not an unusual claim. Calling the Simpsons an adult cartoon is not controversial or unusual as the series did begin as a segment of an adult entertainment series not meant for children. However, in media and entertainment the term "adult" has other meanings that many may object to. I suggest editors work this out on the talk page. Also, I really don't like admin threatening editors. Put your mop back in it's holster there Gamaliel. Your job is clean up, not proactive threats. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Locking articles to encourage discussion is a pretty routine way of cleaning up disputes. Gamaliel (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

After you properly warn the editors in the appropriate place and in the appropriate manner. This is not AN or AN/I and you are not the sheriff, but a janitor. Wait for the spill before you take the mop out. But please do not create a chill effect by making editors feel that they will have issues if they come here to ask about sources. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There's already been a spill. If my comments have a chilling effect on combatants who want to bring their slapfight to this forum, I consider that a benefit and not a drawback. Gamaliel (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Then take your mop where the spill is and stop making threats to editors on this noticeboard.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the overflow above? If you want to concern yourself about chilling effects when editors seek assistance at noticeboards, then you should be concerned about responses like this one. If it is inappropriate here to "threaten" editors with routine article locking, then surely it is inappropriate refer to their editing as "obnoxious" as well. Gamaliel (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions because that just makes you look like an...well you get the point. It is inappropriate to threaten editors on this noticeboard. Page protection is a preventative action and threatening that action is punative.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You have a very broad definition of "threaten" here. If I was threatening an editor, then I would be threatening to do something to them, and since it is not their article that I would be locking, I have made no threat against them, only a warning about possible administrative action regarding the article. Regardless, your point has been made, repeatedly. If you're not willing to engage in discussion beyond that and just want to beat that dead horse over and over again, please take it to a different forum such as my personal talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no further discussion. That was not a warning, but a threat of punative action, something that makes most editors uncomfortable when the are attempting to work within the guidelines and policies the community has set. This is where you made the statement and where the discussion belongs. If you feel the point has been made there is nothing further to discuss. Happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocking an editor is a punitive action. Locking an article is a preventative one. For it to be punitive, it would require the article to belong to one of the parties involved in the editing dispute. If it is in any sense punitive, it punishes the entire community because they are unable to edit. But then edit warring and disputes between editors also have negative effects on the community. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Editors- If this content dispute continues, please use Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard or attempt compromise together. (We commonly refer cases from one noticeboard to another).--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Is a book by a journalist and a photographer a reliable source for an analysis of religious relics?

An IP is insisting on including " On the other hand, the authors Górny and Rosikoń state that in case of some relics "the results of numerous time-consuming and comprehensive analyses, conducted using the most technologically advanced equipment available, seemed to coincide with assertions prevalent in Christian tradition."" in Relics associated with Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The book is I think this one. "Grzegorz Górny is a reporter, essayist, and film and television producer. He is the founder and editor-in-chief of the quarterly Fronda, and from 1994 to 2001 he co-authored a program under the same title that aired on the Polish national television." "Janusz Rosikon is a photographer and a member of the Polish Journalists' Association and the Association of Polish Artistic Photographers. His photographs have been featured in Time, Newsweek, and Reader's Digest and various European publications." I can't see how it can be considered a reliable source (I think WP:UNDUE might also apply but it's RS issue that concerns me here - a journalist/producer and a photographer aren't good sources for studying analyses on relics and comparing them to historical writings). Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to fall with not a reliable source on this one. Górny is the only author here, despite what the sentence says (there is another issue with how the claim is represented, but never mind). I'm sure Górny is a great person, but this claim is specifically about the results of these comprehensive analyses with the "most technologically advanced equipment available". What makes Górny an expert on these? I don't see anything. The publisher does not establish any reliability for the source either: This publisher is almost entirely an apologetics outfit. Jesus is a major historical research topic: There are many recent indubitably reliable sources which say that there is no physical evidence for Jesus (e.g., Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, p. 45): If this book is saying otherwise, and it is taken seriously, why are there no academic reviews commenting on it? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It is RS. The book is not academic, but popular one, based on other sources, not always available in English, and does not need academic reviews (by whom? -Ehrman for example, has its own ideological bias, and is not an expert in relics whatsoever), besides it was released in English only a couple weeks ago. It has a positivie recommendation from Barrie Schwortz, former STURP member, see http://www.shroud.com/books.htm 83.4.156.158I don't see it is less RS than Nickell or Carroll-Cruz for example. (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"the results of numerous time-consuming and comprehensive analyses, conducted using the most technologically advanced equipment available, seemed to coincide with assertions prevalent in Christian tradition." - for this statement to be taken seriously it needs to be properly explained. Whose analyses, using what technology, when? And what exactly is meant by "seemed to coincide with" - a phrasing that may be innocuous, or carefully chosen to obscure issues? Without further information, such comments, from a non-academic source, can only be used very carefully (with due explanation of the sourcing), and certainly not presented in the lead of an article as if the statement is definitive. Podiaebba (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Schwortz was a photographer for STURP, yes, but he is largely a fringe character. His whole work revolves around his claim that the Shroud of Turin is authentic, which is an archetypal fringe theory. I don't think he has any credibility as a reviewer. And what is telling you that that particular webpage was written by Schwortz? Because he runs the whole site? There is a lot of material there which is not written by him. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Read the book, fools! Here you have some excerpts:

http://en.rosikonpress.com/dzial_51/towar_karta_150/Swiadkowie_Tajemnicy.html http://shroudstory.com/2013/11/30/new-book-recommendation-on-steras-facebook-page/ http://shroudstory.com/2013/10/31/new-book-about-christs-relics-from-ignatius-press/ http://shroudstory.com/2013/11/06/of-similarities-the-tunic-of-argenteuil-and-the-shroud-of-turin/

The whole thing looks like you don't like the statement (because it is contrary to your ideological views) are just looking for an excuse to do not include the book.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And your whole argument seems to be that since you like it, and since some random bloggers you found like it, we should consider it a reliable source. I stand with Podiaebba's statement, especially. The authors refer to technological analyses, but they are not themselves scientists, so they must be citing someone else's work. Whose work? Furthermore, the publisher of this work, Ignatius Press, is not an academic publisher - rather, Ignatius Press's mission is to "support the teachings of the Church". This is not the sort of book that should be used to write a neutral article. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you read that book? If not, your ignorant opinion is meaningless. Ignatius is a serious Catholic publisher, I don't know why books published by them should be excluded from Misplaced Pages -except someone's hostility to Catholicism. If we exclude Górny, then we should also exclude Carrol-Cruz -catholic writer as well, and Nickell, sceptical writer, who is much more biased (against any relics) than any Catholic source -so his book is not the sort of book that should be used to write a neutral article. The statement is an opinion cited, not a fact. Besides there is no such academic discipline as study of the relics yet -anyone can publish whatever wants. In the lead, we have two negative opinions, by Erasmus from 1500s, and by Thurston from 1913. So the lead is not neutral. To balance it, we have posititve Górny&Rosikoń opinion from 2013 -much more recent, after several researches on some relics (described in their book) have been published.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

IP is continuing to replace this material despite discussion here and having had 3 editors revert them, so clearly no consensus (but we do have some nice insults). I've reported to 3RR but as the IP changes I realise we will need semi-protection. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no constructive discussion here, only censorship. I am under impression that the statements from that book are simply inconvenient for someone's worldview. The trouble is, that Ignatius is catholic, not reliability of the book. Whoever has even read it? 83.29.181.170 (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Three comments:

1. First a question: Does Górny state his own conclusions about the relics, or does he merely report on the conclusions of others?
2. If the answer to that question is that Górny states his own conclusions, then we must ask whether he has the necessary professional expertise to draw whatever conclusions he makes. (I don't think he does).
3. If the answer to the question is that Górny reports on the conclusions of others, then his expertise is irrelevant (since he is not the one actually drawing the conclusions). Reliability would be based on the expertise of those others (note... and to determine that, we would need to know who those others are). Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

1. The quote is taken from the prologue of his book. You can read it here: The longer version:

"In accompanying their efforts, we conducted our travels rather more as investigative journalists than as pilgrims. We spent more time learning from scientists equipped with highly modernized technical apparatus than we did listening to the stories of religious preachers. And yet, it turned out that these two perspectives often found a common ground. The results of numerous time-consuming and comprehensive analyses, conducted using the most technologically advanced equipment available, seemed to coincide with assertions prevalent in Christian tradition. Science and religion, it would seem, need not contradict each other."

2 Although he uses own words, he expresses the views of the others who investigated those relics. Remember, the opinion is vague, and not in case of all relics such examinations have been performed yet, but in some (Shroud of Turin, Sudarium of Oviedo, Holy Tunic of Argenteuil, Manoppello Image) have.

3 See for example, some citations posted on Dan Porter's blog

The book can be considered RS, definetly.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

OK... if Górny is acting as a reliable journalist, and merely reporting the findings of experts, then he should tell us who those experts are. Does he? Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Example from citations posted on Dan Porter's blog :

pp. 190:

In 1998 scientists at the Optics Institute in Orsay decided to compare the bloodstain patterns on the Tunic of Argenteuil and on the Turin Shroud

pp. 191:

Because of these results, interest in the tunic steadily grew throughout the scientific community. In 2004, the Institute of Genetic Molecular Anthropology in Paris commenced tests on the relic.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

How many tests of how many relics, how many of those tests did not confirm they are relevant to Jesus, who says they all had the latest technological equipment, what assertions? This is all extremely vague and made by someone with no qualifications in science or it seems the history of Christianity. The items identified by them as probably or identifiably genuine include the true cross and 2 at least holy nails. "Relics investigated, and photographed, for this glorious volume include: the Cross, nails, crown of thorns, pillar of scourging, Christ's tunic, the Veil of Manoppello, the Sudarium of Oviedo, the famous Shroud of Turin burial cloth ". And "In addition, some of the objects that were tested exhibit characteristics that completely challenge contemporary scholarship and research on the subject of relics. From a scientific point of view, it’s nigh on impossible to account for the way in which they came into being. Likewise unbelievable is the fact that, despite the technology we have available to us today, these relics cannot be copied". Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You make an unbelievable high criteria for inclusion of the opinion cited. Which simply states, that some of the relics have been examined, and are quite likely to be genuine. You dislike that idea -it doesn't matter. The book is about relics, anyway. So do we inlcude this (or similar) quotation in favor of some relics, or only negative opinions of Erasmus, Thurston, Nickell etc have the right to be included in Misplaced Pages? Because the current lead is definetly not neutral anyway.

PS: "In addition, some of the objects that were tested exhibit characteristics that completely challenge contemporary scholarship and research on the subject of relics. From a scientific point of view, it’s nigh on impossible to account for the way in which they came into being. Likewise unbelievable is the fact that, despite the technology we have available to us today, these relics cannot be copied"

This is a quote about Acheiropoieta.

PS2: The items identified by them as probably or identifiably genuine include the true cross and 2 at least holy nails. This is based on historical investigations of Michael Hesemann and Carsten Peter Thiede from around 2000.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a rather serious Roman Catholic myself, I would have to say that per WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, among others, there is no good reason to include any material cited from this source for this content. In general, we prefer academic sources for topics of an academic nature, and neither Ignatius Press nor the individual author(s), would I think reasonably be counted as an independent academic source. Also, in response to the clearly rhetorical question about who has a "right" to be included in wikipedia, we certainly could include any material from any source meeting minimum RS standards somewhere in wikipedia, but the material cited from such sources must meet weight requirements as per WP:WEIGHT, and I see nothing in the statements above which indicate to me that this source, or even necessarily this opinion regardless of source, necessarily meets such requirements. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to restate a point I and several others made: these authors claim to be summarising scientific research. The standard for scientific research is publication in peer-reviewed academic journals - so where, if anywhere, was this research published? Y'know publication bias? Well "some scientists did some research and told me about it" bias is a lot worse. Podiaebba (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

European reliquaries claimed to hold so many pieces of the True Cross that, together, they would be enough to build a ship. We should not take these claims seriously, until we have very strong evidence. By the way, which head of John the Baptist is real? Or are they all real? (Scripture doesn't describe him as pentacephalous, but it's hard to argue with relics) bobrayner (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

In response to the last point above, in a recent book on the Holy prepuce, the book indicated that there are several different classes of relics recognized, so that a nail which at some point might have been touched to one of the purported nails of the Crucifixion, or for that matter to any recognized relic, became itself a relic of the lower grades, although those who tried to hawk them tended to omit the exact "class" of relic any given item might be. The same probably applies to the apparently Hydra-like abilities of John the Baptist, which I don't remember having heard of before, and noting that specific superpower apparently failed at least once. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Shut up idiots, contrary to me, you know NOTHING about the relics. Refusal to include the valid source and force resolutions are a serious abuses to the Misplaced Pages polices. Is Misplaced Pages censored? I Misplaced Pages a tool for anti-Christian/anti-Catholic propaganda? It seems so.

Dougweller -what you have done indicates YOU HAVE NO HONOR, AND YOU ARE NO ONE.

And for your info, since 1870 study of Rohault the Fleury, we know there is not enough for a QUARTER of the True Cross.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As a rather serious Protestant Christian, I concur with John Carter here; this just doesn't meet our standards. And abuse by an anonymous fanatic does not help your case, 83.29.--Orange Mike | Talk 21:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know -the Misplaced Pages is a tool for anti-catholic propaganda. This is the current standard for Misplaced Pages. Just see the article on the Shroud of Turin or Church of the Holy Sepulchre. I actually knew it before I even edited this article. How can I discuss with idiots who haven't even read the cited book.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This abuse suggests that you've given up to trying to participate in a rational debate... but on the off-chance that you haven't, and as it appears you have access to the book, I'll restate my point even more clearly: tell us exactly what research the authors claim to be summarising. The quote you want to put in is simply no substitute for that information - if the scientific research is so wonderfully convincing, then Misplaced Pages readers should be told the details of it, not given a vague one-sentence summary. And once we know what the research is, we may not need to rely on this book at all (or at least not as much, if the research is published elsewhere). Podiaebba (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Because there is no rational debate on part of you and the buddies. Only harassment and arguments of force. To quickly summarize the book, the reasearch of the Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo are quite widely known. The researches of the Acheiropoieta images (including Manoppello Image) can be found there . The research of the Tunic of Argenteuil is described in the book 'Le linceul de Turin et la tunique d'Argenteuil Presses de la Renaissance' by Andre Marion from the Optics Institute in Orsay and Gerard Lucotte from the Institute of Genetic Molecular Anthropology in France. And so on. The Titulus Crucis was paleographically dated to the 1st century by Israeli specialists on behalf of Hesemann, while the nails where compared by himself, to the one that belonged to Jehohanan. But for the biased ignorants this will never be enough -so the "unproper" facts cited by Górny must be removed.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Noting that the IP editor has been blocked for 24 hours, I think it not unlikely that the discussion might start up again after that time has elapsed. Should the IP editor return, I strongly hope he acquaints himself with WP:RS, as such reliable sources are the topic of this noticeboard, and that he also realize that other considerations, specifically including matters like WP:WEIGHT, are also relevant to the content of our articles. Personally, there is no clear reason to believe that the sources are not reliable for use somewhere in wikipedia, possibly in an article on the book at the very least, but that is a completely different matter than the question of its reliability for the article in question. Also, yes, I haven't seen any particular reviews of the Gorny book in question yet produced, and if it is the case that the reviews from academic sources are less than flattering in some way, that would definitely impact the amount of attention that source gets in any article. Once again, should the IP return, I urge him/her in the strongest possible terms to familiarize himself or herself with the guideline pages linked to above, and refrain from further, really pointless, attacks on others such as he or she has engaged in to date. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, there is no academic review of the book. From Google searching, it looks like only 27 unique websites even mention it, almost all of them blogs and sales outlets. So I would say this work is basically ignored by every field, not just academic fields. To be fair, the book is only a month old, so maybe it's just not enough time for something published outside of academic circles to have received any attention. But in conclusion, I see no reason to use this as a reliable source. A journalist and a photographer publishing outside of their field, a book that has received precisely zero attention, through a publisher with stated ulterior motives, should not be cited on Misplaced Pages. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

the "unproper" facts cited - no facts are cited in the disputed quote: that is precisely the problem. You've begun to provide some of those facts about research done, and making sure that those facts are appropriately covered in Misplaced Pages (with the best possible sourcing for those facts) is worth a lot more of everyone's time than arguing about this quote. For myself, in the face of continued wanton abuse from you, I decline to aid you any further in this endeavour, on a topic I don't give a monkey's about. Podiaebba (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section in the Steven Hassan article

Steven Hassan is a cult specialist, who has been criticised by another specialist, Rick_Ross_(consultant).

the section therefore read:

Hassan became involved in a dispute with fellow cult critic Rick Ross when Ross posted a disclaimer on his Web site after receiving what he stated were “serious complaints” regarding Hassan’s fees for his services. Hassan responded that the charges were “inappropriate and completely inaccurate,” stating that Ross had misstated Hassan's current fees. Ross's response was that Hassan's fees "were $500.00 per hour and/or $5,000 per day" but that after "Hassan publicly posted his fee schedule, which was reduced to $250.00 per hour and/or $2,500.00 per day...the RI disclaimer was taken down." Hassan stated that "my current fees are not $500 as Ross claims. I charge half that for an hour of counseling and have done so for quite some time."

These are primary sources, however I believe they are in line with WP:BLP and WP:RS in context: there is nothing here beyond what Rick Ross has written in his website_ it is verifiable, neutral, and contains no original research.

Furthermore, included is Hassan's response to Ross's criticisms

The sources clearly support the content, are in line with WP:BIO, and in context are reliable sources, since they *directly support the information* in the article.

Zambelo (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that this entire passage is only sourced to primary sources. There's no independent secondary source to establish that any of this is worth documenting in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

OK... we have two separate issues here... The first is a matter of WP:Due weight: Ross has an opinion about Hassan... and we need to determine how much WEIGHT to give that opinion. To answer that, we need to have at least one secondary source comment on the fact that Ross has an opinion about Hassan. If no secondary sources note this, then we should not give Ross's opinion much weight at all (if any). If on the other hand, lots of secondary sources note that Ross has an opinion, then we can give his opinion a lot of weight. Once the Due Weight issue is settled, then we can move onto the second (WP:RS) issue... Is Ross's website a reliable source for Ross's opinion. The answer to that is: Yes... it is an appropriate use of a primary source. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Zambelo has tried to insert primary source criticisms from self published sites onto the Steven Hassan page several times now , , . I keep directing them to WP:RS and WP:BLP , , , , , , including on two occasions the exact text which states that a self published source is NEVER allowed on a BLP unless it is written by the subject of the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Although the sources are primary, the importance the two men hold in the field lends weight: a noted cult specialist has criticised another. There is perhaps too much weight placed here, admittedly, but it certainly deserves inclusion, IMO. Added to this is the fact that Steven Hassan has responded to Ross's criticism, lending verifiability and weight.

Coffeepusher, perhaps it would be more productive to give your arguments why the content doesn't belong in the article? I wasn't aware of BLP when I first added the content, but I subsequently defended the inclusion of the material in the talk page. Zambelo (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

that's easy,WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper) which states "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." The biography of living persons policy goes further stating "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." I don't see a lot of flexibility with the word's never and never when it comes to self published sources being used in biographies of living persons. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This would be true if I was trying to establish the criticism as fact "Steven Hassan charges $1000 a session" (ref: Rick Ross). This isn't what is happening here. The context is that I am including Rick Ross's opinion. This isn't material about a living person; this is another person of import's opinion about this person, and it is being presented as such. Zambelo (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

please read WP:BLP to clarify what context and types of articles WP:BLP policy applies to. Do you need me to extract the exact passages again, or can you do it yourself?Coffeepusher (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've read it, thanks. Zambelo (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the "Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database" a WP:MEDRS source?

I was reading Boil and noticed that the section that claimed that Tea Tree Oil could be used as a treatment was sourced to . There's not much content here - just about everything is behind a paywall. It occurred to me that this source might not even be a legit source of pharmaceutical data. Could anybody with experience of this kind of thing weigh in? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

German Acupuncture Trials, 2nd try

• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (27 September 2007). "Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses "Ärztliche Behandlung" des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen, chronischen LWS-Schmerzen, chronischen Schmerzen bei Osteoarthritis" (PDF) (in German). Retrieved 5 November 2013... This a review of the GERAC and several smaller acupuncture trials. There is a summary in English, on page 2.
• German Acupuncture Trials
• The source is supporting a description of the trials' set-up and results, e.g.:

  In this trial, a total of 960 patients was randomized; immediately after randomization, however, 125 patients (almost all of them from the standard group) withdrew from the study. Primary outcome was defined as reduction in migraine days in week 21 to 25 after randomization. Treatment for the standard group consisted of medication according to the 2005 therapy guidelines issued by the German Neurological Association, usually comprising a beta-blocker. Regarding efficacy, no statistically significant difference between the groups was observed.

A lot of the discussion on the article's talk page centers around the question whether this source is permissible as a reliable, secondary source. IMO it is, but there are other views as well. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Source deleted?

I have a specific instance here, but generally speaking what happens when (so far as I can tell) the only source of very specific claim - cited in an article - vanishes from the web? Smidoid (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Link rot. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Scientists with unconventional beliefs unreliable source?

How do we determine if we can use a scientist with unconventional beliefs, as a reliable source, or is this just an Association fallacy? eg.

• Isaac Newton studied the occult
• Einstein believed in the Pole shift hypothesis
• Nobel Laurate Brian Josephson apparently believes in homeopathy (not able to confirm).
• Nobel Laurate Hannes Alfven promoted Plasma Cosmology

Are they a reliable source on only their area of expertise, on their unconventional beliefs, on the application of their field of expertise to their unconventional beliefs? Only on their support of the status quo? --Iantresman (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This may be more a WP:UNDUE question than a reliable sources one.

On that front, one consideration might be whether the belief is thoroughly discredited, or just controversial. (And yeah, I'm well aware we could spend all day discussing the dividing line between those groups of beliefs!)

In the former case, the scientist's support for it might well be of some biographical interest or of interest to the history of the discredited belief, but we should be careful to avoid implying that their support lends the belief any weight.

In the latter case, the support of a prominent scientist in a related field surely seems worth mentioning. Related field is important, I'd think. Barnabypage (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

How about this thought? We have never had a source that was 100% right in everything they thought or did over the course of their life. We report what is reported and try to balance it. At best, we draw the line of reliability case-by-case, claim-by-claim, and we shouldn't generally assume that because a source was right about something once, they are infallible.Of course, I could be wrong about this. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Three of the unconventional beliefs are considered pseudoscience. But has does that affect their reliability in their main field of expertise?

The answer to this is that Misplaced Pages looks at individual statements in sources and considers whether they are reliable to support individual statements in WP articles. It doesn't consider whether Albert Einstein per se is a reliable source. Sometimes he will be, sometimes he won't be. Formerip (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Trying to keep this in an actionable format, how can we establish a yardstick with which to say how far out of his or her discipline a scientist can comment before becoming unreliable? This is the foundation of most content disputes in the paranormal subjects. Can we say that a person is qualified to comment about subjects which are specifically part of his formal education--say a cultural psychologist commenting on the cultural history of the middle class--but is not qualified to speak on a question outside of his training, such as one of biology? Or, must we assume the psychologists is qualified to comment on biology because he has a doctorate? Tom Butler (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There are several issues that should be considered: where is the material published, when was it published and has the science changed since it was published. For example, Newton's theories of absolute time and space are no longer valid, and it would be silly to use 300 year old science texts.

Some scholars publish both inside and outside mainstream academic writing. For example, Newt Gingrich has published work which meets rs on global warming, but I would not use one of his speeches to CPAC.

What is important is not how far outside one's area of expertise one writes, but the nature of the publication. If a geologist publishes a paper on English literature in a peer-reviewed journal, then we need to take into account that the editorial board has determined he or she is qualified and peers have reviewed the article prior to publication. Also, scholars sometimes make statements about subjects that have little relevance to their papers. A physics textbook for example may mention that Newton appears on Margaret Thatcher's coat of arms, then mention something about her scientific training and policies on science. But that would be a poor source for her biography.

TFD (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This makes absolute sense with peer-reviewed publications, of course. But what about statements by acknowledged experts in one subject, in more mainstream publications, that drift into another subject? An obvious example would be the views of Richard Dawkins on religion.

He is not a theologian or a philosopher and as far as I know doesn't publish in peer-reviewed pubs within those disciplines, yet he is an acknowledged expert on a subject (evolution) that has a clear relationship to some religious questions - and he is not afraid to make his views on those questions heard in mainstream media. Moreover, although technically coming from outside the subject, his views on the subject are taken seriously by many.

I do appreciate we are moving a bit away from "unconventional beliefs" into "non-professional opinions" here and that this does not directly address the original question. My point is that there are areas greyer than the physicist writing about Margaret Thatcher's coat of arms! Barnabypage (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins' writings are good source for evaluating the factual claims of ID and creation scientists and determining whether their arguments are scientifically valid. Those are issues within his field. However, I would not use these writings as sources for other subjects he writes about. Specifically, although he writes about religious history and cargo cults, his information is taken from other reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's impossible to give definitive answers to such general questions. Talking around the subject may be illuminating, but eventually, you need to go for really concrete "Is X good enough to source statement Y in context Z?" questions. (A few of those taken together might help give a general trend.) Podiaebba (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Rephrased question

Let me rephrase the question slightly. Suppose that all these scientists state that in their opinion, that they consider telepathy to be nonsense. Is their reliability any different, if they state that they consider telepathy to be something worth investigating? Does their unconventional beliefs influence this either way? --Iantresman (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't see Podiaebba's comment above (it was hidden by a much longer, irrelevant edit which I have just moved into the next section). You need to cite something that one of them has said about telepathy and tell us in which article you want to use it. Andrew Dalby 17:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In The Rupert Sheldrake article, reference 14 is: Gardner, M. (1988). The New Age: notes of a fringe-watcher. Prometheus books. "Almost all scientists who have looked into Sheldrake's theory consider it balderdash."

Gardner was a well-known skeptic and had a vested interest in being right as one (COI). he was also trained as a mathematician and holds no apparent qualifications as a biologist. Yet, his 1988 comment about what other scientists thought of Sheldrake's work is used as one of the many references to discredit the still-living man.

The question is, should the incredulity of a mathematician be allowed as a comment about a biologist's theory concerning morphogenesis? Tom Butler (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Easy. And most of those words above are wasted, in my personal opinion.

If Gardner doesn't name or cite some of the scientists he's talking about, his quote is no use to us; cite, instead, scientists who actually have looked into it and given their own opinions. If Gardner does name some of them, his trenchant summary may be useful; retain the quote and add some names. Andrew Dalby 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(1) How do we tell whether a mathematician, physicist, psychologist or biologist has indeed looked into it, and not just read, for example, a newspaper article? (2) Does it make a difference whether it is a mathematician, physicist, psychologist or biologist, I can see them all bringing something to the party. --Iantresman (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, if you find a source problematic, cite it and ask for an opinion. Andrew Dalby 17:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Saying that telepathy should be investigated is a matter of opinion, not fact, hence is irrelevant to reliability. If a scientist says this, it has no bearing on the reliability his or her writings. TFD (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll try answering the original question in a slightly different way. The beliefs of authors are not things we should judge on Misplaced Pages. We know we can cite an author about subject X when that author is considered reliable outside Misplaced Pages for subject X. But concerning subject Y, we have nothing to say unless we are talking about subject Y, and then we also look at what people outside Misplaced Pages think of the author and subject Y. We try to reflect what is in publications. It is possible for a person to be considered a lunatic by experts in one field and a genius in another, at the same time. It is not for us to judge that, just to work out what the published experts say in each field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Masonic Lodge question

Note: The following is clearly a separate query, hence I have moved it into this new section. That's all I know :=) Andrew Dalby 17:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why does this article state that the masonic lodge is and ENGLISH entity when the "Mother Lodge " and NO 0 Kilwinning is Scotland please see

The Mother Lodge of Scotland is situated in the Ayrshire town of Kilwinning. This old and ancient Lodge of Freemasons dates back to the building of Kilwinning Abbey around 1140 and has a unique history second to none in the Masonic world.

Before the forming of Grand Lodge in 1736 Mother Kilwinning was a Grand Lodge in her own right issuing charters and warrants to Lodges wishing to enjoy the privileges of Freemasonry

www.grandlodgescotland.com/.../masonic.../lodge.../172-lodge-mother-k... I though everyone knew that the Masonic order was started as a union to protect the stone masons who were building Kilwinning Abbey against the influx of itinerant workers from Ireland.

Are these sources reliable to call Al-Jazari a Kurd?

Copying directly from my talk page:

new sources for al jazari article

here are three new sources for the kurdish ethnicity of al jazari please add them to article & change it

http://www.worldclock.com/world_clock_blog+the-history-of-clock_1.html http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Al-Jazari http://www.kasimdemir.com/selected-scientist/al-jazari-el-cezeri/

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not place this on the talk page of the Al-Jazari article?

AND,

http://www.worldclock.com/world_clock_blog+the-history-of-clock_1.html, appears to be a blog(which are not a reliable source, the section being written by Burcu Afrin(who ever that is).

http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Al-Jazari, appears to be two links to Misplaced Pages, as such is not a reliable source.

http://www.kasimdemir.com/selected-scientist/al-jazari-el-cezeri/, appears to be a mirror of Misplaced Pages,as such is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

the first link is a historical & scientific website & it is much more reliable than a unknown PDF ! the second one is an encyclopedia & IT is a reliable source the third one is a website wich concenrns with math history they all are reliable & DO not remove the resourced article unless if you have a personal problem with it ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The first source to be used to show a Kurdish ethnicity, and still in the article as the editor insists it is fine despite being told it isn't, is <ref> An early example of an automated, programmable musical instrument ensemble was described by al-Jazari (1136-1206) a scholar, inventor, artist, mathematician that lived during the Islamic Golden Age</ref> I haven't checked to see if the conference papers have any peer review, but that seems irrelevant as the authors are all specialists in robotics in music, not in anything relevant to this article. The editor is a new editor whose edits have until today been only to this new article. Today he edited an article to change population numbers and remove a sentence.. That set of edits alone shows we have a problem, he reduced the number of Assyrians in Iran before the revolution 1979 from 200,000 to 20,000 despite the fact the article says that after many left Iran there were between 32,000 and 50,000 left. An IP has just reverted me that I assume is Cobanas. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Dispute at two related articles

The articles are Wool 100% and I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse. I had stepped in as a bystander on a dispute where editor "TheOldJacobite" has been reverted by others. It was a dispute on surrealism and I noticed no sources were given so I quickly added a few whereby he reverted me and another editor since then. He doesn't like the sources. The info given is at the talk pages at Talk:Wool 100% and Talk:I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse. In the context of surreal, could we have another editor or two take a look at the sources? I really don't want to keep reverting or taking it to a fuller Dispute Resolution Noticeboard if others here agree with him. The diffs I added are here and here. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

us-japandialogueonpows.org

Greetings! It has been a long time since I have posted here, but a new source has brought me here that I would like to bring up for evaluation for possible use on the GA article Jose Calugas. AusTerrapin notified me of a secondary source that identified a medal that was previously unidentified in published sources, the source is as follows:

• http://www.us-japandialogueonpows.org/Calugas.htm

The source appears to have been written by the article subject's son, a retired U.S. Army sergeant first class, and the President of the Philippine Scouts Heritage Society. The question is, does the website (more specifically the linked page), even though appearing to have been written by the subject's son, a reliable source?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at that page and at the article's Talk page. So what's the central issue here - identifying exactly which medal he received?

It surprises me if there's not an authoritative military-maintained list of recipients of medals, but that's by the by. Barnabypage (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Governing Magazine source about ALEC

• Source: Greenblatt, Alan (October 2003). "What Makes Alec Smart?". Governing. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
• Article: American Legislative Exchange Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (ALEC)
• Content Lots, as the article is quite dense and relevant. List of disputed content in this diff. The dispute has been about the reliability of all of the source's content rather than about particular passages.
• Talk page discussion: here, permanent link here.

Talk page discussion has centered around two alleged inaccuracies in the source render the source unreliable as a whole. The two alleged inaccuracies:

1. The source says ALEC was "ounded in the early 1970s as a conservative counterweight to the mainstream National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)." NCSL was founded in 1975 as a consolidation of three other entities. ALEC was proposed/founded in 1973 and registered as a non-profit in 1975. In light of this history, there is consensus on the article talk page that the source's "conservative counterweight" sentence is not reliable.
2. ALEC coordinates "task force" meetings among state legislators and private-sector entities (e.g. corporations and think tanks) in which model legislation is drafted and proposed. The source says "The private-sector folks help draft and have a veto over any proposed legislation that the task forces create." One editor contends that language about "private sector votes" having a "veto" is inaccurate and has pointed to this document, which appears to be a leaked internal flowchart about ALEC's messaging/PR. I personally don't see how the flowchart either (a) is a reliable source or (b) refutes Greenblatt's "veto" language.

As far as I can tell, Governing Magazine is an extremely reputable and neutral outlet. According its website it has won numerous journalism awards, has polled among "government and local readers" as the "most read," most "objective," and most "current" news outlet, and has been cited by a variety of the most well-known and well-respected outlets on both sides of the political aisle. Independent sources (e.g. here, page 3) bear this out. In addition, Greenblatt, the author, also reports for NPR and has even written an article about defending his press credentials.

In light of the above I believe this dispute falls under WP:SNOW. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As a source, Governing looks about as reliable as you can get, to me, and certainly more reliable than the Alecexposed Wiki. If there are other highly reliable sources directly contradicting what the Governing article says, that would obviously raise legitimate questions. Barnabypage (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Antonio Veciana

At this article, a claim attributed to a BLP is being sourced to an OpEdNews piece allegedly by someone who is a researcher at the Assassination Archives and Research Center regarding the JFK assassination. The claim in the article is sourced to an op-ed allegedly by a director of that Center, and includes a partial scan of a letter. There's a dispute over this in part because OpEdNews is an entirely self-published operation meaning we cannot verify authorship or the legitimacy of the scanned piece, nor has the claim appeared anywhere else we would consider reliable. The closest I can find is this book review, but it's highly conspiratorial in nature and, again, deals with a BLP issue. I would love some extra input, especially as we do not use OpEdNews anywhere else on the site. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I love that you'd rather come to RSN than follow my request to pick up the phone to the AARC and ask them to republish an article by their co-founder, Jim Lesar. That would actually be useful, whereas this - joy - can produce nothing but hot air and the removal of information that cannot seriously be doubted. You really think someone's impersonating Lesar at OpEdNews (in 3 articles)? You really think Lesar (an attorney) is forging letters? Or perhaps the widow of Gaeton Fonzi is? And to reiterate: if you'd picked up the phone when I first asked you to, we'd probably have the AARC republishing the article by now (or at least agreeing to do so soon). Podiaebba (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Górny & Rosikoń 2013, p. 7 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGórny_&_Rosikoń2013 (help)
2. Rick Ross Responds to his Critics/Steven Hassan.
3. ^ Steven Hassan. Response to Rick Ross’s Personal Attack on me

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution