Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Damien Linnane (talk | contribs) at 11:37, 19 October 2014 (→iFanboy: new section). 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.

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

Argentine Revisionist authors

In the article Juan Manuel de Rosas is being argued that no author identified as belonging to the Argentine revisionist movement ("revisionismo histórico") can be used as a reference, as, it is argued, "revisionismo histórico" is a WP:FRINGE theory.

The outcome, if that proposition is true, is that a large number of prominent Argentine historians can not be used a reference for anything in that article:

• Adolfo Saldías
• Julio Irazusta
• Rodolfo Irazusta
• Tulio Halperín Donghi
• Raúl Scalabrini Ortiz
• Carlos Ibarguren
• José María Rosa
• Felix Luna
• es:Pacho O'Donnell
• Felipe Pigna

...etc, etc.

So far, the only author that has been "banned" is Pacho O'Donell, but any of the above could be targeted (they are not disclosing which historians they consider revisionists --see talk page)

I know that what I'm asking is pretty obvious, but I need some help to sort this out. I don't know what steps should I take to convince these guys, or what approach should I use. I figured that, being an argument about sources, RSN would be the place to start.

Advice would be much appreciated. Thanks. --Langus (t) 01:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, pushing the PoV of this particular author (and Argentine revisionists in general) were the subject of an Arbcom case last year at WP:ARBARG. Nothing has changed since, and revisionismo authors are still way outside the fold of mainstream historiography. Misplaced Pages does not turn to politically motivated revisionists for referencing history (we don't allow neo-Nazi authors to be used to source articles on the Holocaust, nor should Peronists myth-spinners be used to source what would otherwise be OR regarding their slanted versions of history). Nor do I believe anyone suggested that revisionismo authors "can not be used a reference for anything" – only that they must not be used to suggest that their version of history reflects mainstream historiography. They certainly could be used, with qualification, to support statements of revisionist historical views and on themselves. • Astynax 22:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion going on in the TP of the Juan Manuel de Rosas article that is a perfect example of the issue here with editors Lecen and Astynax teaming to remove a perfectly valid source from the article claiming "revisionist source" . This might not look like much of a dispute but this behaviour is spread throughout the entire article and, as Langus pointed out above, these two editors are determined to not allow any historian they consider "revisionist" into the it which is definitely troubling. The question in this case is simple: is the book Juan Manuel de Rosas. El maldito de la historia oficial by Pacho O'Donnell (published by Spanish editing grpup Planeta, one of the biggest in spanish speaking countries) a WP:RS to be used in the Juan Manuel de Rosas article? Gaba 14:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"...Pacho O'Donnell, formerly Menem's ambassador to Bolivia and Paraguay, who, however, has more openly avowed his revisionist inspirations, in particular through José Maria Rosa." Source:

Argentine Revisionism is the equivalent to Holocaust denial. It's not taken seriously by mainstream historians, and thus Misplaced Pages shouldn't allow it. What other option do we have? Allow Authoritarian, anti-Semitic and racist publicists to be used as reliable sources? For me, it wouldn't make sense at all. --Lecen (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Argentine Revisionism is the equivalent to Holocaust denial." Also O.O wow.
• "It's not taken seriously by mainstream historians"
• "Authoritarian, anti-Semitic and racist publicists" Again wow. Relevant to "anti-semitic" remarks: a few months ago O'Donnell was named president of the Israeli Association of Culture and Science.

The book is published by an indisputably established editorial house (Editorial Planeta, as stated above one of the biggest in Latin América) and written by a renowned historian with almost 20 history books published so far. His own website states his position as a "neorevisionist" ("His historiographical production can be considered within the neo-revisionism") so it's not like this is some hidden agenda uncovered by Lecen. O'Donnell has received numerous awards for his writing and has even been named "Cuidadano Ilustre" (Distinguished Citizen) of the City of Buenos Aires. His credentials are quite remarkable. The attempts by Lecen to associate this author (and all "revisionist" authors) with authoritarianism, anti-semitism, racism and misogyny is troubling to say the least. Gaba 16:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Argentine revisionism is equivalent to Holocaust denial in the sense that both attempt to rewrite mainstream consensus; nothing surprising about using that as an apt illustration. Lecen has already provided references and quotations as to how Argentine revisionists are viewed by mainstream historians. "Authoritarian, anti-Semitic and racist" are themes in Argentine revisionism and the political movements which spawned revisionism; again, nothing surprising there and references were provided. That a revisionist book gets published by a large publisher is no guarantee of reliability: to go back to the Holocaust denial example, one can find Holocaust denial books printed by the largest publishers in Iran and elsewhere. O'Donnell's credentials are remarkable, but paper-thin when it comes to history. His education was as a psychoanalyst, and his career has been unabashedly political as have his writings. That he has been rewarded by governments with which his views are aligned is not surprising or an endorsement of his credentials as a historian. Neither is his diplomatic appointment to a previously moribund Israeli-Argentine association for developing closer ties (especially given his relationship to the current Peronist government). Bill O'Reilly is a similar writer in the US, and despite at least having a degree in History, no mainstream historian would cite him in support of revisionist historical claims without prominent qualification. • Astynax 17:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said that my personal opinion was that O'Donnel was X or Y, even less tried to "associate" him with anyone or anything. All I did was to provide the views that mainstream historians have of Revisionism. It's not my fault if the best historians around do not share your view. --Lecen (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• "nothing surprising about using that as an apt illustration", actually yes. But it is quite telling that neither of you seems (or is willing) to acknowledge the red herring.
• ""Authoritarian, anti-Semitic and racist" are themes in Argentine revisionism" themes? Lecen is stating that every author that could be said to be a "revisionist" today is associated to those characteristics based mainly on random quotes and a lot of WP:SYN. There is no justification for that.
• "go back to the Holocaust denial example", go back to red herring please.
• "paper-thin when it comes to history", really? So almost 20 history books written and published by top editorials is a paper-thin background regarding history? Amazing.
• "even less tried to "associate" him with anyone or anything" but you did. You are attempting to associate O'Donnell and every author you deem a "revisionist" with authoritarianism, anti-semitism, racism and misogyny. Read your comment above please, apparently you missed it?
• "All I did was to provide the views that mainstream historians have of Revisionism". No you didn't. At all. You basically lumped together a bunch of quotes by M Goebel and D Rock, pasted them with quite a bit of WP:OR and WP:SYN and came to the (your) conclusion that "mainstream historians" (apparently Goebel & Rock?) somehow prevent us from using any author deemed a "revisionist" since 1930 to today. What's worst is that you never bothered to seek consensus for this truly wild idea but team to impose it nonetheless (ie: ). Gaba 19:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Guys, the problem here is that "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context". (see header above).

It seems that this is not the place to ask for questions about policy interpretation, which is basically what my original question is. And I presume that none of the editors at WP:RSN know where that place is... not a good sign. Perhaps Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources or Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability? --Langus (t) 03:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Langus: agreed 100%. My question for this forum is pretty simple actually: is the O'Donnell book a WP:RS to be used in the Rosas article?

Please note that WCM's wall of text below does pretty much exactly what Lecen did above, ie: WP:OR and WP:SYN, but to the tenth (also Lecen at least had the common sense to collapse it; WCM: could you collapse the bulk of your cmmt please?) He mixes old (~1930) revisionism with new, right-wing with left-wing (which is what we have today mostly) peronism with revisionism with nationalism, and uses sources as if he was WP's historian to generate his own research and come up to his own conclusion about nationalism, revisionism, peronism, etc. Also note that out of the 6 books he quotes, most have little to nothing to do with the issue directly at hand (we could as well quote 1000 books all mentioning either Rosas, nationalism, peronism, revisionism, etc. It's a worthless exercise.). Much less if we consider the simple issue is whether a heavily published historian (~20 history books published by top editorials) is a suitable source for a history article. Yes, it's that simple. Gaba 11:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Also of importance: I note WCM's own acknowledgemetn of being canvassed off-wiki by Lecen to come here and comment. I'd say it surprises me but knowing WCM and seeing his behaviour over at AE, I sadly am not. Regards. Gaba 11:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Gaba_p: Comment on content, not on the contributor. "1421: The Year China Discovered the World" by Gavin Menzies was a huge editorial success. It's take seriously by no one. --Lecen (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Lecen I only commented on your canvassing since it is of relevance to the discussion. Also, that's a very good advice but you'll understand that it is hard to take it seriously coming from you. As for 1421, two things: I never commented on "editorial success" (which I really don't think this particular O'Donnell book is) and see red herring please. Gaba 13:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a place to comment on contributors, not content. So far you failed to provide any source demonstrating that revisionism is reliable. Your personal opinion on the subject (or mine, or anyone else's) doesn't matter. --Lecen (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What? I have failed? I've commented no less than three times now that O'Donnell has published almost 20 history books in a top publishing house over the last 20 years. I have to "prove" nothing, you need to come up with a way to prove that a dozen or more historians (heavily published authors) from 1930 to today are WP:FRINGE and you have failed 100%. All you've done so far, together with WCM, is fill the thread with your own analysis of random books discussing/commenting revisionism to come to your own conclusion that a whole group of historians should be completely dismissed because you feel your own analysis proves they should. This is the definition of WP:OR and WP:SYN. See my comment below please. Gaba 15:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Academic View of Argentine Revisionism

The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographical wing of Argentine Nacionalismo, which a political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s. It was the Argentine equivalent of the authoritarian ideologies that arose during the same period, such as Nazism, Fascism and Integralism. Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic political movement.

A number of academics have examined Argentine revisionism and there are a number of peer reviewed works in the literature. See , , , , , for example.

The question posed boils down to whether these works are suitable as a WP:RS for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. They pose a particular problem for wikipedia, since they are published in the print media, which is normally something that we would consider reliable. We therefore have to rely upon what is published about their reliability. In general I would say they are not considered a wholly reliable source for material for Misplaced Pages. Below I set out why, with reference to views in academia.

Monica Rein (11 March 1998). Politics and Education in Argentina, 1946-1962. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 72–. ISBN 978-0-7656-4000-0. Notes that revisionism is associated with Far Right groups, was essentially about rewriting historical accounts to reflect a wholly positive view of the Spanish conquest of South America and to rehabilitate Caudillos (Spanish for dictator) as true heroes, whilst denouncing Liberals as traitors who had betrayed the nation. The movement is heavily linked to Peronism and its content driven by political considerations.

Michael Goebel (2011). Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History. Liverpool University Press. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-1-84631-238-0. Goebel expresses a similar view and is particularly damning of the way in which revisionist historians have asserted that traditional historical works were the work of "traitors" using history as an "ideological weapon to prolong Argentina's ignominious debasement". Goebel is critical of the movement's lack of interest in scholarly standards.

Luis Alberto Romero (31 October 2013). A History of Argentina in the Twentieth Century: Updated and Revised Edition. Penn State Press. pp. 88–. ISBN 978-0-271-06410-9. Romero notes its origins in the authoritarian and antiliberal right wing ideologies such as that of Mussolini, its growth as an anti-British and anti-establishment movement and its attempts to vindicate the reputation of the Caudillos such as Rosas. Romero also demonstrates how its origins in far right groups became accepted in left wing groups and its association with Peronism which incorporates both left and right wing elements.

Jill Hedges (15 August 2011). Argentina: A Modern History. I.B.Tauris. pp. 85–. ISBN 978-1-84885-654-7. Hedges notes the role of rehabilitating the reputation of Rosas, is linked to the promotion of political authoritarianism and the role played by right wing groups absorbed into Peronism.

David Rock (1993). Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History, and Its Impact. University of California Press. pp. 167–. ISBN 978-0-520-91724-8. Rock notes that the Revisionist movement roots in anti-semitism and anti-Protestantism, with Rosas being promoted as the ideal of an authoritarian figures and the promotion of authoritarianism over liberal democracy. Quoting Palacios, one of the early figures "The primary obligation of the Argentine intelligentsia is to glorify ... the great caudillo who decided our destiny".

Nicolas Shumway (26 May 1991). The Invention of Argentina. University of California Press. pp. 220–. ISBN 978-0-520-91385-1. Shumway notes that the movement calls for an "alternate history" and that revisionist history has become a chief rallying cry for Argentine nationalism in the 20th Century.

The Argentine revisionist movement is not a reliable source for content in general, since as Goebel notes scholastic standards are lacking and it has rejected historical orthodoxy to promote political ideologies. The main role of the revisionist movement is to rehabilitate the reputation of authoritarian leaders from Argentina's past, with the aim of promoting strong and authoritarian leadership in modern Argentina. It is not accepted as reliable in academia, since their purpose is to promote a wholly positive view of authoritarianism.

As they lack scholastic standards, their use for content is a problem for wikipedia. As they promote a political orthodoxy, their views depart radically from the mainstream academic view and in that respect they could be very much classified as WP:FRINGE. WCM_email 10:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Other sources.

• James P. Brennan (1 January 1998). Peronism and Argentina. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 50–. ISBN 978-0-8420-2706-9. Brennan in reference to the 1960s notes: "historical revisionism (exalting the figures of Rosas the caudillos for example) became a sort of alternative official history and the official history of Personism." Revisionism is not limited to the 1930s and is still a factor in Argentine politics today.

In regards to the allegation of canvassing. Lecen sent me a private email yesterday suggesting I comment at Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas, he made no attempt to suggest what I commented, merely requested that I did so. There was no attempt to urge me to comment here. I in fact looked in here, as Langus-TxT suggested referring the use of revisionist sources to RSN. My evidence to the arbcom case here and my comments at WP:AE are only relevant in regards to their commentary of the use of revisionist material. The inference of acting for bad faith reasons in support of Lecen can be summarily dismissed if you actually look at what I've commented.

In evidence to the original arbcom case, the use of O'Donnell, one of the sources being advocated here, was acknowledged to be unreliable and inconsistent with the neutral point of view policy. See here and this diff cited in evidence . Of particular relevance from that case is the comment from Newyorkbrad.

Again we are seeing the line blurred between a source being used as evidence of historical fact, as opposed to how history was viewed by a particular group at a particular time. RSN is being asked here to affirm that O'Donnell for example can be used as evidence of historical fact. However, if you examine the academic view of revisionism it is clearly not considered mainstream or a reliable source for historic fact. WCM_email 12:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• "the use of O'Donnell (...) was acknowledged to be unreliable and inconsistent with the neutral point of view policy", except it was not. Ever. The WP:ARBARG case dealt with editor behaviour, not content. The comments by a couple of editors tangentially touching the author (and I do mean very tangentially) are completely irrelevant.
• "if you examine the academic view of revisionism it is clearly not considered mainstream or a reliable source for historic fact", I'm sorry but this is just not true. Quoting some random bits of Goebel and Rock and pasting them together with a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYN it's just that: a WP editor "examining" sources and arriving at his own conclusion. There's no way that the interpretation of an editor on a few scattered sources is enough to dismiss an entire assembly of renowned and heavily published historians, the one being discussed here in particular having, again, almost 20 history books published by one of the biggest latin-american publishing group. Regards. Gaba 13:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Gaba p, I'd like to ask you to stop with comments such as "Quoting some random bits of Goebel and Rock and pasting them together with a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYN it's just that: a WP editor "examining" sources and arriving at his own conclusion". Accusations of bad faith lead nowhere. If you doubt us, then read the books yourself (they are on Google books). Lastly, if you really believe we misused Rock and Goebel's words, you should see their own thoughts on the matter:

Dr David Rock sent me an e-mail saying: "Thanks for your message. I suggest you read the standard book on Rosas by John Lynch, which will answer most of your questions. To your second paragraph: Revisionism is not regarded as respectable by most historians, either in or outside Latin America. It has extreme right-wing and xenophobic connotations, which most outsiders reject. There is a similar partial historiography of Brazil by the so-called 'integralistas' of the 1930s, considered by many as fascists." (emphasis added)

Dr Michael Goebel said: "I would say that most serious professional historians don't take most revisionists very seriously. It depends who exactly we are talking about, of course. Those revisionists who recently have become popular again, such as José María Rosa, Hernández Arregui or Jauretche and above all Ortega Pena and Duhalde, are historiographically speaking the least serious -- they plainly invent stuff. I personally would not hesitate to call Rosas a dictator and I don't understand, frankly, what is so terrible about calling him that. The whole issue mostly depends on what we mean by dictatorship, of course, but I think in Rosas' government we have a pretty good candidate. I don't really get the impression that the revisionists "don't see it that way", as you put it. It's rather the opposite in my view. They like him BECAUSE they see a dictator (using more positive terms for the same concept) in him (that's for the early revisionists at least)."(emphasis added)

I can gladly forward you the e-mails if you want to. --Lecen (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Lecen, there's no bad faith accusations here. If I comment on how you and WCM are blatantly incurring in WP:OR and WP:SYN it's because I sincerely believe you are, perhaps even unaware. See my comment above: you can't analyze a bunch of random books and draw your own conclusion that a whole group of heavily published historians should be regarded as WP:FRINGE because you believe that is the conclusion to be inferred from said books (even worst: that those books you've analyzed represent the view of all "mainstream" historians, whoever they might be and however they might be classified by who knows who). That is the definition of WP:OR and WP:SYN.

You are proving my point even further: not only is your entire argument based on drawing conclusions from mainly Goebel and Rock, you've now exchanged emails with Rock and attempt to present that as evidence. How can you not see that is WP:OR?

The discussion is terribly simple and the only ones trying to complicate it are you and WCM. Could a historian with almost 20 history books published by top of the line editorial groups throughout the last 20 years be used in a history article? That's it. The deeper issue here, and why this discussion is taking place, is your apparent belief that history is an immutable and objective entity, unable of being examined and interpreted differently by different researchers. This is of course not true. History is not math. If two published and renowned historians disagree on how they view an issue what we do in WP is attribute those views. Again, it really is that simple. Gaba 15:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Having published 20 books doesn't turn one person in a reliable scholar. Is that your best argument? I'm asking you again: can you provide any source that says that Argentine revisionism is reliable? --Lecen (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually my only argument is that the book by O'Donnell easily passes WP:RELIABLE. That's it. Is your best argument your own WP:OR and WP:SYN on the very broad topic of "revisionism" (including of course your email exchange with Rock)? If so the discussion can be ended right here and now and you are more than welcome to open a discussion about "revisionism" wherever you might feel is appropriate. I'll await your answer. Regards. Gaba 16:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The book by O'Donnell does not easily pass WP:RS. In the case of books, WP:RS requires:

Emphasis added.

Looking at O'Donnell:

Pacho O ́Donnell (18 April 2013). Juan Manuel de Rosas. El maldito de la historia oficial. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina. ISBN 978-987-04-2863-3.

Pacho O'Donnell's book is published by Penguin Random House Group, which is not an academic press. The work has not been vetted by the scholarly community. He is not a professional historian but a psychoanalyst and political writer. His wikipedia biography acknowledges he is of the "neorevisionist" school which rejects the orthodox mainstream historical view. Populism does not confer reliability and revisionist historians are disregarded by academics, because as Goebel notes above, they invent stuff (ie make it up).

Why would we use a populist work, acknowledged to be politically biased and unreliable for fact checking, when there are many peer reviewed reliable sources that can be used instead?

Further, WP:RS cautions that biased sources should be used with caution, "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Clearly Revisionist historical texts are acknowledged to be politically biased sources and O'Donnell classifies himself as neo-revisionist.

Whilst O'Donnell could be used to source revisionist opinions on Rosas, it is not a reliable source for historical fact. Again I make the point a biased source like this is unsuitable for evidence of historical fact but it could be used to show how history was viewed by a particular group at a particular time.

It is asserted above that the reliability of O'Donnell was not considered in the arbcom case. Rather obviously that person has not read the evidence provided by the diffs I added or my evidence in that case. In that case I pointed out that "There seems to be a confusion by all parties here, that this is a forum that considers both user behaviour and content. The only real issue of relevance on this forum from my experience is user conduct." And indeed it did focus on user conduct, one of which was to use sources like O'Donnell that the editor acknowledged was unreliable As for O'Donnell, let me clarify: I trusted him 4 years ago, I do not trust him anymore, as I have better knowledge now of the way a historian must work. Newyorkbrad's comments quoted above are very relevant since we are seeing a repeat of the lead up to that case and an inability to acknowledge the difference between a reliable peer reviewed work and politically biased tome. Cambalachero's comment's on O'Donnell are accurate.

My comments have been a generalised response, to a general question as to the reliability of Argentine Revisionist Sources. Are they in general reliable for historical facts? No, because they are known to be politically biased, they are acknowledged as lacking in academic standards, they are not in general peer reviewed in academic journals and they have a poor reputation for fact checking. Does this mean they can never be used, no, they can be used to source the revisionist viewpoint when it is appropriate to mention it but this doesn't mean we elevate it to the same level as the mainstream academic view. WCM_email 17:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Except the book presented by WCM above is not the same book presented in my original comment. What he showed is the 2013 re-edition of the original book published in 2001 indeed by Grupo Planeta.

Goebel and rock's comments on "revisionism" are noted: they dislike it. Your attempt to connect a circa 100 years extremely broad movement encompassing from the far right-wing to the left-wing with a book by a heavily published and renowned author are also noted.

"revisionist historians are disregarded by academics". Unless of course by "academics" you mean Goebel and Rock?

"acknowledged to be politically biased and unreliable for fact checking". again are you talking about Goebel and Rock?

"it is not a reliable source for historical fact", you seem to be under the same impression of Lecen that history can be treated as math. There are sometimes differing and even opposing views and interpretations of historic events. If we have at our disposal WP:RSs (as we do) we should use all of them, not just the ones you feel are good enough. The issue here is not "we use either this one or this one", but rather we use all WP:RS history books available.

"It is asserted above that the reliability of O'Donnell was not considered in the arbcom case." Let's see what was asserted above. You said: "the use of O'Donnell (...) was acknowledged to be unreliable and inconsistent with the neutral point of view policy" to which i responded: "The WP:ARBARG case dealt with editor behaviour, not content." So, after noting that the statement by WCM is not correct, let me point out that your own comments on the author are by no means equivalent to an Arbcom decision preventing us from using his books as a source. You can analyze a lot of books and comment on your own analysis wherever you like, it will still be your own WP:OR and WP:SYN. Gaba 18:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Gaba p, I know when I'm wasting my time, and this is a fine example of that. Obviously you won't change your mind nor you will present any source declaring that O'Donnel is a reliable source (isn't there a single peer review in a scientific magazine?). Rock and Goebel are mentioned simply because they are regarded as the best specialists in Argentine Nationalism in the English speaking world. Bring sources. If you don't plan to do it, don't even bother replying, because I won't be here to answer. Wee Curry Monster said all, BTW. I agree with him. --Lecen (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lecen but you've got this backwards. The usage of a 'book by a well known and heavily published historian published by a very big publishing group is by default a WP:RS. The onus is on you (and Astyntax & WCM apparently) to bring forth evidence that the book/author are not reliable by WP standard and all of you failed completely in doing so. So far the only thing you've done is use some quotes by Goebel and Rock on how "revisionism" (a movement that goes back almost 100 years) is all bad, stitch them with a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYN, and conclude that since O'Donnell is a "neo-revisionist" he should be considered WP:FRINGE (along the entirety of those historians you or anyone else considers "revisionist" or "neo-revisionist"). The weight of this argument is so little that it makes it really hard to follow the thread of thinking. Also please see WP:RS/AC:

• The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.

(emphasis added) I don't think it could be made any more clear than that.

I see you've been blocked for a week and probably won't be responding. This thread has gathered very little attention from non-involved editors, so unless it does perhaps the next step could be an RfC. Regards. Gaba 21:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Revisionism by definition not mainstream scholarship. It is you and Langus-TxT‎ who have been attempting to push revisionismo as mainstream: it is not. Evidence that Argentine revisionism is regarded as fringe by mainstream scholars has been presented, and that you don't accept what they say is irrelevant. Pointing to the popularity of a writer who is well-known as a revisionist is also no evidence for reliability. There are many other popular writers, complete with awards and glowing endorsements, who put forth work that is regarded as fringe by the mainstream. Some of these even have advanced degrees in their fields, and O'Donnell is a politician who earned no degree in history. Lecen's temporary block for overstepping an interaction ban with another editor had nothing to do with this issue, and dredging that up is both offensive and misdirection from the issue at hand. • Astynax 02:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This whole exercise is pointless and a red herring, as we shouldn't discuss the historical movement without first discussing if a historical movement can or cannot be banned from Misplaced Pages. Plus, Lecen has been blocked for a week and not a single uninvolved editor has chimed in. I'm requesting closure. --Langus (t) 22:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note, no one has suggested any historical movement should or should not be banned; that is a red herring. Specifically the point made was that the academic view of revisionism does not consider it mainstream or a reliable source for historic fact. Further, biased source like these are unsuitable as evidence of historical fact but can be used to show how history was viewed by a particular group at a particular time. Finally, that it was inappropriate to elevate revisionism to the same level as the mainstream academic view. RSN was being asked to affirm that revisionism, one example in particular, can be used as evidence of historical fact. I would suggest this is left open to allow the outside viewpoint that is so desperately needed and request that those who have contributed so far desist from deterring it any more with walls of text. WCM_email 22:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be great, but "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context". You are asking the RSN to go beyond its boundaries, and redefine how WP:RS are identified.

Hint: you're doing it wrong. --Langus (t) 06:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Request close

smoothblog.co.uk

As background, Oracle used to have two products: OpenOffice.org, an open-source office suite, and Oracle Open Office, a commercial version of the suite.

Question: Is this blog a reliable source for the statement that OpenOffice.org, the open-source project, is "discontinued" (see OpenOffice).

Specifically, there is a statement in the blog: "Oracle announced its intentions to discontinue the OpenOffice.org (OOo) suite of software on Friday 15th ". Is this a reliable interpretation of an Oracle press release of 15 April 2011 that:

"Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) today is announcing its intention to move OpenOffice.org to a purely community-based open source project and to no longer offer a commercial version of Open Office."

Other sources say the commercial version of the software, Oracle Open Office, was discontinued at this time but not the open-source project. In June 2011, Oracle announced they would donate the open-source project to the Apache Foundation. --Tóraí (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

My argument for is that the site has focused on technology for many years and does so regularly.

My argument against is that the author is always "admin" and so we don't know who the author(s) is (are). We don't know if the author is professional in any way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Which would be the very definition of the kind of self-published source that we don't accept as reliable sources. If this was a news blog or an accepted expert writing in their field then we might accept it. But as it is, it's just some guy on the internet blogging about news reported elsewhere (and, in this case at least, getting it wrong). --Tóraí (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The blog does not accurately represent the contents of the press release, so I advise against using it. This isn't a comment on overall reliability of this blog. When any source--even normally reputable ones--make easily identified mistakes, then they shouldn't be used. TheBlueCanoe 15:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This last very point is important. And misconceptions around this is a reason why the phrase "verifiability, not truth" was removed from Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research (a pity, IMO). See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth for a summary of misconceptions around verifiability and truth. --Tóraí (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source so do not use. In this topic area, which is throbbing with agendas and PR from rival "camps", it is especially important that sourcing be impeccable. Alexbrn 09:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Websites of medical centers as sources for services they perform

At Talk:Acupuncture#Academic_centers (stable version here) there's been discussion of how to source the fact that multiple medical centers use acupuncture. Some editors have argued that the websites of these centers (e.g. Osher Medical Center at Harvard) are fine; others have argued that they are not because they are "primary sources". IMO, this is a case where a primary source is fine per WP:SELFSOURCE not to mention WP:SENSE. What do you folks think? (Relevant section of article here.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC) (edited 05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC), 05:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC), 08:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Strictly, this is not a reliability issue, but a weight/neutrality issue, since of course a medical centre is reliable for listing its own services. The question is: is the fact these medical centres have such offerings significant? If so, it should be easy to find secondary sources making mention of it and use them. Otherwise it would seem undue—I don't think we would list medical centres that offered some other medical specialism (for a particular type of operation, say) so why for acupuncture? Alexbrn 08:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Alex. Good point. As you know, there are more than a few editors determined to depict acu as a wholly fringe phenomenon, and that influence is pervasive. Citing its use in mainstream settings is a counter to this UNDUE problem. Since we do have some sec sources now, it's less of a big deal -- except when somebody decides those sec sources are outdated or otherwise inadequate and tries to delete the material. Which is not unlikely given the article's history. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that article well. Since secondary sources exist can I take it the query here is now moot and whatever issues there are with using the secondary sources can be resolved on the Acupuncture Talk page? Alexbrn 08:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather not, for the reason I stated above ("except...."). --Middle 8 (contribs • COI)10:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If there's an issue with the weight accorded to those secondaries, and discussions on Acupuncture's Talk page are at an impasse, it may be worth raising the question of those sources' use as a separate query at WP:NPOV/N. Alexbrn 11:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a «reliable sources» problem. In Pizza, we do not say that many places sell pizza, with citations from individual pizzerias. In Ibuprofen, we do not say that many pharmacists sell ibuprofen, with citations from individual pharmacists. That would be strange. Why do we say it this way for acupuncture? Spumuq (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Good question, and thanks for commenting; the answer is that it's part of the section on reception, which includes sphere of usage. It's not nearly as common as pizza or ibuprofen, but isn't as fringe-y as some determined woo-fighers would like to depict it. Re which, see also my reply to Alex just above; we do have some sec sources. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that Spumuq has hit the nail on the head. Presenting anecdotes as if they were data is often problematic—what you want is a systematic study of the usage of acupuncture in a given country, not a cherry-picked list of the most-impressive-sounding institutions that may have an acupuncture clinic. However, that's a WP:WEIGHT issue rather than a WP:RS issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It is important to remember that acupuncture itself isn't Fringe. It is actually quite common (especially when you consider it's prevalence in the non-western world). What is fringe are most of the claims about the medical benefits of acupuncture... what acupuncture will do for the recipient.

As for listing hospitals that perform acupuncture... It is important to look into why they do so... it is quite possible that some of the hospitals do so because they think it has a beneficial placebo effect on the recipient. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Good points, and generally agree all around. Yes, claims of efficacy and sphere of use are different things, and as far as I can tell, acu is used in academic clinics mostly for nausea, pain and anxiety, all of which have a lot to do with its placebo effects, and may be all placebo -- but I'm not speaking for these clinics. To clarify: when I say "mainstream", I mean the scientific/academic mainstream. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing; thanks to all for input. Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Patrick Haseldine a reliable source for a statement linking the Lockerbie bombing to the Rössing uranium mine?

The edit is here:. Specifically it mentions Pan Am Flight 103 which doesn't say anything about this suggestion. The text, which takes up half the lead, is:

"On 6 January 2014, The Ecologist magazine reported that the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988 could be directly linked to the Rossing Uranium Mine's processed uranium ore (Yellowcake) that was illegally extracted from Namibia in the period 1976 to 1989. A TV documentary film in March 1980 described succinctly what was going on:

"World In Action investigates the secret contract and operations arranged by British-based Rio Tinto Zinc Corp to import into Britain uranium (Yellowcake) from the Rössing Uranium Mine in Namibia, whose major shareholders are the governments of Iran and South Africa. This contract having received the blessing of the British government is now compromising the UK's position in the United Nations negotiations to remove apartheid South Africa from Namibia, which it is illegally occupying."

Although it calls itself a magazine, The Ecologist is now a website and the article is here. The author is Patrick Haseldine whose article has a comment calling him a "Lockerbie-bombing conspiracy theorist" in relationship to the article being used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This also takes up most of the lead at Bernt Carlsson where it also mentions Haseldine's claim that Carlsson was the target. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit to the Rössing uranium mine article is a direct copy-paste, and thus a copyright violation, for a start. As for Haseldine's theory, unless it has been significantly commented on by credible third party reliable sources, it doesn't belong in the article - or anywhere else on Misplaced Pages for that matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

See also Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories. Editor Ecophriendly (talk · contribs · logs) appears to have inserted this theory in several places (and the editor name and contribs suggest a possible association with one another). --Tgeairn (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The World In Action synopsis for the documentary "Follow the Yellowcake Road", broadcast on 10 March 1980, clearly states:

"WIA investigates the secret contract and operation arranged by British-based Rio Tinto Zinc Corp to import into Britain uranium (yellow cake) from the Rossing mine in Namibia, one of whose major shareholders is the South African government. This contract having received the blessing of the British government is now compromising its position in the U.N negotiations to remove South Africa from Namibia, which it is illegally occupying."

In The Ecologist article, Haseldine makes a very credible link between both the illegal occupation and the illegal exploitation of Namibia's natural resources to the targeting of the highest profile victim of the Lockerbie bombing, Bernt Carlsson. Don't you agree?--Ecophriendly (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Our personal opinions concerning Haseldine's theory are of no relevance whatsoever. Unless and until it can be demonstrated through significant coverage in credible third-party published reliable sources that his theory has been given serious consideration, it doesn't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Walter O'Brien

Recently I came across the article for Walter O'Brien and was concerned with the quality of the sources that was listed in the controversy section. I removed them and provided an explanation on the article talk page. However, my edits were met with some opposition. I'm still concerned that the sources used do not meet our BLP policies and that some of the sources are questionable. I'd greatly appreciate any additional feedback on the sources. Mike V • Talk 23:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Davis (politician)

At issue is if these sources are sufficient to state that Davis graduated at the top of her class.

• Texas Tribune
• New Republic

--NeilN 16:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a wee bit of an oversimplification of the issue at hand. The cites given use her campaign website as the primary source for the claim "top of her class" for which I can find no reliable secondary sources. Since this is being used as a parenthetical bit of fluff, I suggest we would need sources which are secondary and not simply ones which refer to her official campaign biography which was shown to have a couple of problems in a minor controversy. Had it not been shown to have problems, I would not be as concerned, but it was and so it is.

The proper question is "If a campaign biography has been shown to have inaccuracies, can we assert in Misplaced Pages's voice that it is accurate for other matters?" again noting that the sources provided all appear to rely on the campaign biography, including copying of entire sentences therefrom. Collect (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you have given no proof that the listed sources have used her campaign website without error checking. --NeilN 18:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• The statement that Davis graduated at the top of her class at TCU is supported by Texas Tribune piece (initially published by the New York Times), the New Republic, and by TCU itself. This is more than ample sourcing to support such a relatively innocuous and uncontroverted statement. Frankly I don't understand why a trip to this noticeboard was necessary for such a clear-cut case. MastCell  04:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Especially as Davis' life story has been heavily scrutinized for inconsistencies and no source has been presented challenging that text. --NeilN 15:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Except one should note, for example, that CNN ascribed claims to her autobiography, the wording of the various sources seems to be identical in too many places to have been independently verified, and the use of any campaign website or press release is iffy as a source. Other than that, we all know she was number one in her class, and the most notable alumna of her uni ever. Cheers -- does anyone understand that fluff claims do not belong on BLPs? Collect (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I find the position that a university website is not reliable for where a student places in the class of that university beyond bizarre. Yobol (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I will be adding back the statement tomorrow as Collect has not provided a shred of evidence the claim was not verified and was challenged. --NeilN 03:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The "university website" contains quotes from her campaign website, and even has misspellings to boot. Amazingly enough the "university website" appears to print press releases. Cheers. As for the suggestion that "top of her class" has been shown to be true, that is a matter for consensus at this point, but the fact is that there are zero actual independent sources for the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: No editor here agrees with your "zero actual independent sources" assertion. --NeilN 00:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Show me a source which does not have exact quotes from her campaign biography. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Show me where any source disputes this reporting by the NY Times, "Their daughter, Dru, was born in 1988 and, after Ms. Davis graduated from Texas Christian University at the top of her class in 1990, she set her sights on Harvard Law School." --NeilN 02:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Center for Investigative Reporting

Is there anything that makes Center for Investigative Reporting an unreliable or biased source? I'm concerned about this . Thundermaker (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It is reliable for its own opinions, but I think given WP:BLP, and the subject being an active politician, this type of content, needs to be more neutrally worded and sourced to multiple (preferebaly un-biased sources. But that is not what this noticeboard is about. but no further than that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying they are no good for facts? Thundermaker (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What the Center says shouldn't be asserted as fact (unless it is also accepted without doubt in high-quality RS's). If a report of theirs has not found an outlet in a reliable publication then mentioning it would probably raise questions of weight and neutrality too. Alexbrn 09:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola page move

Since editors here are experienced in sourcing, if you've the time, please comment on the page move request here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

FearOfStuff.com and Phobosource.com reliable sources for phobias?

Looking at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine#Virginitiphobia article, and other phobia articles created by PlanetStar, a long list of phobia articles created by that editor, some are sourced solely to and/or - are these sources that we should be using? See for instance Nostophobia. It's easy to create articles if you find a rubbish list somewhere and use that as a source. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not even remotely close. Rubbish is about right on target. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking into the long list (XXX by my count) of 'phobia' articles created by PlanetStar myself, and the sourcing is appalling:

PhobiaSource states that "If you happen to come across a phobia that we have not listed please contact us and we will be sure to include it." Utterly indiscriminatory, and clearly not RS for any medical topic - or anything else really.

fearofstuff.com states that it "IS NOT a medical site", "IS NOT affiliated with any medical experts" and again "If we don’t have what you need, just send us a suggestion using the form below and we’ll add it to the website" Again, not RS.

Common Phobias (http://common-phobias.com/) is even worse - each entry consists of nothing but a raw definition, followed by the same boilerplate text.

PlanetStar has also cited (or plagiarised/copy-pasted - Siderodromophobia has already been deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation) About.com articles written by someone with "a B.A. in Psychology" - for an indication of the quality of this material see this page on 'astrophobia' - a supposed "fear of outer space".

Also used is the blacklisted website EzineArticles.com. Evidently PlanetStar didn't consider the fact that this website hosting user-generated articles had been blacklisted as sufficient grounds not to use it.

What we have in essence is a long list of articles (52 by my count, though there may be more), all citing websites with precisely zero medical credibility, clearly created as click-magnets and to promote 'cures' for so-called phobias unrecognised by medical science. I can see no good reason why the whole lot should not be deleted, along with much of the other poorly-sourced pseudo-psychology found at Category:Phobias. Neologisms created as word-games, or for the purpose of promoting 'cures', do not belong on any credible encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sukkot section removed

This edit http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/high-holy-days-2014/high-holy-day-news-and-features/.premium-1.619440 has been removed on the grounds that

The article fails WP:V since it is accessible only to subscribers. The source itself is an online newspaper, known to be leftist, hardly a WP:RS for the origins of religious traditions. The article makes non-mainstream claims, admitting that they are speculative. The writer is a popularizer at most, whose credentials are unclear. As can be seen on this list of his recent articles he makes large claims, giving the impression his articles are more about sensation than academic reliability. The first claim has now been withdrawn. I have argued that this is an RS. The newspaper is perfectly acceptable and the writer's other articles if they are indeed relevant, do not justify the term sensational.

Author Elon Gilad

Article SukkotTheredheifer (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Camp Trans

This is more of a general than specific problem. The Camp Trans article is almost entirely based on unreliable sources such as Internet forums, Google Groups posts, LiveJournal blog entries, transcripts of conversations on AOL Instant Messenger, and press releases and other files hosted on scribd (most if not all now deleted). That is, it's almost entirely original research based on unreliable sources. I've removed many of these and requested new sources. But more eyes are needed on this article by those familiar with our sourcing policies. It's possible that the article needs to be deleted, but I suspect adequate sources can be found to keep at least some of the material. Skyerise (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Are journalists/writers not reliable sources if they have written about paranormal subjects?

There's an odd case at the Summerwind article (scrutinized because it's in AfD).

There is a charge that three writers, Corey Schjoth of the Huffington Post, Bill Wundram of the Quad-City Times and Chad Lewis of Wisconsin Trails / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel are not reliable sources because they have "written about" paranormal legends such as UFO's, Vampires, Bigfoot, ghosts, etc.. Are these writers, or any other for that matter, not reliable sources solely based on fact of them having written about such topics in the past? --Oakshade (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

To get the best input from this noticeboard you should probably give more context, i.e. what specific text do you wish to cite to what work by what author? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's really a meta-discussion question, but this is an example: An editor has challenged the below statement because "Chad Lewis other works include articles about UFOs and Bigfoot."

In 1916 it was purchased by Robert Patterson Lamont, who employed Chicago architects Tallmadge and Watson to substantially remodel the property and convert it into a mansion.

1. Wundram, Bill (October 29, 1995). "Summerwind: More ghostly than ever". Quad-City Times. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
2. Schjoth, Corey (March 25, 2014). "Haunted Travel: Wisconsin's Most Notorious Haunted House". Huffington Post. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
3. Lewis, Chad (2014). "Travel - Wisconsin's 10 most haunted places". Wisconsin Trails / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

The editor has went on to add the word "allegedly" to the sentence. Are the publishers and authors of these sources unreliable because the authors of these sources have also written about topics such as Loch Ness Monster, Vampires, UFOs and Bigfoot?--Oakshade (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For anyone else reading this, I don't know where that diff came from, but most of those changes are not me. There are 6 intermediate changes there. However, I also have a problem with taking articles about ghost stories and UFOs and using pieces of them to cite items as facts as though we know what parts of the article are unverifiable retelling of a ghost story and what parts of those articles are verifiable facts. In the context of a ghost story or legend, those sources are reliable for retelling the legend, but may not be reliable for verifiable facts about history. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

iFanboy

Is this article at iFanboy reliable for the following 2 statements at The Punisher (1993 video game):

• "This version also contains some content censorship including the animation of cigar smoking by Fury being removed"
• as the fifth top Marvel arcade game by iFanboy's Josh Richardson

Thanks in advance. Freikorp (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution