Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Emeraude (talk | contribs) at 13:16, 5 October 2012 (→Using lawsuit claims in magicJack article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

The electoral commission

A user has tried to insert into the BNP article a more up to date membership total, the source used is the ellectorial commisions BNP submited membership accounts. It has been susgested that this is not RS, so is it RS or not? There is no eividacen this has been challenged ir that any one has said the number are fraudualnt.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The commission I think just takes the annual accounts it doesn't validate numbers. So the commission is a reliable source, but the BNP accounts may not be ----Snowded 15:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"We verify that those we regulate comply with the rules and we take undertake fair, thorough and proportionate investigations so that voters can be confident that those who fail to comply are held to account." from thier website.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

could be, but remember the BNP have been playing all sorts of games with their accounts and the recent donation/legacy which saved their bacon is problematic. Its far from clear that membership figures fall within that - I couldn't see anything specific when I checked. ----Snowded 15:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Electoral Commission posts parties' returns on its website. It does not edit them. It does not guarantee their accuracy. It does not check them, unless there is a suspicion of fraud, and even then, it will be only be able to carry out a minimal forensic audit of finances. Given the thousands of organisations that are registered, it is not feasible for the EC to check every detail of a party's return; it relies on the responsible party official to file honestly. The rules the EC verifies are for the regualtions for registration and financial accountability only (e.g. to prevent parties appearing as others, to check electoral spending). Emeraude (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Electoral Commission is clearly referring to party finances, and makes no claim to verifying the membership numbers which the chairman has chosen to present. Curiously the auditors qualified the accounts, which means that even self-reported financial information is unreliable. Unsubstantiated, self-serving first party statements are never reliable. Instead we should use the membership numbers published in The Independent. TFD (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What source does the independant use, also the independant source is 2 years out of date.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

With respect, that is not relevant here. This discussion is concerned with whether or not the Electoral Commission is a RS, as you should know seeing as you started this thread. Emeraude (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not know where The Independent got their data, but it does not matter because they are a reliable source. TFD (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Source reliability regarding history and biblical analysis

On Talk:Jesus Seeking opinions on sources I posed a question to obtain opinions, and I though I should also ask here given that people here are really familiar with sourcing issues:

• Bart Ehrman: 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6 HarperOne Press

• Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity Press Press, ISBN 028106329X page 61 (statement is about himself vs others)

• Michael Grant Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 Rigel Publications

• Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 William B. Eerdmans Publishers

• James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) ISBN 052104460X Cambridge University Press

• Richard A. Burridge Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 William B. Eerdmans Publishers

• Graham Stanton in The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press

The specific statements made by each source are on the talk page there, as well as the clarification that there are no opposing sources at all that dispute what these sources say. Comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The specific question can be summed up as follows: Most of those authors are biblical scholars, but they write about the scholarly consensus among all scholars of antiquity (including, say, classical historians). Does their reliability extend to the scholarly consensus among the wider community, or do they cease to be reliable for the scholarly consensus among more than just biblical scholars? Huon (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your post there, but I think the summation of the issue at hand there is that "conformity to sources" need to be maintained and what these scholars say can not be modified. So if they say "scholars" that can not be modified, or if they say "scholars of antiquity" that can not be modified. By the way, it must be clarified that biblical scholarship is distinct from theology and as the Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies states it includes archaeology, Egyptology, textual criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology. So these authors are fully immersed in the field and know who writes what. Moreover, there are no opposing sources, i.e. we have seen not even one source that disputes the statements made by these sources on the issue. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I almost agree. There are different degrees of authority; for example, Grant is a general ancient historian writing a large number of no-scholarly-popular books on all subjects in the general area. He does it well, and I've read quite a number of them, but he's not a specialist in this field & does not claim he is; the book is from a non-academic press. And although Ehrman is a famous specialist, this particular book is a rather popular one from a non-academic press also. Price teaches at an extremely non-traditional seminary about which we need an article --but the book in question is published by a mainline Evangelical press--I would expect some idiosyncrasies. Van Voorst is a good academic with a known very conservative POV--the book is from a very good specialist mainstream press. and so on.

But there's a bigger problem: from any scholar who has written many books over a period of time , especially for different audiences, it is quite simple to cherry-pick quotations. Views develop, and quotations have to be seen in context of the person;s's entire work, of the development of their work, of their specific intent for the work--were they for example writing a textbook to provide a synthesis, or an argumentative monograph. The exact context is necessary, to see if they were proposing a string of the usual alternative hypotheses, or their own actual opinion which they may very well know does not have consensus. To descend to the utterly trivial, I say things differently when I am telling a newcomer the consensus or arguing an AfD or proposing a new guideline or opposing a troll, and what I think now about many issues is not what I thought 4 years ago. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The article currently says: "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed."

Bart Ehrman says: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" (p. 285 of his book given above)

Van Voorst says on the theory of non-existence: "Biblical scholars and classical historians regard it as effectively refuted." (p. 16 of his book)

Grant says: "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." (p. 200 of his book)

I haven't checked the other sources; most of them aren't available online. Anyway, these aren't just the respective authors' opinions on the historicity of Jesus; in every case they speak explicitly about the consensus, just as they should to allow us per WP:RS/AC to write about the consensus. Of course the academic consensus can change, but there's no indication that it did. If Ehrman, Van Voorst and the others were cherry-picking to arrive at their conclusions about the consensus, I'd expect someone would have called them out on it, but there's no evidence of that, either. Huon (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the quotes are stating per WP:RS/AC that "scholars of antiquity support viewpoint X", as a method of "counting people on either side of the issue" not as an opinion on the subject. And again, we have seen no single source that disputes what these people write, as a look on the page Christ myth theory also indicates. As a side note, the Christ myth theory page only includes the names of "less than a handful of living scholars" (perhaps 2 or 3 depending on who is considered a scholar) who would be outside the "virtually all" characterization. And none of them dispute what Van Voorst or Ehrman wrote. If someone writes "virtually all scientists hold that there is no global warming" there would be screams among the opposition, unless the opposition had already conceded. In fact no scholar disputes that count, as far as all literature searches indicate. Someone would have "called them out on that", as you said. History2007 (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The general issue has been discussed here many times. It is certainly true that scholars from a very wide range of backgrounds have said that in some sense, there was indeed a person at the root of the traditional accounts, though there seems complete disagreement about the extent to which the accounts give an accurate description. The sources listed , as I mentioned, cover a wide range of sources, and therefore the accumulation of them is reasonable evidence to that effect. The attempts to say that this is not the scholarly consensus are grasping at straws. That is not to say the consensus is right; I personally have no way of knowing, nor do they in any absolute sense other than --for some of them -- that of faith. . Some might think the consensus wrong, but it is the consensus nevertheless. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

While I have given up on the article itself, since the discussion on the talk page generates more heat than light, I would like to hear your opinion on my specific qualm: the wording as it stands implies (or could be taken to imply by a reasonable reader) that a large number of scholars from all fields of "scholarship of antiquity" have studied the matter and agree with the issue. In reality the discussion of the issue has almost exclusively come from the specific field of historical-critical biblical scholarship. Very few scholars outside that discipline have entered the discussion. Those who have by and large agree with historicity of course, that's not what I'm arguing.

The question of potential bias and lack of methodological rigour automatically presents itself, as acknowledged by scholars inside and outside the field. The wording we choose should neither try to answer this question, nor hide it. I am worried by a general tendency on pages touching on Historical Jesus research to cite biblical scholars claiming the support of unspecified "historians" as fact rather than attributed opinion. It is fine to let biblical scholars speak about a consensus in their own field, not to propagandise its academic respectability, when sources both inside and outside the field cast doubt on it.

In this vein, I proposed changing the wording "scholars of antiquity" to "biblical scholars". I believe this is more accurate, although perhaps we should add the qualification "historical-critical" so as not to invite the lay reader to conclude that this might be religious propaganda. To that we could add a short description of the kinds of scholars who have entered the discussion. Conformance to sources is not an issue, since the quoted sources all use their own widely differing wordings, which support the wording I am proposing.

I'd like to have a more general discussion about sources in field X being allowed in support of an alleged consensus among neighbouring fields. I suspect this is not the appropriate place for such a discussion, but maybe someone can point me in the right direction? Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

DGG is both logical and correct. That is the scholarly consensus, regardless of what people at large (or any of us) may think of it. And I agree with his characterization of not accepting it as the scholarly consensus as "grasping at straws". Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Raja Shivachhatrapati by Babasaheb Purandare in the article Shivaji (Indian history bio)

The following book is the source for no less than 29 footnotes in the article Shivaji (the founder of the Maratha Empire in 17th century India). I'm not easily able to specify exactly what is being cited, because it's huge portions of the article, and the claimed source doesn't seem readily available online.

Babasaheb Purandare (August 2003). Raja Shivachhatrapati (Marathi: राजा शिवछत्रपती) (15 ed.). Pune: Purandare Prakashan.

This one is a little sticky since we don't have a clear online version of this book, and from what I understand of the footnote they're citing the edition in the Marathi language. That said, I'd like to address Purandare as a non-RS based on critical mention of him in books by reliable academics. It is my contention that Purandare is a "pop historian" and historical novelist, who should not be considered an authoritative source on Indian history. This is an important issue to Shivaji both since the book is cited so heavily there, and due to serious concerns about the author's POV. The following are critical comments about Purandare's work, particularly that covering Shivaji, and indications of the Reliability of persons making said comments:

• He, further, finds the noted historian Babasaheb Purandare's treatment of history as steeped in encomium and idol-worship and in the tradition of such chroniclers of Maratha history as Sabhasad. Chitragupta, and Chitnees.
  • El. Es Deśapāṇḍe (2005). Narhar Kurundkar. Sahitya Akademi. pp. 44–. ISBN 978-81-260-2039-3.
  • (note Sahitya Akademi is India's "National Academy of Letters", so publication by them says good things for RS of the criticiser Desapande)
• Still one will say that Babasaheb Purandare should not be on the committee. The reasons for that lie not in the fact that Purandare is a Brahmin, but because Purandare's presentation of Shivaji is through and through communal.
  • Ram Puniyani (2010). Communal Threat to Secular Democracy. Gyan Publishing House. pp. 302–. ISBN 978-81-7835-861-1.
  • Gyan is not a great publisher, but assuming they're quoting Puniyani accurately, he appears to be a reputable human rights advocate
• Maratha Seva Sangh leader Shrimant Kokate... and blames the popular Brahmin writer Babsaheb Purandare for fostering these misconceptions through his books, plays, novels, and films...
  • Matthew N. Schmalz; Peter Gottschalk (6 May 2011). Engaging South Asian Religions: Boundaries, Appropriations, and Resistances. SUNY Press. pp. 164–. ISBN 978-1-4384-3323-3.
• In consideration of B. M. Purandare's work, writer says that fictional enrichment is the speciality of Babasaheb Purandare . And pointed out the aim of Babasaheb Purandare is, "veneration of the hero Shivaji through the retelling of his epic...
  • Anant V. Darwatkar (2005). Shivaji Maharaja: Maratha Chhatrapati In Bharat-varsha : Shivaji : Hindu king in Islamic India" by J.W. Laine/2003 : false and fluid one. Shree Shambhu Prerana Pakashan.
  • This one's a bit sticky, because the publication is one criticising author James Laine (widely hated by some Marathas for "busting their bubble" for "defaming" Shivaji in his historical presentations), but the gist is that Laine called Purandare a hack. James Laine, for what it's worth, is a professor of Religion at MacAlester college, so in a scuffle betwen Laine way over in the UK with a Phd and a popular novelist who happens to live in the home region of the subject of his works, I'd assume Laine is both the more professional and the more neutral party.

This is just an introductory stab, but are folks so far agreeing that Purandare is a novelist, not a historian, and should not be the go-to source (29 footnotes!) for a high-profile article, particularly when this topic is covered exhaustively by any number of PhD authors? MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, but why does the Times of India refer to him as "noted history scholar Babasaheb Purandare"? --Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Because ToI isn't any kind of authority on academic credentials. Equally importantly, along the lines of "show, don't tell", they don't bother to give any kind of information whatsoever as to what makes him a "noted history scholar". Phd? Books published by universities? Respected international lecturer? Nope, he's just a guy who really, really, really likes Shivaji and has written a lot of popular books. If you have any evidence that anyone outside of India takes him seriously as an author academic historian, please do provide it. Best as I can tell, the main people who hold him in such veneration are other people who really, really, really like Shivaji. I'm sure Purandare writes some great vivid accounts and makes history come alive and all that, but a cracking good read does not an RS make. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. A news source mention in many articles is not a qualification in itself. And I do not find a biography showing any actual credentials. As far as I can see there is no reference to him in any formal manner like this: --Amadscientist (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have left neutrally-phrased notifications of this RSN post at Talk:Babasaheb Purandare, Talk:Shivaji, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_India, and on the talk pages of all registered users (barring those blocked/banned) from the last two months of edits on Shivaji and as far back as April 2012 on Talk:Shivaji. I'd really like to get a strong consensus on this, so as to be able to remove those 29 flawed footnotes without getting into an edit war. I've already removed 20 or so sources that were clearly non-RS, including 16 individual citations to a costume-drama TV serial (!), and Purandare is the most significant remaining shaky source. Shivaji is #72 on the list of Most popular India-related pages on WP, with over 100,000 hits per month, so this is an article worth cleaning up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• The page has a large number of references, but I'm a little concerned that this is the only one in Marathi, and the topic is clearly of interest to Marathi speakers. I suggest that the article could be improved by (a) moving the source from the references into the 'Depiction in popular culture' section; (b) considering whether there are other Marathi sources that could be used and (c) adding Marathi-language further reading (or viewing) to the 'Depiction in popular culture'. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely no objections to Purandare's book being listed in "Depictions". So far as using Marathi sources, while on technical merits I'd have no objections against using Marathi sources by qualified academic historians, we have both the issue that only a limited number of editors at en.wiki would be able to read/verify Marathi sources, and also that I would imagine that the most serious historical works on Shivaji are either available in English translation, or are written in English or Hindi so as to reach a wider academic audience. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but I'd venture to guess that there are a lot of popular works on Shivaji in Marathi, and academic works on him, by Marathi, other Indian, and non-Indian academics, in English. All things being equal, it would be best to have Marathi sources and further reading on mr.wiki and English ones on en.wiki where practical. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly encourage editors to read WP:HISTRS and consider this author (and his publisher) in the context of that advice. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, but it is only the advice of one or more editors in the form of an essay and not considered guidline.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I encourage reading of Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (history) in conjunction with WP:CRYSTAL, because taken together they remove the need consult with non peer-review sources completely. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason why many of us wrote HISTRS was that we kept answering the same kind of questions in the same kinds of way on RS/N :) Fifelfoo (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable. MV has provided a decent analysis, which my own ferreting around supports. The man is a "historian" only in the loosest sense and he is a communal writer. Please bear in mind that "communal" in the Indian sense does not mean "collegial" etc - it means sectarian, caste-ist. As with James Tod and Rajasthan, he is much admired for his dubious scholarship in the state most associated with his subject matter (Maharashtra) but has little support throughout the other 99% of the world. Stick him in "Popular culture" as a regional folk-lorist and sectarian who holds non-mainstream, sometimes actually fringe, views.

BTW, one of the problems with Marathi history articles is the propensity for socking, especially by Mrpontiac1 and Dewan357. Bearing in mind the constraints of WP:NOENG, any Marathi-language sources will require careful review by experienced editors and the likelihood of edit warring is considerable. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Matthew, I have friends who have B.M. Purandare's books. Let me have a look at them and get back to the group. As I wrote sometime before, BM should be regarded as popular historian because that is how he described himself in a meeting in UK 24 years ago.

Lokmanya Tilak, the early Indian Nationalist leader was the first to popularize Shivaji, the legend. He could have chosen Bajirao I, the actual builder of the Maratha empire who also happened to belong to the same brahmin sub-caste as Tilak. However, Shivaji had a broader appeal across the Marathi castes and beyond. BM has continued this tradition of building up Shivaji, the National hero of Marathi People and of Hindu people. Anyhow, before get carried away let me stop and get back to the group shortly. By Jonathansammy (couldn't get the digital signature)

Matthew V, After doing some research, Here are my comments on using Bm Purandare as a reliable reference: 1. BM is a novel writer whose stories are based mostly on the life and times of Shivaji. 2. He relies on published research on Shivaji and more importantly, stories transmitted orally over generations by Marathi families about Shivaji to help write his stories. I am sure the second point would disqualify him as RS. In my opinion, BM definitely has a place in an article on Shivaji but only in a section titled "Shivaji in contemporary arts and literature". Thanks Jonathansammy (once again the website is not allowing me to place my digital signature)

Thanks for looking into it Jonathan. I think we're pretty much on the same page here: he's a successful popular writer, and while he may be channeling the mythos in the popular culture, he's not an actual "go to the Delhi archives and read Persian records" actual academic kind of historian. Definitely agree he should be listed in the "Literature" section as a very Notable writer on the subject, but not actually used as a source. I'll wait until the end of this week just to see if anyone else has objections, but failing that I'll remove the Purandare cites in the body of the article and replace them with academics. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The decreasing references on page Shivaji led to this discussion here. The page is ranked #212 and not #72 as mentioned incorrectly. Not to mention weasel words like "It is my contention", "my own ferreting around supports", etc.

There are many incorrect assertions on the discussions that I would like to address here:

1. "(note Sahitya Akademi is India's "National Academy of Letters", so publication by them says good things for RS of the criticiser Desapande)"- by which rule or is it hearsay? Sahitya Academy publishes many things and to say such a thing as a random observation means that people do not know much really.
2. About Ram Punyani - his academic credentials are not stellar, he is mainly into some Human rights org. Rather one should avoid such references other than any need of human rights or Hindu terrorism that his views are about.
3. The academic credential of Maratha Seva Sangh leader Shrimant Kokate is mentioned in the link as well which is not more than one webpage. How he is mentioned in a book published by "SUNY series in Hindu Studies" is surprising considering his one web page academic credential is suspect. All in all a very poor citation.
4. Anant V. Darwatkar - how academic is he? Is he a political writer? Not clear here - again a very poor choice to mention.
5. About Laine author, a critique link, the Author and Oxford Publishing come out terribly as far as credential go. Examples in the article are "shoddy polemics", "re-examine its commissioning policy", "as no evidence has been adduced or offered", "Laine is an anti-Hindu hypocrite", "Laine exposes his agenda", "lacked a modern sense of identity", "Hindus of the era cannot be ceded to have had a sense of 'Hindu' identity.", "it did not once mention Shivaji's famed ambition to establish a Hindu Pad Padshahi", "strange omission", "most notable omission is of the poet Bhushan", "juvenile", "subscribes to the secularist school of historiography that decrees that Hindus must forget the evil done to them, a phenomenon Dr. Koenraad Elst calls negationism.", and so on and on. Meaning another motivated author who omits as per his views. Not to mention controversy around the book he wrote that was banned and then the ban was lifted etc - which does not add to his credentials in any way.

As such this discussion does not deserve to continue.111.91.75.146 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

use of textbook published by Palgrave Macmillan

In Right-wing politics the following edit has been challenged as not being from a reliable source:

Andrew Heywood states "some argue that the emergence of new political issues such as ], ] and ], which simply do not fit in to the conventional spectrum, and the development of ] politics have rendered the ideas of left and right largely redundant."<ref> Andrew Heywood; 293 pages; Macmillan; 2000; page 28</ref>

The book is by an autjor noted for writing on the topic, and is published by Palgrave MacMillan which I thought was a reliable source. The claim is a direct quote, thus can not be somethng misinterpreted easily.

Is Palgrave MacMillan a publisher of "high school lesson plans" as one person averred, or is this a Misplaced Pages acceptable source for the use to which it is being placed? Many thanks. Collect (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Both, is the short answer. While high school student stuff can often gloss over the details etc & I am not fond of it personally, in the Misplaced Pages sense the publisher is ok and the author is valid for his own opinion. It would be nice if something more "academic" could be found but I see nothing wrong with this. Mind, I've not actually looked at the article and if the issue is with regard to weighting then perhaps the challenger could provide some balance? Presumably their objection is because they disagree with the content? - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sitush. One does not expect academic level analysis from such a source, but it should be usable for general purposes. The statement seems an unexceptionable summary, and a hs textbook level source for it is adequate. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Note the textbook synopsis is This is an accessible and comprehensive guide to the major concepts encountered in political analysis. Each is defined clearly and fully, and its significance for political argument and practice is explored It is not called a high school study guide, nor is it used as one. It is nearly three hundred pages long. This text is used as a reference in multiple works by other authors. It is used as a college text for students of Government. Googlescholar says it is cited by 167 - which is a non-trivial level of notability for a reliable source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It clearly states on the back cover that it is written by a secondary school teacher for students as part of the Palgrave study guides series. If others cite it, could Collect please explain what they say about the author's view on the Right. TFD (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: 'This is totally untrue and deliberately so. The back cover says no such thing. Emeraude (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This is definitely an A level book. In American tems, high school, not college. Sitush and DGG make good points, but it would be best to look for a textbook aimed at postgrads. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It is cited in The Rise of 'New’ Policy Instruments in Comparative Perspective: Has Governance Eclipsed Government? Andrew Jordan, Rüdiger K. W. Wurzel, Anthony Zito, 20 SEP 2005, Wiley; and in a slew of other papers and books. "High school textbooks" do not get routinely cited in journal, last time I checked. "Andrew Heywood" does not appear to be a high school teacher, by the way. This "high school teacher" also wrote Political Ideologies, Fourth Edition: An Introduction , etc. Over his career, Andrew has been both a college Vice Principal and Director of Studies and has over 20 years experience as a Head of Politics and a politics lecturer. He currently works as a freelance author and consultant. Seems sufficient from here to establish him as versed in the field. Collect (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Collect, please provide the page reference where Jordan, Wurzel and Zito explain Heywood's views on the Right. Heywood was a vice principal and director of studies at two secondary schools. It is not uncommon in the UK for secondary schools to be called "colleges". See for example Eton College.) Political Ideologies: An Introduction is also, as the title suggests, an introductory level textbook. TFD (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That's rather misleading and one can surmise intentionally so. "It is not uncommon" means it's actually NOT common, and you should not make the assertion that Heywood's previous employment was in secondary education. Indeed, it was not, as just a casual browsing of Misplaced Pages would have revealed in a few seconds. He held senior posts at Orpington College, now part of Bromley College of Further & Higher Education which is affilitiated to the University of Greenwich, and at Croydon College which is a Further Education College and a University Centre, i.e. neither is a secondary school!. Have you some ulterior motive for trying by innuendo to belittle Heywood's experience? Emeraude (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

But in answer to your request for page ref: Political Studies, Volume 53, Issue 3, pages 477–496, October 2005. Emeraude (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As further evidence of Heywood's bona fides, one should consider his citations in Research Methods for Political Science: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches by By David E. McNabb, (M E Sharpe, 2nd edition, 2010) pages 5, 390, 405 and 415. Emeraude (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

He obviously has bona fides, no one said he didn't, and this is top quality stuff as far as A Level textbooks go. But some people really need to read up on the UK education system before weighing in with so much certainty. The colleges mentioned are all Further education colleges, not university colleges. The equivalent would be senior high in the US, although they also do a lot of adult and vocational education of a pre-university type. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've worked for 40 years in the UK education system! (and I'm a political scientist, for what it's worth.) These colleges are not run-of-the-mill FE colleges (=US senior high) but are among a small group of colleges that combine further and higher education, albeit the latter under the auspices of universities. The issue is not whether the book under discussion is an A level text (and where is the evidence that it is?), but whether the author has credibility as a reliable source, regardless of who the book is aimed at. Given that he and this work specifically are cited by HE academics in peer-reviewed journals there can be no doubt of this. The repeated mistruths/misinformation through this discussion that Heywood is merely a school teacher, or FE teacher are unwarranted, but even if he works as a nursery (=kindergarten for US readers) nurse it makes no difference. The issue is this: is he an acknowledged practioner in the field of political studies? If cited by others, the answer is Yes. Emeraude (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I really don't get this. You had qualified go-aheads from Sitush and DGG, yet you chose to ignore them and get into a pointless yes/no tussle about this textbook. OK, if you really, really want, it's an A Level textbook that the publishers also want to market to undergraduates. (Like Giddens' Sociology, but I don't think you are going to argue that he has the status of Giddens.) Heywood was at Orpington College when he wrote it, and he was an A Level Chief Examiner. Orpington was never a mixed-economy college, just an ordinary FE college doing Level 2 and Level 3 work. Croydon College, yes it runs a few degree courses, but not in Politics, and Heywood was VP there, which wouldn't allow him a great deal of time for teaching undergrads, would it? The simple fact is, this is a textbook, and whether it is Level 3 or Level 4 or crossover between them hardly matters. Good for non-controversial statements, like the statement it is to support. In the medium term, try and replace it with something more academic, e.g. a textbook aimed at postgrads. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

India & Russia: linguistic & cultural affinity (1982) - Weer Rajendra Rishi

Hi, I want to know that whether the book India & Russia: linguistic & cultural affinity (1982) by Weer Rajendra Rishi meets the criteria of WP:RS, mentioned the fact that Rishi has been awarded with the Padma Shri by the President of India, for his contributions in the field of linguistics? Checking-in here, because notability doesn't itself guarantee reliability, and book covers some serious hot-topics, e.g. ! 117.200.53.160 (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

ummm, allow me me be very specific here. I want to make a few edits to article Getae, Massagetae and {Jat people (edit request)}, and what I'm asking is that is it just to trust Rishi with the linguistic etymology of ancient Getae. 117.207.55.168 (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You would want to look for evidence that Rishi's work on this specific subject has been used and reviewed favourably by experts (in Greek or Indo-European etymology). The award is interesting but "linguistics" is quite vague and we don't know what academic criteria were applied. Andrew Dalby 09:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, searching google highlights that his work has been appeared in significant authors' books. I am not that deep an expert on this subject, but that's why I wanted to know that if the Prez himself is involved to notify him for his distinguished contribution, does that make him stand strong? Anyways, I want to know your (& guyz around's) view-point over him? 117.207.54.216 (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That's very useful, thank you. It shows that his work on Romani is taken seriously by several major scholars (including a 14-page review by Terrence Kaufman in a linguistic journal) and all that would be a good reason for the President to nominate him. In turn this explains his interest in the Jats. What he says on their origin and name might well be interesting, and if he's linking the name with Getae and Massagetae one can see where he might be coming from. I would say he stands strong enough to be quoted, but, as you observe, these are very contentious areas and it would be best to quote with in-line attribution. Does that help? Andrew Dalby 15:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Yes Andrew, and thanks for the advice! 117.200.61.207 (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

High-quality scientiffic books as source

Hi, because of a discussion on talk:Hans Eysenck I have to ask here if some scientiffic releases about politic-science are reliabels sources.

The sources, partley in german, assert right-wing acitivitys of a psychologist.

• Michael Billig, Andrew S. Winston (Hrsg.) (1979): Psychology, Racism & Fascism. scholar. online
• H. J. Eysenck: Die Ungleichheit der Menschen. Orion-Heimreiter-Verlag, Kiel 1984, S. 245.
• Jens Mecklenburg: Was tun gegen rechts. Espresso-Verlag, Berlin 2002, S. 456 f. scholar
• Hans-Jürgen Eysenck: Freud – Retter oder Scharlatan? In: National-Zeitung Nr. 18 vom 27. April 1990, S. 7.
• de:Siegfried Jäger: Der Singer-Diskurs sowie einige Bemerkungen zu seiner Funktion für die Stärkung rassistischer und rechtsextremer Diskurse in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In: Siegfried Jäger, Jobst Paul (Hrsg.): Von Menschen und Schweinen. Der Singer-Diskurs und seine Funktion für den Neo-Rassismus. Diss-Texte Nr. 13, Duisburg 1991, S. 7-30 scholar.
• Leonie Knebel, Pit Marquardt: Der Versuch die Ungleichwertigkeit von Menschen zu beweisen. In: de:Michael Haller, Martin Niggeschmidt (Hrsg.): Der Mythos vom Niedergang der Intelligenz: Von Galton zu Sarrazin: Die Denkmuster und Denkfehler der Eugenik. Springer, Wiesbaden 2012. scholar online
• Roger Griffin: The Nature of Fascism. St. Martins Press, New York 1991, online scholar
• Peter Kratz: Die Götter des New Age: Im Schnittpunkt von „Neuem Denken“, Faschismus und Romantik. Elefanten Press Verlag, Berlin 1994, online scholar
• Tomislav Sunic: Against Democracy and Equality - The European New Right. 3. Auflage. Arktos Media, 2011, S. 141 ff. online

Some other useres won't accept them because they try to deny any of Eysencks far-right publications. Now I have to ask you, if these high-quality-sources are really high-quality-sources. --WSC 07:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I recognize Springer and St Martins, both reliable. The others I do not know. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not commenting on this thread as I'm involved, but would be grateful,for comments on any of the others (except for the books by Eysenck himself, because their status as primary sources is clear). Many thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Billig is an RS, though neutrality is suspect for pretty much everybody on this issue. I am surprised we need German references for Eysenck's take on race and intelligence; there is plenty written in English on that. I notice the Gibson book is not used as a reference at all in the article; it is used as a reference for a line which says "Gibson has written a biography of Eysenck." Hmmmm Churn and change (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Gibson's biography was published in 1981. It's six years since I read it, but I don't recall it saying much about the race and intelligence hoohah. That might account for the lack of references. Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

War of Words: Washington Tackles the Yugoslav Conflict

• Would Sremac, Danielle S. (1999). War of Words: Washington Tackles the Yugoslav Conflict. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780275966096. Retrieved 29 September 2012. be considered a reliable source on Yugoslavia-related topics?

• Bio details:As a result of the war in Bosnia, Danielle Sremac's career accelerated, By 1994, the Serbian Unity Congress was functioning as a front for Radovan Karadzic throught the appointment of Sremac.

• Review of War of Words: Washington Tackles the Yugoslav Conflict: (Personally, I find the way the Srebenica massacre (outright denialism) is treated among other topics very questionable.)--— ZjarriRrethues —  08:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide some context for this question? (eg, is there a discussion of this source in relation to one or more specific articles?). Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no particular discussion, but I noticed its use in some articles and after a first reading I considered its reliability disputable and I started this discussion to get other opinions.--— ZjarriRrethues —  14:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that it's professionally published, it passes the threshold of being a reliable source. The fact that it was published by a generally (though not exclusively) scholarly press adds further weight to this. If you have no specific concerns about material cited to the book, there isn't much to discuss here, and any such discussions should take place on the relevant article talk pages in the first instance. Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The book is actually published by Praeger publishers, an imprint different from Greenwood publishers. Both imprints are from the company ABC-CLIO. Note that the author is not a full-fledged academic (has a Master's not a PhD). That said, the source is an RS since the publisher is credible and so is the author. However, you would do well to read the reviews: Iordanova, D. (2001). "Shifting narratives: Representation and mediation of the Balkan conflicts". Journal of Communication, 51(4):826–831. doi= 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02908.x If you need the article, please ask at WP:RX or at my talk page. The review you posted is not from a credible author or publisher; the Iordanova one gives a nuanced view of the book, and would help editors decide when to cite directly, when to attribute, and when to exclude material from it. Churn and change (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Using lawsuit claims in magicJack article

There are two unresolved lawsuits mentioned in the magicJack article. Is a lawsuit a reliable source? Here's the material in question:

On June 24, 2009, CANADIANMAGICJACK.CA LTD, filed a lawsuit against magicJack LP with the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, Vancouver Registry (No. S-094744). On September 21 2012, Magicjack Vocaltec Ltd was sued by NetTalk for damages in excess of $200,000,000 for patent infringement with the magickjack plus device.

The only source given for the first is in the text: Registry (No. S-094744). There are two sources given for the second: Text of complaint and Demand for Jury Trial and the Palm Beach Post.

I guess the sorts of questions I have are: 1) Anyone can make any claim in a lawsuit. Should Misplaced Pages be repeating these claims? 2) Lawsuits involving large corporations are frequent. Need an article mention every lawsuit filed? 3) Should we be citing unresolved lawsuits, or lawsuits that have had little or no media attention? Also, the article mentions a third lawsuit that was resolved, with magicJack losing its defamation suit against Boing Boing. I can't find any coverage of that other than in blogs. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article and the source, I think the "blog" is a reliable report for an accepted commentator. It would be good to find something more official to supplement it.Have you looked? As for the other lawsuits, the article just says they were filed. Whether they are significant in terms of the company can be discussed. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably more of an NPOV issue - if there's no significant coverage elsewhere, then I don't think it belongs in the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for this feedback. TimidGuy (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That a suit has been filed is a matter of fact i.e. it either has or it hasn't. If court records show the suit has been filed, that is clearly acceptable and reliable as a source. If it's important to the article, include it. What we must not do is use the fact of the filing as in any way backing one side or the other or suggesting that the complainant/repspondant actually has a case. As to significant coverage elsewhere, this is almost certainly going to be impossible to find. Why should there be any? The best that can be expected is a press report that a suit has been filed - which we can accept as I said - but it would be most unlikely, and almost certainly a contempt of court, for anything else to be printed. The press may print coverage of the trial/hearing as it progesses, and we can reflect that, but until then Misplaced Pages may report the filing, but should do no more. Emeraude (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Why should it do that? This is an encyclopedia, we report significant things, not trivia, and certainly shouldn't be reporting lawsuits that haven't attracted much attention outside of an editor here. This is one reason we are chary about primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Response: I didn't say Misplaced Pages should do anything. I said it "may report the filing...". I also made no suggestion we should include trivia - I said, "If it's important to the article, include it" but I took and take no position on its importance or otherwise. Emeraude (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

My search of Lexis/Nexis turns up just one news story about the patent-related lawsuit filed by magicJack against netTalk last April and the netTalk patent lawsuit against magicJack in September. My impression is that lawsuits involving large corporations are fairly common and that it doesn't make sense for a Misplaced Pages article to catalog them. TimidGuy (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Naturalistic pantheism

I am currently mediating a case between two users relating to the articles Naturalistic pantheism and pantheism. We have agreed to use this noticeboard to decide whether certain sources are reliable when discussion between the two parties does not lead to a solution. Currently, we are discussing whether the World Pantheist Movement (WPM) should have any coverage on the naturalistic pantheism article, and whether its beliefs can be described as naturalistic pantheism. We have agreed that the WPM can be included in the article is reliable sources identify its beliefs as naturalistic pantheism. A number of sources have been provided, but their reliability, and relevance to this specific issue, is disputed.

The sources under discussion are:

• The WPM's official website. This identifies the WPM's beliefs as naturalistic pantheism, and could possibly be used as a self-published source about its own beliefs, but it has been argued that this could be too promotional to be reliable.
• Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative by Jerome Arthur Stone (SUNY Press 2008, ISBN: 9780791477915, Google Books link) - This identifies the WPM's views as naturalism, but not as naturalistic pantheism (p. 10).
• Encyclopedia of American Religions. 8th edition. 2009 - This identifies the WPM's beliefs as pantheism, but not naturalism.

I would like to add three other sources that will be cited:

• Religion professor and Ph D Bron Taylor identifies it as naturalism on p 159 of Dark Green Religion Google Books link
  
• Re notability: Jerome Stone The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative by Jerome Arthur Stone (SUNY Press 2008, ISBN: 9780791477915, Google Books link describes the World Pantheist Movement as "undoubtedly the world's largest religious naturalist organization" (p10).
• The World Pantheist Movement's own Statement of Principles page Statement of Principles. This is not promotional at all but informational: it simply describes what the beliefs are and states that they are Naturalistic Pantheism.
  

It's significant to note that there are NO sources that challenge the fact that the World Pantheist Movement's beliefs are Naturalistic Pantheist, which demonstrates that the claim is uncontroversial and non-exceptional.--Naturalistic (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You could be accused of WP:SYNTH if you try to establish the WPM as a naturalistic pantheism movement on the basis of one ref establishing they are naturalistic and one ref establishing they are pantheists. I think you can use their website to say what they believe they are, even though it is a self-published primary source. But you will need other sources to establish that they are notable, so you might as well include all three refs. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Re WP:SYNTH neither Taylor nor Stone challenge the fact the the World Pantheist Movement is pantheist and both repeat the name and other quotes from the World Pantheist Movement site relating to pantheism. It's kind of redundant for them to say it's pantheist. Since the words pantheism and pantheist keep cropping up in what they say about it or quote from it - without challenge from Taylor or Stone - it's clear that they accept that it is pantheist as well as naturalistic and they don't regard the pantheism claim as controversial. --Naturalistic (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is a major problem with WP:SYNTH. The WPM website does not qualify as a reliable source in any way. We don't describe subjects of articles as they protray themselves, but as how they are described in reliable independent secondary sources. Patching together fragments of multiple seconday sources, no mater how reliable they might be, to create a unified whole is the very definition of synthesis. Also, we don't care about what the sources don't say or what they don't refute, but about what they actually say. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPS, which is a part of WP:V, states, "Self-published...sources may be used as sources of information about themselves..."  Unscintillating (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu, you need to bear in mind this Misplaced Pages policy:

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves.

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I believe that the statement of Naturalistic Pantheism on http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm qualifies on all these counts as a usable source especially when combined with the other sources.

We are not talking about "patching together fragments of multiple secondary sources. BOTH the Taylor source Google Books link AND the Stone source Google Books linkacknowledge the naturalism and mention the pantheism, without challenging the pantheism, in passages that are quite short.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Some notes: the two references describing the WPM as "naturalism" actually contradict one another. One calls them "religious naturalism", and the other calls them "nontheistic naturalists". So that actually further complicates the effort to synthesize sources to establish their notability for this topic. Also, in regards to self published sources, I would note that this topic, naturalistic pantheism, has nothing to do with their organization (although the Misplaced Pages page was created and edited by them since the beginning of its history). The material about their organization IS unduly self serving (promoting their name and sourcing the home page of their website) and IS an exceptional claim as they promote their own definition of naturalistic pantheism. The WPM has at best very questionable notability regarding the topic of naturalistic pantheism and there are dozens of expert sources that define the phrase that haven't yet been included on the current version of the page. There are plenty of non experts on the internet that have their own version of a phrase like naturalistic pantheism. Should they all be included in the naturalistic pantheism Misplaced Pages page? Allisgod (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Stone reference alone is sufficient to establish that the World Pantheist Movement is naturalistic pantheist, as well as its notability in that regard. It is absolutely impossible to read the full Jerome Stone reference pages 10 and 11 Google Books link without concluding that he regards the World Pantheist Movement as both pantheist and naturalistic. No synthesis is required to establish that.

"Religious naturalism" is a novel term used since the late 70s which Stone's book is presenting and explaining. In the relevant section "Related views" he discusses religious humanism, process theology and pantheism.

On pages 10-11 he discusses the relationship between pantheism and religious naturalism. He states that pantheism and religious naturalism are "intersecting concepts." He adds "Those naturalists who identify God with the entire universe would qualify as pantheists by most definitions." He quotes a few pantheists who do so. He then mentions others who would not qualify as pantheists because they identify only a part of the universe as God.

He then moves on to the World Pantheist Movement, to which he devotes the longest part of this section on the relation between religious naturalism and Pantheism (22 lines versus a maximum of 3 for other naturalistic pantheists). He is mentioning the WPM as an example of naturalism that does "identify God with the entire universe." He describes it as "undoubtedly the world's largest religious naturalist organization."

Taylor's reference does not in any way contradict the above - Pantheism is very often classed as a form of non-theism in that it has no separate divinity, only the universe itself.

Including the World Pantheist Movement in the Naturalistic Pantheism article is not self-serving because the World Pantheist Movement is the largest Pantheist organization in the world so the fact that it is naturalistic pantheist is definitely of interest.

To say that Naturalistic Pantheism has nothing to do with the World Pantheist Movement is patently absurd. Three of the top five Google search results for Naturalistic Pantheism are World Pantheist Movement results. The World Pantheist Movement's definition (which includes reverence for the universe, acceptance of science and rejection of supernaturalism) is totally in line with the great majority of scholarly sources using the term.--Naturalistic (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor, this seems to be a fairly convincing source. If the World Pantheism Movement is actually cited in the publication by Jerome Stone, then I think this is credible. I don't see why the World Pantheism Movement shouldn't be added to naturalistic pantheism, if the organization defines themselves as naturalistic pantheist and it is supported by a source. ~DeusEstMachina (talk) 20:17, 02 October 2012 (UTC)

The group needs other sources to establish it as relevant, but its own description of itself should have weight. Our language regarding it should be neutral. If there is disagreement among other sources regarding its nature, we can mention that - it's normal. Its basic notability and relation to philosophy seems to be established.--Martin Berka (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Scanned official letters being used as sources

At Muslim Mafia (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a bit of a pov magnet, in January Rosclese removed material with the edit summary " (let's start cleaning up a few of the unreliable sources - it's also possible that some of the reliable sources are misrepresented, but this is a start)". Yesterday Gun Powder Ma restored it saying " care to state your reasons for removing large chunks of referenced material?" which is a bit puzzling since she did. I reverted him with the edit summary "probably because of the sources, eg a scanned pdf which we clearly can't use, someone who claims Obama is a Muslim, over-reliance on Emerson's website, etc" and he restored it again, saying "ou are invited to present this in more detail per WP:BRD on talk page" which I'd say is wrong because from my viewpoint BRD began with his current restoration (which could be argued of course) and I clearly said that you can't use scanned letters. The source for these letters is Steven Emerson's website . I'm not sure of the copyright status of letters from members of the House of Congress but I've always understood we don't use scanned copies of letters from non-official sites, am I right? There are also other clearer copyvio links, eg which is a segment from an MSNBC show. But that's not an RSN issue. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

These are primary sources. There is little chance that they are forged, but they shouldn't be the sole basis for assertions in dealing with highly sensitive topics. If this correspondence is essentially unpublished it shouldn't be mentioned. If it had little or no media impact then it isn't a notable element of the book's reception. If it did have media coverage, use that. Is it on-topic anyway for this article about a book, or could there be some coat-racking going on? Itsmejudith (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

religioustolerance.org

The site religioustolerance.org appears to me to be a self-published amateur stie. It is being used to justify this claim, which has its own issues which I will discuss on the article talk page. Be that as it may, I question using this site as an authority. Mangoe (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

While it's not a personal website... it is run and authored primarily by one person (who's academic credentials are not in the field of religious studies). So, yeah, I would call it an amateur self-published source. It might be reliable... if it can be established that the main author (Bruce Robinson) is recognized as an "amateur expert". Has he published in the field (other than on the website)? Do others cite his writings in their work? If not, then I would call it unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, this statement of beliefs comes across to me as more of an advocacy group's mission statement. Mangoe (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the underlying question is whether the website actually represents the views of a group ... or just the views of Mr. Robinson. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

See the archives. Not reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Asâ, Oktan Keleş, İstanbul

An IP hopper is insisting that this be in the article Dhul-Qarnayn. Oktan Keles is a fringe Turkish author who thinks the Chinese 'pyramids' are Turkish. The book seems to be also called "Dream of a Recluse" and but I can't find anything in Google books. This is the publisher's page for him and his books and the book's page. I can't make much sense of the translation of the summary:" The devil wizard crew chief in Istanbul, Turkey. One of the best men around here do not planlamasa things. Latif, select the team for that matter. The task with the permission of your God. Crescent prayers with us. Organization of melamine. On top of that Latif Baba: - Your order on top of the head. This is a very dangerous Mayruk wizard. Contact Hz. Moses (pbuh) must be the Sceptre. On top of that Abi Ilhami: - Prayers are ASA. Remember, he realized that eye, hand grasped the scepter, and languages: Bismillah ... Swivel around whatever is in the name of magic. ..." Another page for the book is . Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the Chines pyramids were built by Paris Hilton, although some scholars say Silver Stallone was also involved..... kidding. I reverted it anyway, it is pure fringe. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

IP hopper replaced it again. I've removed it but they are complaining on my talk page that I'm spending too much time on this article. :-) Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Nezavisimaya Gazeta reliable?

This article from Novaya Gazeta Nezavisimaya Gazeta claims that Russia is providing intelligence support to Syria in the ongoing Syrian civil war. I have not find any RS supporting this claim, and I'm not sure if this Novaya Gazeta article is reliable or not. There is a mediation going on for the Syrian civil war article and a person has been using this source, which is written in Russian. If you can help, please respond soon, the parties involved in the mediation would appreciate it. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Nezavisimaya Gazeta is a well-known publication that has been mentioned previously here as a Russian media source that is actually reliable. The OP first tried to dismiss the article out of hand because it wasn't in English, but after it was pointed out that we do, in fact, use non-English sources, the filibuster seems to have been moved here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The guy said "judging by reports probably Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Novaya Gazeta, and Vedomosti as well", meaning he's not sure. The fact that no other RS has reported Russia giving Syria intelligence support makes that NG article suspicious. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources for internet related topics. Search Engine Optimization

search engine optimization Sources cited on this website does not stick with traditional idea of credible sources. There's an excessive weight in repeating the point of view of Eric Goldman and Matt Cutts not just in this article, but many internet marketing articles in general.

There are sources like SEOMoz.com and V7n.com and I'm uncertain if they meet Misplaced Pages standards for reliable sources.

Please provide input regarding reliable sources for matters like search engine optimization and internet marketing. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Help requested on Supercouple page

On the WP page Supercouple, there is an IP editor who keeps re-inserting the claim that Anne Heche and Ellen DeGeneres were a "supercouple." I have reverted this three times (was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, posted about it on the talk page with no response, and the discussion started by me on the WP:Administrator's noticeboard was closed with directions to take the matter to the "appropriate discussion page"). I'm flabbergasted that such a statement is being allowed on the page, as I have never seen such a ludicrous statement here on Misplaced Pages. Heche and DeGeneres were not a "supercouple." That is just common sense. The source that the IP editor is using for this rubbish is a gay magazine that Heche gave an interview to in 2001 after she and DeGeneres split and Heche married a man. The interview uses the word "supercouple" once--it's an interview for crying out loud, obviously will exaggerate to promote Heche and is not a credible source in this circumstance. The definition of "supercouple" on this Wiki page is "a popular or financially wealthy pairing that intrigues and fascinates the public in an intense or even obsessive fashion." Heche and DeGeneres were neither of those things. At the time of their pairing, DeGeneres was a comedienne with her own TV sitcom and Heche was a completely unknown actress doing small parts in movies like I Know What You Did Last Summer. DeGeneres was wealthy; Heche was not (she even stated in court documents in 2008 "I have no money" to pay child support for her son during her divorce battle with ex-husband Coley Laffoon). DeGeneres and Heche did not "fascinate the public" but rather make the public dislike them, as Heche has stated on multiple occasions that she lost career opportunities due to this relationship. The mention of them is removed from the page at the time of my writing this, but it will probably be put back in yet again by that IP editor. So, I am requesting help to resolve this dispute. Sancap (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

See here, where this was already discussed. And once again, this editor has brought this to the wrong noticeboard. The Advocate is absolutely a WP:Reliable source for this information. 118.96.148.43 (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Primary source at Aurangzeb

Aurangzeb is a very well-studied historical character, a Mughal Emperor, and there are many modern sources that can be used to create a great article. However, the article has been subject to substantial sock activity. I am not even going to try to phrase this neutrally because, frankly, it is a crazy situation. But someone insists that Sarkar, Sir Jadunath (1947). Maasir-i-Alamgiri A history of Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir. is a reliable source for all sorts of statements made at Aurangzeb and I would appreciate confirmation.

Jadunath Sarkar was a respected historian but the source is merely a translation without commentary, other than an introduction. The work that is translated is a biography and was written in the time of Aurangzeb by a courtier, as was traditional for emperors of the period. Aurangzeb is known to have had control of the content and it is inevitably hagiographic. It contains masses of flowery prose and is practically a ghost-written autobiography. It received a brief mention elsewhere recently in this thread. While primary sources have their uses, it is my opinion that given the origins and the available modern historiography, we should rely on the latter. If the latter refers to the 17th-century source then that is fine but the source itself is not reliable for anything other than an in-context direct quotation - and that would carry little weight.

I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that his greatest work of fiction would be his autobiography. That is certainly true of works produced in the Mughal period, in my opinion. BTW, the link is as per the article and thus is scribd.com: obviously, that is inappropriate and I'll be fixing it should consensus go against me here. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The source is translation and annotation by the author Jadunath Sarkar (established, Knighted, academic author/scholar etc..) who had not only translated but also annotated (commented) and provided notes appropriately in this book. The primary/original author Saqi Mustad Khan wrote it after the death of Aurangzeb, and the publishers is the The Asiatic Society. Modern or old shall not be a constrain to the reliability of source. In-fact the more older can be considered more reliable.

As an involved editor in this discussion I would like to say: Please specify if you are inquiring, if it is a primary source or reliable source to use in article and please do not misinterpret the board, we are here to discuss the reliability of the source but not the sock and any one is free to report any sock at SPI but not here and if you are really busy, please let me know to whom you doubt as a sock, I really like hunting socks :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Would like to update the board that; the usage of the source is primarily for his (Aurangzeb's) childhood and early education, which is extensively covered in this source, rather most of the books/sources covered mostly his (Aurangzeb's) warfare and administrative work and do not provide detail timeline. Thus I believe this source is most appropriate to cite his (Aurangzeb's) early life, and can be supported with any secondary and third party source. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The source is used in several academic research works and journals here etc.. The book details at Worldcat.org are available here. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, though authors and scholars are highly respected, but there phrases shall not be considered as the policy of WP, and kindly rather than taking it personally think it in other way and say "I'll fix it if the source is proved reliable". Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it's used, the issue is how we use it. I don't think we can use it to assert fact. If we use it at all it should be suitably attributed and clarified, but we should be looking for independent sources. Also, I don't think 1947 is long ago for the book to be out of copyright - scribd.com has a lot of copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is a reliable source for anything. The source is primary and is old (the book was written during Aurangzeb's reign and the translation dates to 1947). If there is anything of value in the book, then there has been ample time for other historians to comment on, analyze, or authenticate the assertions in the book and that's where we should be looking for sources. And this applies to everything in the book including any assertion of facts. --regentspark (comment) 12:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sitush and RegentsPark. This is a court biography written after Aurengzeb's death to document the part of the reign not covered by the traditional Namah, whose recording Aurengzeb stopped in the second decade of his reign. It is not reliable for any Misplaced Pages information, not even for the Emperor's grades in elementary school, a manifestly primary source. Mughal rule, one of the most prolific areas of Indian historiography, has many modern historical sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

At User:Albacore/Mike Capel I have a draft for the article Mike Capel. I want to use ancestory.com to reference his mother and father's names as well as his the name of his wife. The two references I would use are from here. Albacore (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This particular source has cropped up here quite a bit - see these search results. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think to use Ancestry.com would very much depend on the source of the information... if it's user contributed, probably not usable, if it's an official record, like death certificate, social security death record, military record, birth record from state archives or something then it's probably valid as a wp:primary only source... What specific source off of Ancestry.com do you propose to use? — raekyt 17:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources you mention are primary sources and should be used with care. Some, such as self-reported information for censuses, are practically self-published data. (I guess there is a legal obligation to be accurate on a census survey, but has anybody ever been prosecuted for providing wrong information even intentionally on a census form? There is also the question of the reliability of the census-takers themselves.) You have to establish the person referred to in the source is the one who is the article's subject (this is true of any source, but typically in these primary records this gets harder because of lack of contextual information). If the information is available partially on a secondary source, these primary sources may be used to fill in the gaps, with care. If not, you are out of luck. You can assume the ancestry.com public records are credible replicas of the originals. Churn and change (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

... but it could be original research to conclude that any one particular birth certificate, for example, is in fact for the person being considered. There are a lot of Michael Capes. This has all been dealt with before, per the search results noted above. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No source, primary or secondary, will ever say "this reference is about xyz who is the subject of the article abcd in Misplaced Pages." We always infer that connection from context, such as full name, dates, places and other contextual information (in this case, an example would be parents' names). Whether such inference rises to the level of WP:OR depends on the specific case in question and should be left to a discussion among the editors of the article. With something like a birth certificate, the contextual link may be weaker, but there is no general rule forbidding establishing such a link if that can be done in an obvious way. Churn and change (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And in the case of secondary sources, it is within the capacity of the encyclopaedist to reasonably make such an encyclopaedic interpretation. This is not the case with primary sources regarding historical biography where encyclopaedists are not adequately trained (and we do not certify any editor as anything but an encyclopaedist). Again, this has been previously discussed. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The policy and guidelines really don't say anything such. What they say is a primary source can be used to back up a secondary source, if the interpretations involved are obvious ones to a reasonably educated person. There is also wording that primary sources should be used with care. There are no blanket rules for "historical biography," a policy category seemingly created on this board, and it is not within the scope of this noticeboard to create rules. One has to look at these case by case. Churn and change (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Albacore, firstly, you have done a great job at expanding that article. Congratulations! Second, I concur with others here that using primary public document sources, such as those hosted on ancestry.com, should not be used, except possibly to augment a secondary source. The danger of OR and in even error based on erroneous assumptions about identification of the right person and about accuracy of the data/collection are just too great to be left to WP editors. This is most especially the case where we are talking about a living person, as we are here. WP's BLP policy specifically forbids the use of public records such as this per WP:BLPPRIMARY. All this to say the answer is no. Slp1 (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Fifelfoo and other comments. I will just add that there can be times when primary sources are suitable, but this is clearly not one. This is, just to make it clear, because original interpretation is required in this case, in order to use the source. It is not "2+2=4". (I say this as a keen amateur genealogist.) This is NOT intended to mean that I think Albacore is wrong. He is very likely correct, but that is not the point. As soon as we do anything ground breaking we should do it somewhere else and not on WP, which simply aims to summarize what other sources have already published.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Need feedback on "REHUPA"

Hi RSN people. Just following up on a past discussion about the Conan chronologies article.

Right now, the article is relying on two authors published at self published websites:

• Joe Marek
• William Galen Gray

I tried removing them on that basis, but someone reverted based on the fact that they were both published in REHUPA.

REHUPA is the "Robert E. Howard United Press Association". Their website describes them "an amateur press association dedicated to the study of author Robert E. Howard. The purpose of this site is to provide a forum for members to present their work to the public, as well as to serve as a source of reliable information about the life and writings of REH.

My questions:

1. Are Joe Marek and William Galen Gray and those respective websites reliable sources?
2. Is REHUPA a reliable source for information about Howard and his creative works, namely Conan the Barbarian?
3. Is REHUPA considered sufficiently independent enough from Conan/Howard to count towards the WP:GNG?

The more direct the answers, the better. I've been surprised with how contentious this issue is, and the feedback has been somewhat off topic to this point. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Those three web sites seem far less than serious or reliable to me. The topic is not exactly scholarly in any case, but still these are web sites I would not believe at all, and do not pass WP:RS in my view. History2007 (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Fan sites. Even the "Robert E. Howard United Press Association" is described as a "Fan discussion group includes biography, images, and information". Not RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess the relevant thing to check is whether the fan sites have any kind of moderation, or can users just post whatever they want? It sounds like the latter? Another question might be whether the fan sites are ever cited by any better sources as authorities on anything, but I guess this is unlikely in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle

At 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, a line in the article saying "it became known as the Lydda death march." and an aka field in the infobox giving Lydda death march have been removed due to, in the words of those removing the material, There are a few sources that mention that term, but saying "it became known as the Lydda death march" is a bit of an exaggeration and that It has not been established by either the quantity or quality or sources that the term deserves the UNDUE emphasis its proponents are trying to put into the article. The sources presented say are as follows:

• Chamberlin, Paul (2012), The Global Offensive: The United States, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the Making of the Post-Cold War Order, Oxford University Press, p. 16, ISBN 9780199811397: On a visit home in 1948, Habash was caught in the Jewish attack on Lydda and, along with his family, forced to leave the city in the mass expulsion that came to be known as the Lydda Death March.
• Strachan, Hew; Bellamy, Chris; Bicheno, eds. (2001), The Oxford companion to military history, Oxford University Press, p. 64, ISBN 9780198662099 {{citation}}: |editor1-first= missing |editor1-last= (help); Text "Hugh" ignored (help); Text "editor4-first" ignored (help): On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda-Ramle area, amounting to some 70,000, were expelled in what became known as the Lydda Death March.

Are those sources sufficient for the statement that the incident became known as the Lydda death march? nableezy - 07:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the first source came out this year and is using language that was in the article until today.

So is this enough to say something "became known as" a term that barely appears in histories of the time? This event happened in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. There's a grand total of 7 books in google that even mention the term, out of how many written about that war? Hundreds? Thousands? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The "Oxford Companion" source is sufficient in itself. It is well accredited via publisher and via editor (see here). Paul Chamberlin (see here) is also a reliable author on this subject. These are very good sources. If you want to show that Holmes (or co-author) and Chamberlin are wrong, Google Books won't help you much; you'd have to look for the primary evidence: reports of the incident in newspapers, magazines and memoirs of that time. If none of those mention the phrase, you can feel you're getting somewhere. Meanwhile the statement in our article is well-supported. Andrew Dalby 08:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Glucojasinogen might be a real condition and it has two academical sources supporting it by now, so it would be a tendentious editing to dispute it. See Apollo's talk page discussion: after two generations of Misplaced Pages-inspired Chinese Whispers, people will one day look back at these times of ours and date the beginning of the permanent loss of reliable knowledge in the world to the founding of Misplaced Pages. Go Wikipediocracy.com! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why this discussion is here. There is no dispute that these sources are reliable for the assertion that it was also known as the "Lydda death march". There is also no dispute - as far as I know - that "death march" is not the most common description of the events . The dispute is merely about the POV and UNDUE emphasis and utilization of the term that is far less common. This is a talk page discussion (where there was no consensus for inclusion), not a RS/N discussion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The article isnt titled Lydda death march, so the argument that it isnt the most common description falls flat. As nobody disputes that the source is reliable for this material (which until recently being edit-warred out of the article had been included for literally years) Ill bring this to NPOV/N now. nableezy - 17:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not the most common description, or even a common one. I really find it hard to believe a wikipedia article should say it "became known as X" when it's quite obvious that it hasn't. Doesn't WP:FRINGE apply here? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry, but I fail to see how that is clear. We have two reliable sources, both published by a top-tier academic press, that specifically say that it became known as X, and then we have you, a random person on the internet, saying that no it is not known as X. Which one of those takes precedence on Misplaced Pages? If you would like to argue that WP:FRINGE applies to material cited to two books published by Oxford University Press by all means, feel free. I would love to see that. nableezy - 18:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

When you have hundreds of books written about a subject and a very small percentage call an event by a specific term, it's quite obvious that event did not "become known as" that term. Perhaps you are right and wikipedia policy allows editors to give prominence to the rare term. I hope not, but we'll see. The fact is that anyone who can use google can see it did not "become known as the Lydda Death March". I doubt that is not clear to you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not a random person on the internet, I'm a specific person on the internet. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The subject isnt the 1948 War, or even the 1948 Palestinian exodus, it is specifically the expulsion of the Palestinian residents from these specific towns. How many hundreds of books are about that subject? A book written by a university professor with specific expertise on the Middle East and published by OUP is not, under any definition (including Misplaced Pages's) "fringe". Unless a reliable source disputes that this is a common name for the events described in that article, then what we have, despite your attempts at denigrating the sources, is a well-sourced alternative name with no sources disputing. nableezy - 19:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you provided deal exclusively with this event. The event is mentioned in thousands of books (see for example this) only a handful of which even use the term "Lydda Death March" or even call it a "death march" in general. So yes, a source can be considered fringe when it makes a claim few if any out of thousands of other mainstream historians make. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Are any of this sources giving any name at all to the event? For example, 1949 by Segev describes the expulsion, but never gives any name for the event. Neither does Palestine, 1948 by Gelber. You cant use a source that gives no name at all to say that a name given by another source is incorrect. nableezy - 01:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

So Segev and Gelber and Morris and Pappe and Karsh and Shlaim and the rest of those guys just missed the memo telling them what this event "became known as" but an assistant professor at the University of Kentucky whom you've never heard of before searching for the term got it right?

If it "became known as" something, you'd expect more than 1% of scholars to use that term. Like I said on the talk page, I don't have a problem saying some scholars refer to it by a certain term, but giving the reader the impression this is what people call it now is wrong, even if you have a source saying so. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr Nice Guy, just trying to follow your logic, aren't you raising your own personal arguments against something which has been agreed to be reliably sourced? Or are you saying that the hundreds or thousands of publications about this subject actually specifically say that this event DID NOT come to be known as "X"? If they do not specifically say that, then aren't you trying to make an original argument based on WP:synthesis? (In other words, your argument appears to be: lots of publications do not mention X, so even though they do not explicitly disagree with X, this is proof that X is not widely accepted to be true.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm using WP:COMMONSENSE. We're talking about a topic with a huge amount of scholarship. We have two sources that make a claim and thousands of others that while not explicitly contradicting it (and why would they, it's very uncommon claim and not made by a major figure in the field) they contradict it in practice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your own words make it appear to me that this is what normally is referred to on WP as original research. Common sense is something that gets claimed when we are talking about 1+1=2 or the sky is blue, and the amount of disagreement apparent (according to both sides in this discussion) between both reliable sources and wikipedians makes it clear this is is not such a case, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

William M. Branham

William M. Branham was a controversial Christian minister from the mid 20th century who has a comparatively small following around the world today. There are a few academic publications that examine Branham’s claims critically but most of the criticism of his claims (some of which are of a supernatural nature) are made by single ex followers who maintain self published personal web sites for this purpose, such as “Seek Ye the Truth” (John Collins) and "Believe the Sign" (Jeremy Bergen) I would appreciate some feedback on the validity of using these self published sources in the article on Branham. Rev107 (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No they are not reliable sources. Researchers may use these sources, of course, and we can report their findings. See WP:SELFPUB. TFD (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

TFD, are you saying their findings/conclusions can be reported in the Misplaced Pages article on Branham? Rev107 (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No. A researcher may use their reports along with other sources in order to develop an analysis which is then published by a reliable book publisher. We may then quote that book. However we cannot do the research ourselves and cannot mention these sources. Unlike professional researchers, we have no way of determining the validity of the claims and if no reliable source has reported them they are not important enough to be included. Self-published works may also contain information that is defamatory. TFD (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

PZ Myers on Stuart Pivar's Lifecode

An IP has been repeatedly removing Myers's contemptuous assessment of Pivar's "Lifecode" theories, as related in his blog Pharyngula (link), asserting that Myers is not an acceptable source by our standards. I personally would tend to disagree: he's a scientist writing in his own field, and (for instance) his blog is commended by Nature. My one qualm about this is his notoriously confrontational manner, which leads me personally to devalue the intensity of his condemnations. But at any rate we need some resolution to this edit war. Mangoe (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the blog, the material from the blog was covered by a book (Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk) and Wired which were deleted as sources at the same time.Novangelis (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I deleted Pigliucci only once, not repeatedly (and once by accident, being new to the system of where references are) due to the lack of direct quotation etc., but when that excision was reverted, I did *not* revert those reversions since, of course, U. of Chicago Press is a reputable reliable source. The wired.com is not even relevant to the issue since lawsuits are not relevant to any real presentation of a scientific theory. So those two issues are totally distinct, besides that the word «crackpot» is libellous. So if this discussion is to continue, these issues must be kept separate. And separate from the issue of a science blog, not subject to fact checking or peer review, being deemed a reliable source for contentious material about a living person. The sarcastic tone would be enough to motivate a responsible editor to search for a better source, but would not be enough to justify immediate removal. My claim is that this particular immediate removal of contentious material about a living person is justified by the clear lack of a reputable publisher's fact-checking department or a reputable scientific peer-review system to stand behind that blog. No matter how many awards it has won, or how *convenient* it is for some editors to rely on a source which bypasses accepted scholarly procedures, especially when said source agrees with their own judgements.173.70.4.26 (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Some excerpts from the policy page that pre-empts other Wiki-decisions

Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.

Hence, as I see it, the determining question is whether pzmyers's blog is subject to the kind of editorial oversight which includes either the peer-review (before publication) of a reputable academic journal or the fact-checking dept. (again, before publication) of a reputable journal such as The New Yorker. It is irrelevant that PZ Myers has a following, is widely regarded as ...etc., or is a reputable biologist with refereed publications to his credit. It is also irrelevant whether there exists any convenient alternative for debunkers to rely on in their mission of debunking... I am starting to get the feeling that PZ Myers, Massimo Pigliucci, and some of the watchers of this article have a sense of mission.173.70.4.26 (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it can be successfully argued that Myers's blog meets this standard. To begin with, the claim that his credentials as a biologist are irrelevant is in contradiction to the "professionals in the field" standard. Quite the contrary: those credentials establish that he is a professional in the field. Second, the statement in question is not a source about a living person, but is rather an analysis of a scientific claim, for which the nature of the theory's author is irrelevant. Third, it's not an extraordinary claim to say that the lifecode thesis is widely out of step with our understanding of developmental and evolutionaryMangoe (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That part of the policy was included by an accident, a cut-and-paste error.173.70.4.26 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like you are stating that you failed to quote mine the policy to suit your position, not a good look. The part of the policy you apparently did not want to include is entirely germane to this discussion, see below. - Nick Thorne 04:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

biology, to the point of being nonsensical. And to go back a response, there's nothing wrong with Myers's description of the theory as "crackpottery"— which, by the way, he does not do in this particular article anyway. Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, now as to the claim that his credentials as a professional biologist are irrelevant. This is a simple point of logic. The policy clearly says (note, there is a logical conjunction coming up here, so the fulfillment of the first condition is irrelevant if the second condition fails) «professional in the field *and* and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.» In a reputable journal or news outlet, fact checkers vet the contributions *before* publication. Is that the case here? Somewhere else, in a longer, more discursive discussion of reliability in general, the wiki page on something or other asks the editor to consider whether the journal ever issues corrections. Is that the case here? Because of the special issues involving contentious material about living persons, the burden of proof is on the original poster, not me.173.70.4.26 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

From the wikipedia article on the blog in question:

ScienceBlogs is an invitation-only blog network and virtual community. It was created by Seed Media Group in 2006 to enhance the public understanding of science. As of February 2009, ScienceBlogs hosted 75 blogs dedicated to various fields of research. Each blog has its own theme, specialty, and author(s) and is not subject to editorial control.

Case closed? Maybe I am more sensitive to these issues than some Wiki editors since I am a professional editor and am on the advisory board of three scientific journals (oh, well, none of them prestigious)173.70.4.26 (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you are selectively reading the policy. I will repeat your excerpt from above, but will add emphasis for what is a key section you gloss over:

Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;

PZ Myers's blog clearly meets this criteria. End of discussion. Oh, and anyone can claim to be whatever they want on-line, I have no reason to doubt your claims, similarly I have no reason to believe them either. Such claims of expertise are irrelevant here and give your opinions no special weight. - Nick Thorne 04:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

the words which immediately follow what you bolded explain why what I glossed over is insufficient.

«Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer.»

You seem to be conceding that this blog is self-published, something with which I am inclined to agree since Seed Media Group provides none of the functions of an editorial nature that distinguish a publisher from a mere printer. If this blog is not self-published, then Mr. Pivar's books are not self-published either...but we are all agreed that they are. But, further, does it matter if one policy says «Use may be acceptable if 'A' holds true», when another part of the policy says «'B' must hold true.» and we are living in a situation in which 'B' is clearly false?173.70.4.26 (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

PZMyers's blog clearly fails to meet the other necessary criteria, which is why I suggested that the case was closed once the wiki article on ScienceBlogs itself explained that no editorial control was exerted.173.70.4.26 (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not restructure other users' posts, especially as you did here by making one post look like two separate posts, breaking the logical sequence of the discussion and thus changing the meaning. This is rude and breaks the talk page guidelines. I have moved your comment to immediately follow mine, in sequence, where it belongs.

Since we are not talking about a BLP issue, your quoted section above is not relevant. - Nick Thorne 05:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think just on the policy interpretation question 173.70.4.26 is indeed not fully correct.

• Although it is the norm, not all reliable sources need to have independent fact checking because (a) some individuals (and some raw information found in primary sources) are notable in themselves and occasionally worth sourcing for various editorial reasons, and (b) some individuals have their own demonstrable reputation for fact checking, which editors might consider strong enough to justify using them. For example a person whose blog is cited in notable and reliable sources can be argued on that basis to be worth citing.
• I also agree with those who argue that reporting that a theory has been accused of being "crack pot" does not count as something forbidden because it is "libelous" to any living person who agrees with the theory.

Please note that I am not stating that we should cite this particular blog on this particular occasion, only that policy does not absolutely forbid it. When policy does not forbid something, it becomes a responsibility to seek consensus in a common sense way, consistent with the spirit of the policy pages. The policy pages do give good guidelines about what kind of evidence can count as a good argument for using or not using a source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Myers is a well established scientific expert, particularly in the area of debunking pseudo-scientific quackery. His blog is a fine reliable source for such analysis. He clearly meets the WP:SPS guidelines for commenting on those theories, and is in fact probably one of the finest available sources in common English. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I consider it a perfectly usable source: the published opinion of a recognized effort. All WP rules need interpretation, and trying to avoid using this is a very strained and unreasonable interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this need referencing?

I'm not sure which noticeboard exactly this should go in, but since it's about the referencing of the article, i'm putting it here. And it's not really a dispute resolution thing, because the two of us just have a disagreement on whether referencing is appropriate for the statement or not, so other opinions on whether it should be referenced would be helpful. The article in question is Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. Yendor of yinn would like to add this information to the article. I wasn't entirely sure on its accuracy, so I removed it and asked for a reference. We have been discussing this here on my talk page. Yender feels like the information is common knowledge that doesn't have to be sourced and that, if necessary, a link to Australia's visa policies and ownership of the Coral Sea Islands would be enough.

I am not sure about this. I feel questionable on whether Cato Island currently falls under this or, more specifically, whether Australia actually bothers to enforce anything in regards to non-Australian people visiting the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom. I would be much more comfortable with a source specifically stating that people need a visa to visit the Kingdom

What do you guys think? Silverseren 05:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you unsure about whether the place is under Australian control, or about whether Australia requires visas for visitors?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

In terms of the specific place...both? More of, do they bother to enforce the visa thing. Since the Kingdom has a policy of allowing any visitors so long as they're gay. Silverseren 16:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

it most certainly requires a reliable, and third party source - it is a very controversial claim and nothing at all like "The sky is blue" or "Paris is the capital of France". If for some reason travellers based their plans on this claim, it would have immense real life consequenses.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys the geographical area seems to be identical to the area of the Coral Sea Islands Territory which is a territory of the Commonwealth of Australia - http://en.wikipedia.org/Coral_Sea_Islands - as far as Australian Commonwealth Law goes here is the Coral Sea Islands act: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/csia1969158

As far as people visiting Australia they need to obtain a visa: "Unless you are an Australian or New Zealand citizen, you will need a visa to enter Australia. New Zealand passport holders can apply for a visa upon arrival in the country. All other passport holders must apply for a visa before leaving home. You can apply for a range of visas, including tourist visas and working holiday visas, at your nearest Australian Consulate. For more detailed information go to the Australian government Visas & Immigration website" http://www.australia.com/plan/before-you-go/planning-a-trip.aspx Here is another link http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/dimensions/remote-offshore-territories/coral-sea-islands.html

Therefore, people trying to visit the Coral Sea Islands Territory (or the the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea) because they are homosexual will still need an Australian Visa (unless they are Australian citizens, obviously). Yendor of yinn (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Just thinking about this more... I think we are attaching too much importance to the concept of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea. It is an unrecognised micronation which appears to have been created by someone on their webpage that got a lot of support. That original webpage is no longer available and all 'new' sources refer to the original webpage,i.e. no where else. Given that the Australian Commonwealth has recognised sovereignty over the Coral Sea Islands Territory Australian laws apply - including immigration and customs, e.g. visas. I think that not referring to this fact either specifically or generally may encourage people to visit to are not permitted to do so (Non-Australians without a Visa), i.e. they are breaking Australian and potentially International Law. Yendor of yinn (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Anything that is likely to be disputed needs a reliable, secondary source. As Red Pen stated, this is not at allundisputable fact like the sky is blue or the sun sets in the west. This needs a reference for many reasons.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Amadscientist. This is basically accurate, but it's not indisputable. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a possible solution. Two separate statements, each referenced. One is that the all the micronation's claimed territory actually belongs Australia. If you can't find a reference for that, then make sure it is visible in maps accessible from the article. The second is that Australia requires visitors to have visas, from the source quoted above. That could go in a footnote. You don't need to go on to say "therefore the micronation is incorrect in saying that all LGBT people are welcome to go and live there". It should be pretty obvious, and we are not a tourism guide. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution