Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 145

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 140←Archive 143Archive 144Archive 145Archive 146Archive 147→Archive 150

Great Commission church movement

Great Commission church movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following statements have been added to the article citing correspondence with Great Commission Churches as posted on the website of that organization. Please comment on their reliability:

  • "However, Ronald Enroth no longer has concerns about Great Commission Churches."
cites this webpage
  • "However William Watson, a cult expert, questioned the reliability of a newspaper report that classified GCI as a cult."
cites another page from gccweb.org

Thank you in advance for your comments. ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I say "no". In this instance, WP:COI, WP:SPS, and WP:PRIMARY are intertwined and present problems for the inclusion of this information with these sources. If a statement of opinion about GCC was published in a reliable source independent of GCC, I think that the retraction of that opinion should also be published in a reliable source independent of GCC. Location (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
That's about what I figured, and worth noting that William Watson's original statement in "A Concise Dictionary of Religion and Cults" had not been included as a reliable source regardless. I'll wait a while longer to see if anyone else has a different take on this. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wix.com

Is this source a reliable source?
It has been used to verify this content:

Was the only man standing, acts of gallantry and intrepidity, for actions in suppressing the enemy while under heavy fire, personally eliminated multiple enemy-controlled weapon positions, preventing the enemy from overrunning the American troops at Qal'at Dizha, Rayat, border Iraq

It appears to be a self published source, as wix.com title page says:

Create your free stunning website

A search for Ricardo Massa Special Forces does not appear to provide any reliable sources. Additionally I could not find any army sources for Ricardo Massa.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I find no article named Ricardo Massa. The source, as you say, is crap. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, the article in question is Distinguished Service Cross (United States), where the content had existed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Among other things I find troubling is that the wix page as a source by the editor who posted the change (multiple timers) had been tailored to appear, to a casual observer, to be the home page of the U.S. Army. Of course, we can't tell who created the page. In passing, the page seems to have disappeared from wix.com.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No it is not rs. However the top of the page says "www.army.mil", which means that it may be a mirror site, in which case the problem could be resolved by using the original page. TFD (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
No original website was found, and if it had existed, it would have came up on the linked searches.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
the www.mil on that page is a little deceptive, presumably meant to suggest it's official; I imagine the publisher of the site would defend it as an informative link on his unofficial page to a true official site, although of course there is no real connection. it's like the way miscellaneous advertisements pretend to be government notices without actually telling a straight-out lie. I've seen this on other WP pages--I recall removing one a few days ago; I will try to find it. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

I am asking for people familiar with reliable sources to pls take a look at Talk:Jack the Ripper#Proposal to add new information.Moxy (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Amazing Journey: The Life of Pete Townshend by Mark Wilkerson

I've come across Amazing Journey: The Life of Pete Townshend while editing Keith Moon, with the intention of getting the article up to good article status. While I have two good book sources already, Before I Get Old by Dave Marsh and Dear Boy by Tony Fletcher, I felt a third main source to use would be worthwhile, and it's been already used in the article by other editors, such as the large blockquote about blowing up toilets with cherry bombs here. The trouble I have is that its publisher is lulu.com, a well known "vanity press" publisher, the author doesn't appear to be notable (Mark Wilkerson doesn't appear to be about him), and I can't find any reviews in reliable sources. So therefore I think it's a self published source. Looking through the book itself, it seems to be a large collection of "In year x abc said this, then in year y pqr said that..." and a little disjointed, which is what I'd expect from a non-commercially published source. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I would classify the book as self-published, as does the Rocky Mountain News in their book review of 18 February 2006: "Bios tune in to songwriters". The book has not been reviewed in larger metropolitan periodicals, though it has received praise in blogs and fansites. Mark Ian Wilkerson is not yet a notable writer. I should think that the text based on his book ought to be removed from the biography, unless it can be better sourced. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Considering you could write a book and get it published on Lulu, I think it is clear that it is not an RS. Arzel (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
In some rare cases, a self-published book wins wide acceptance, but not this one. The Townsend book is in a total of 10 WorldCat libraries, entirely insignificant. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

SimCity (2013 video game)

At SimCity (2013 video game), people are reverting facts provided by 4 reliable sources (sources that are used earlier in the artcile, all being from review sites and news sites). The reason is that the fact is about the user review score at amazon. Apparently, having 4 reliable sources providing the stated fact do not have a impact on two other editors in a slight edit war over this half of a sentence: "... and several critics reported that the product on Amazon.com had an average rating of 1 out of 5 stars.". I could dig and find a couple of more sources with the same fact stated in them, but I doubt it would do any good at this point. Help? Belorn (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I just did a quick GNews check to confirm that reliable sources are reporting that Amazon user review scores are low in response to the poor performance the game had at launch (abc news, Eurogamer, other gaming RS sites) Thus, there's no question that the fact can be mentioned. One just needs to avoid undue attention - the treatment in those sources I found is literally one line as part of the lashback to EA on this, so super excessive detail is not needed. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Louis XVII of France article with website source(s)

I found this source [1] and this source[2] in the Louis XVII of France article. Does anyone know anything about these sites? Can they be considered a reliable sources? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The second is part of the website of the Mémorial de France à Saint-Denys (home page here, in French). The organisation is a respectable association connected with the Cathedral Basilica of Saint Denis where most French kings are buried. This page explains how they acquired the said documents in 2007 and have made them available online. Emeraude (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Slow edit war over sources at CAIR

At Council on American-Islamic Relations, there's a slow edit war (eg. [3]) going on over whether Daniel Pipes and FrontPage Magazine are reliable sources. No talk page discussion as yet, but I'm guessing, based on the users and the topic area, that it wouldn't really get anywhere, and so am pre-emptively bringing it here. Pipes and FrontPage, RSN denizens? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hosni Mubarak

In the article, a theory claiming that Mubarak was involved in the assassination of Sadat is used in a section of his article. The section was sourced to a book on Amazon called "The Search for the Lost Army: The National Geographic and Harvard University Expedition" which is on http://www.amazon.com/The-Lost-Army-ebook/dp/B0092PABYO/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_kin?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346782296&sr=1-1&keywords=the lost army + chafetz. The book does not seem completely factual based on some reviews which say it is "based on a true story" and could've been partially exaggerated to make it more a thriller. I think that the section should be rewritten so it is more neutral to Mubarak. --Thebirdlover (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The "source" states, prominently, that it is a work of fiction. There aren't many absolute, black-and-white, bright line, no exceptions, no excuses, no explanations allowed rules about sources. But "a novel is never a reliable source" is probably one of them. Fladrif (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Necroshine

Source: [4]

Article: Necroshine

Content:

Overkill "Necroshine" 20,585

Also a link claiming they got it from Soundscan [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caughtinmosh88 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 January 2013

No, it is a fansite/group-blog and not a reliable source. Also, if they are republishing Neilsen's Soundscan ratings, which is a subscriber-only service, they are violating Neilsen's copyright and terms of service. I see that they claim to be the only website publishing Neilsen's Soundscan numbers, which would lead me to believe that they don't have written authority to do so. They definitely don't claim to have any authority to do so. Unauthorized republication of record charts by websites has been discussed on this board many times. Fladrif (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Was that really notable outside the fandom?

An opinion piece from a college newspaper describing a relationship between MLP: FIM fandom and 4Chan was recently removed from relevant articles. So I think it's time to think about the Autostraddle essay again. I believe that the essay is full of personal opinion which is against the reliable sources policy here so should be removed. I also think the related controversy was not huge enough to shake the entire USA; it's hard to find any relevant reliable news reports beside that one. I also remember the user who cited that source even tried to cite TV Tropes wiki entry, also against the policy. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 08:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The previous one was archived without any answer, so I want to start a new one. Seriously, I think the source, being full of biased opinion, doesn't fit Wikipedia's RS policy. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 15:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a group blog, for all intents and purposes. Is the author "Britni" (no surname given) regarded as an expert, by which I mean, is she widely cited by reliable, secondary sources in the relevant field? Has she been previously published by independent, third party sources with reputations for reliability within the scope of that field? I'm going to take a wild guess that the answer is "No", in which case it is not a reliable source. Fladrif (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I just removed it and replaced it with a link/citation to Fred Seibert's Frederator blog which is more notable, reliable, and more direct than the Autostraddle link.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Quote from Mishpacha Magazine regarding Rabbi Elazar Shach

1. Source: Point of View: May I Bother You With Some Facts? by Rabbi Moshe Grylak. Mishpacha Magazine Issue 310 May 26, 2010

2. Article: Elazar Shach

3. Content:

Shach said on many occasions that the Jewish people consists of both Torah scholars and balabatim (lay people) who support Torah learning. “Everyone is required to serve Hashem,” he said, “but not everyone can do so by means of learning all day.”

.

A while ago I added this quote to the page, and as I explained on the talk page there 1 2, I think this is an accurate and pertinent quote to be included in the article.

Anybody disagree? Yonoson3 (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to the actual article, but from the title of it, it sounds like it is probably an editorial or opinion piece. Looking at the magazine's website, it appears that the author is the mag's regular opinion writer. As such, I would think that the most it could be used for is the opinion of the author, with attribution to the author, and not for statements about what another person said. So, I don't agree that the source can be used in the manner proposed. Fladrif (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's the quote from the magazine in it's entirety:
"...we have constantly heard from gedolei yisroel since the time of the Chazon Ish, who insisted that that universal torah learning was obligatory for several generation in order to rebuild the Torah world that was destroyed in the Holocaust. The reconstruction has succeeded beyond all expectations and legions of torah scholars have filled the Earth. Our Gedolim knew however, that full time learning is not for everyone. Even Maran Harav Shach ztz"l the great disseminator and defender of Torah in our times, said on many occasions that Klal Yisrael consists of Torah scholars and balabatim who support Torah learning. "Everyone is required to serve Hashem," he said, "but not everyone can do so by means of learning all day."
If I had it worded in the following way, would that make it acceptable?:
According the Rabbi Moshe Grylak, student of Shach at Ponevezh Yeshiva and former editor of Yated Ne'eman (Israel), Shach said on many occasions that the Jewish people consists of both Torah scholars and balabatim (lay people) who support Torah learning. “Everyone is required to serve Hashem,” he said, “but not everyone can do so by means of learning all day.” Yonoson3 (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it is clearly an opinion piece. The most it could be used for is something like, "Grylak opines that full time Torah learning is not for everyone." The relevant policy is WP:NEWSORG Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. This cannot be used as a source for what Shach said. Fladrif (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to look for an actual quotation for what he said on the subject? He surely wrote enough that if he did say it, it can be found. Even if someone is reported what he said, it would need to be on some specific dat & place, not as another person's paraphrase of his general views. I note that the page is written as if no religious Jews eve opposed anything he ever said except in one of the paragraphs on Israeli politics; it discusses how he criticized other people, but not how they responded--thus leaving the impression that he converted all his opponents. . I also note a use of unnecessary and unsourced adjectives of praise about both him and his followers, for example: " a revered spiritual mentor of more than 100,000 rigorously Orthodox Jews". How rigorous every last one of his followers were can not be assumed; but that he is revered is plain from the general article. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually a subscriber of Mishpacha magazine and the difference between their articles and editorial pieces is that the editorials always glorify Shach and his extreme ideology without any sources that can be checked independently. They also usually clash with Shachs published and verifiable written and taped positions.

Chronological History of U.S. Foreign Relations by Lester H. Brune and Richard Dean Burns (Nov 22, 2002)

1)Source http://www.amazon.com/s?search-alias=stripbooks&field-isbn=0415939143

2)Article from the book Google books link

3)Text: The cease fire soon violated because Egypt's Third Army Corps tried to break free of the Israeli Army's encirclement. The Egyptian action and the arrival of more Soviet equipment to Cairo permitted Israel to tighten its grip on the Egyptians Kiwi228 (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please explain what the issue is here? (eg, what article is this book being used to reference, and what are your concerns over this?). The book is published by Routledge, which is a major scholarly publisher, and so seems likely to be a reliable source, but its sustainability will depend on whatever its being used as a reference for. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Other Sources like The Office of the Historian http://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/ArabIsraeliWar73 say competely opposite -Israel's refusal to stop fighting after a United Nations cease-fire was in place on October 22 nearly involved the Soviet Union in the military confrontation. So I'm want to write it like that - one sourse say Egypt broken case-fire, another sourse say Israil broken case-fire...but not to sure about this link to Chronological History of U.S. Foreign Relations by Lester H. Brune and Richard Dean Burns (Nov 22, 2002) --Kiwi228 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the editor simply cut and pasted 40K bytes of text from the source into United Nations Security Council Resolution 338. A clear copyright violation. Agree that it is a reliable source, but not to be used in that manner. Fladrif (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)I'm agree. Sorry I'm put this copy. I new at this and honestly didn't know --Kiwi228 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Source: Colombo, Rose, Fight Back Legal Abuse: How to Protect Yourself From Your Own Attorney, Morgan James Publishing (2010) ISBN 978-1-60037-709-9

Articles: Abuse; Legal abuse

The article Legal abuse had three references. I contend that all of them are self-published sources. The creator of the article concedes that two of the three are self-published sources, but contends that one of them is not, on the basis that Morgan James Publishing, a "pay to play" publisher, says on its website that it only accepts ~130 of the ~4000 manuscripts it receives each year [6]. In fact, Morgan James is a vanity press, operating on a pay-to-play basis. Originally, it required authors to pay up-front for book design, then it required authors to sign up for a Entrepenurial Author University" for $5K, now it requires that authors buy 2500 copies at "cost plus $2.[7] [8] [9] It is clearly and widely regarded as a vanity publisher, and it no wonder that when authors find out after they make their submission that they have to front $10,000 or more that only 3.25% of the authors go forward. Thus, it is simply a self-published source.

Moreover, the book is being used as the peg on which to hang an entire article which tries to pull together, under the label "legal abuse" a myriad of unrelated topics. The book itself is a series of anecdotes and tirades by the author prompted by her experiences in her divorce case. She is not an attorney, has no formal academic training, and has no recognition as an expert, other than on her own a local right-wing radio show and blog [10][11]. I'd note that the "Irving Award" that she touts has having been won by the book is not a book award, it is a marketing award by the Book Publicists of Southern California, for "Best Motivational Campaign" [12] I see no indication that this book or this author, even if she found a real publisher, is a reliable source for a Wikipedia article on the neologism "legal abuse" (not to be confused with the well-defined Abuse of process

Thoughts? Fladrif (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Morgan James specifically say on their website: "No Publishing Fee charged hidden or otherwise" http://publishing.morgan-james.com/compare/. Morgan James also say: "Morgan James receives approximately 4,000 manuscript proposals each year, but only publishes an average of 130" http://publishing.morgan-james.com/get-published/. --Penbat (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. Contrary to Morgan James' claims on its "comparison" table, a trade publisher does not require an author to buy copies of a book. A trade publisher gives the author a number of copies of the book for free, and typically will give an option for the author to buy additional copies for his or her use at a substantial discount. Those copies are not counted in the calculation of the royalties. Morgan James, notwithstanding the denials, has a very definite hidden publishing fee - the requirement that the author buy 2500 copies at cost plus $2. The hidden publishing fee is then, at minimum $5,000 - and more likely twice that. Also, no answer to the point that the author has no qualifications, credentials or recognition to be regarded as a reliable source regardless of who the publisher may be. Fladrif (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed: I've never heard of a non-vanity publisher requiring that authors buy any copies of their own books, much less a huge number of copies at a marked-up price as this firm requires (it's not uncommon for authors to complain that their publisher didn't provide them with enough copies of their book). Note that this model obviously implies that it's the responsibility of the author to sell their own books, which isn't how professional publishers operate. The standard professional model is that the publisher takes on all the risk associated with bringing completed manuscripts to market (and something like 90% of books lose money), but in this case the publisher seems to be aiming to make a guaranteed profit from selling the books to the author. For the concept of 'legal abuse' to be notable, it would need to have been the subject of academic articles, in-depth press coverage and/or be a term widely used within the legal profession. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I think there's an acid-test here, which is that if you at any point have all the existing copies of your book stored in your garage, then you are a self-published author. Formerip (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Fladrif asked me to comment. Based on the book purchase requirement admitted here it's perfectly clear to me that Morgan James is a vanity publisher pretending not to be in order to be more attractive to their authors. So definitely not a reliable source.

The topic covered in legal abuse is of course in principle a legitimate one. I don't know if this umbrella term for abuse of process and various other forms of abuse of the legal system is established or a neologism. It certainly appears useful. But for an article we would need in-depth reliable sources on the topic. The outcome of a quick search on Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar suggests to me that "legal abuse" is not an established term but is in fact a neologism that so far appears almost exclusively in self-published books and forum posts. Hans Adler 22:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

One: "Legal abuse" certainly exists. Two: Morgan-James appears to be a vanity publisher. Three: A lot of real authors do end up with copies of their books in their own garage. Four: The concept of "traditional publisher" is changing due to (for example) publishing through Amazon, etc. Result: Books published by M-J do not currently pass the WP:RS-test, but well may in the future depending on how we vet authors using such publishers. Questia finds a number of fairly consistent uses of the phrase. I think they should be examined for such an article. Collect (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Very low quality article, and an unreliable self-published book. The topic is real, but the article is a miscellaneous conglomeration, combining various sorts of abuses, and dealing with the US terminology only , but not saying so, Either a substantial summary article should be written based upon real sources, or this shouldbe turnedinto some sort of a disambiguation page, or deleting as duplicationof existing topics DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I see no way Wikipedia could ever include sourced published by vanity publishers (or even publishers with little editorial review), unless the author is a recognized expert with reliable (due to the publisher's reliability) publications. Otherwise, we editors would be forced to determine whether the source was reliable without independent evidence, which would be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the primary issue here is notability. If this topic met that criterion, then there would be other sources available, and this particular source wouldn't be needed. I, too, question this source. But we have to be cautious about making self-publishing vs traditional publishing a black-and-white issue: 1) with print on demand, etc., there are now many different models for publishing that don't neatly fit this bifurcation, and 2) it's not clear that being published by a regular press confers the requisite imprimatur. For example, I'm aware of a book from NYU Press that is filled with errors and that obviously had no fact checking. TimidGuy (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Jill Valentine

I was thinking about reviewing the GAN Jill Valentine before I noticed that some of the article's sources have uncertain reliability. Are any of these reliable? [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

None of these look like reliable sources. Some are wiki's. Others aren't wiki's but are user-created fansites or forums. There are several anonymous articles on those. The facebook and youtube cites, as noted above, can't be used. Those are the easy ones. I'm a little more on the fence on the interview, but I've got serious doubts. It would depend on what kind of reputation that site and it's editors/writers have for reliability and editorial oversight, and whether they've been published anywhere else. Have a feeling the answer is going to be "no" on all counts, but this particular subject-matter is outside of my ken. Fladrif (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, please see this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Personal attacks hatted until refactored by editor. Fladrif (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

HELLO THERE, would you PLEASE stop telling untruths again? There's nothing in Wikipedia:Copyrights about either Facebook nor YouTube, and in Wikipedia:Verifiability it's only "This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright" and "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as [5 points] This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.| --Niemti (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Also, please see this. --Niemti (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased Editing of Kevyn Orr biography?

Kevyn Orr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a copy of the notice I put up on the NPOV Noticeboard. Please weigh in with your opinions.

I have called attention to this article but have not yet received a response. I inserted a quote from the World Socialist Web Site in which they referred to Mr. Orr as a "ruthless defender of corporate interest and a bitter enemy of working people." As there are many positive opinions quoted in reference to Mr. Orr I believe this quote helps balance the article. User Terrance7 has repeatedly edited out this content for different reasons each time. First it was "ranting language, unencyclopedic" the next time it was "libelous" and more recently "an unreliable source." I feel that his editing is biased. Your opinions? This article is getting a lot of hits due to the situation in Detroit being of international interest and I would like to see the dispute resolved quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kevyn_Orr Truman Starr (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Truman Starr (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As I posted in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, it appears the quote and citation in question are as follows:
The World Socialist Web Site has called Orr a "ruthless defender of corporate interests and a bitter enemy of working people."[23]
In my opinion, World Socialist Web Site is completely biased but is notable enough for a statement of opinion to be listed with in-text attribution as is noted above. Per WP:WEIGHT, this balances the opinion of Chambers and Partners that appears in the article and is derived from trivial mention in another source.[24] Location (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You need to establish that their opinion in this case is significant. You need a secondary source for that. TFD (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ezekiel 16:48-50 on Sodom

An unproductive discussion has long continued about whether there are reliable sources for the existence of more than one view on Ezekiel 16:50. The view contested is that this passage of Ezekiel includes among the wrongdoings for which Sodom was destroyed its townsmen's sexual behaviour (see this edit). The most discussed source cited in support of the existence of this view is a book by Robert A. Gagnon, which states:

  1. "the evidence indicates that the singular tô‛ebâ in Ezek 16:50 refers to the (attempted) commission of atrocious sexual immorality at Sodom, probably the homosexual intercourse proscribed in Lev 18:22; 20:13" (source).
  2. "Ezekiel thought that the inhabitants of the city became 'prideful' and 'haughty' as a result of the city's prosperity, and in their prosperity they both neglected the poor and committed a particularly abominable act of sexual immorality. The two evils are linked by a flagrant disregard of God's own priorities, putting the human self at the center of the cosmos. In Ezekiel's view the overarching rubric for the sin of Sodom is not inhospitality or homosexual behavior but human arrogance in relation to God. The focus is theocentric" (source explicitly saying that there was more than one element in the sin of Sodom).
  3. More generically, in relation to references to what various writers (not Ezekiel alone) say about different elements of the sinfulness of Sodom, Gagnon says that "some of the other applications of the Sodom story (arrogance, inhospitality, social injustice) were not necessarily made to an exclusion of homosexual intercourse" (source).

Other sources that have been cited for the existence of the view that Ezekiel included sexual misbehaviour among the elements in Sodom's wrongdoing are:

  1. Richard M. Davidson echoes Gagnon here, and sees "the attempted homosexual activity of the men of Sodom recorded in Gen 19" as alluded to in Ezekiel 16:48-50 (source).
  2. Dennis P. Hollinger reports: "Sodom in other biblical texts is certainly judged for a number of sins and injustices, but it is very difficult to maintain that sexual and homosexual sin is not among them. In the above Ezekiel text the word that is translated 'detestable things' or 'abominations' is not grammatically linked to failure to attending to the poor and needy. Moreover, 'Since the Hebrew word for "abomination" (toeba) is the same word used in the Levitical prohibitions for homosexual intercourse, it is conceivable that Ezekiel is alluding to the same'" (source).
  3. Norman L. Geisler states: "The sin of Sodom was not merely selfishness, but also homosexuality. This is made plain by several facts. First, as just noted, the context of Genesis 19 reveals that their perversion was sexual. Furthermore, the selfishness mentioned in Ezekiel 16:49 does not exclude homosexuality. Actually, sexual sins are a form of selfishness, a satisfaction of fleshly desires. The very next verses of Ezekiel (vv 50-51 RSV) indicate that their sins were sexual by calling them 'abominations.' This is the same word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22" (source).
  4. James B. DeYoung says: "If someone should protest that Ezekiel 16 does not specifically use the term homosexuality, the reply is that the concept is clearly present" (source).

One editor is insistently deleting from Wikipedia recognition of the existence of the view that Ezekiel 16:50 includes sexual sin among the wrongdoings of Sodom, a view that these sources surely show to be notable. Esoglou (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this a source reliability question, or a question of how to find a balanced wording?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
It has been a question of outright exclusion of any wording whatever of the view that sexual behaviour was a component. The editor simply deleted all proposed wordings: this, deleted with edit summary "and rv poor edits, per talk"; and this, deleted with edit summary "No. The trick is to try to incorporate Gagnon without completely contradicting the much, much better source of Crompton"; and this, deleted with edit summary "no, you don't have consensus for this inflation of a worse source". The edit summaries seem to be claims that the cited sources are worthless in comparison to an expression of the view that sexuality had nothing to do with it. Esoglou (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
As Andrew says, this strikes me as a discussion on undue bias being given to one viewpoint not an actual discussion on the reliability of sources. To actually answer your question these sources are only reliable for the fact that their authors believe or made the claims given; they are not reliable for the fact that God (presuming his existence) acted for the reasons these authors say he did (which seems to be the question you are asking). I'm surprised given that this really is an undue bias issue that there is no mention of the oft cited counterargument that lust for angels not lust for men (who happened to be angels) is mentioned at all.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I am by no means asking about what God actually did. The sources cited are not about what God did: they are only statements of a view about what Ezekiel said. Did Ezekiel attribute the destruction of Sodom to reasons that included the sexual behaviour of the men of Sodom? These sources say he did. The undue bias is that by which another editor wants Wikipedia to register no view other than that Ezekiel attributed the destruction to other factors alone. But these are reliable sources for the existence of a view other than that championed by that editor. Or are they not? Perhaps you have already answered by saying: "These sources are only reliable for the fact that their authors believe or made the claims given" - the claims given not being about what God did, but about what Ezekiel said.
In case I am again misunderstood, perhaps I should also state that I am not arguing about which view is correct. Perhaps the view that excludes all thought of sexuality from what was in Ezekiel's mind is true. But the view that Ezekiel did have sexuality in mind (along with other factors), even if it should happen not to be true, is a well-sourced view and for that reason should not be excluded from Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Have you tried proposing using an "attribution" style of statement ("according to...")?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Not only have I proposed it: I have done it. See here ("except perhaps in the case of Ezekiel, whom some see as including sexual misconduct among the transgressions") and here ("resulting according to one interpretation of Ezekiel 16:50 in both lack of charity and abominable sexual behavior"). In both cases my edit was deleted out of hand, without any step towards proposing an agreed wording. Esoglou (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I also tried using an "attribution" style for the opinion that the other editor wishes to present as the only one in existence. With regard to the word "abomination" used by Ezekiel, I wrote, citing Gagnon and DeYoung as sources in addition to the one source cited as proof that Ezekiel in no way took sexual misconduct into consideration: "Some interpret the abomination in this context as in other parts of the Bible to refer to various forms of idolatry and other undesirable actions, while others interpret the word, when used in the singular in this context and in Leviticus 18 and 20, as referring specifically to homosexual acts." The other editor reverted this edit too, declared invalid the sources I cited, denied the existence of any view other than the view she prefers, and in addition accused me of bad faith: "Maybe it's just me but it seems normal to ask for proof of other views before inserting 'in one view' in an attempt to weaken scholarly sources. Rv misunderstanding of 'abomination' and probably deliberate misquoting of sources." So the dispute is about the reliability of the sources cited for the existence of a view that Ezekiel did include sexuality among the reasons for the storied destruction of Sodom. That is the question I have asked here. Are they reliable sources for the existence of that view? Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Two sources are cited in support of the statement now in the article: "The sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity." The two are Crompton and Gagnon. I am now asking about the reliability of these two sources for the statement that the other editor insists on having in the article. Is the cited passage of Crompton (pp. 37-39) a reliable source for the statement "The sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity", rather than for a statement such as "According to some writers, the sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity"? Is the cited passage of Gagnon a reliable source for the statement "The sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity", rather than for a statement such as "According to some writers, the sin of Sodom was not interpreted by Jewish prophets as sexual but rather as pride or lack of charity"? Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's an opinion. They are reliable sources but they both happen to approach the issue of what Ezekiel meant from the angle of the academic study of homosexuality. Hence, since the controversy is on this very point (was he talking about homosexual acts or not?), they are not neutral enough to serve us on their own. It would be better to have additional viewpoints. If these are to be cited, and no other sources approaching the question from any other viewpoint are to be cited, then they suffice for us to say, e.g. "[some] historians of homosexuality say that Ezekiel intended ...": they do not suffice for us to say "Ezekiel intended". Andrew Dalby 10:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Andrew. The sources that the other editor cites are not reliable for the statement she has put in Wikipedia: that Ezekiel interpreted the sin of Sodom as not sexual. They would be reliable for a statement that that view exists. The same holds for the sources I cited above. As I have already declared, I do not cite them as proof of what Ezekiel intended, but only as proof that there is a view that Ezekiel did interpret the sin of Sodom as involving, among other factors, a sexual element. They are reliable sources for a Wikipedia statement that this view of what Ezekiel said exists. So it is wrong to make Wikipedia present the other view as the only one existing, and doubly wrong to present it not just as an existing view but as an objective fact. Esoglou (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The editor who has hitherto insisted on deleting any reference whatever to the existence of the view supported by the sources mentioned above now wants those sources to be referred to as "religious opponents of LGBT rights". That characterization is, at an extreme best, a synthesis. To avoid having to undertake a discussion on the article's talk page as long and unfruitful as this one was, I make bold to request comments here. Esoglou (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps my suggestion "some historians of homosexuality" gave the impression that it's open hunting season for characterising scholarly schools. I was merely extrapolating from the book titles, but it's much better just to say "some": that's not weaselly if the names are in the text or footnote. Better for us not to divide up scholars offhand. Mea culpa! Andrew Dalby 09:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
A further question:
  1. Is J A Loader, A Tale of Two Cites: Sodom and Gomorrha (Peeter 1990 ISBN 978-9-02425333-3), pp. 111-112 a reliable source for the statement, "scholars both ancient (Rabbi Jehudah, who died in 299) and modern (Hermann Leberecht Strack in Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash T&T Clark 1991) analyse the sinfulness of Sodom into four types, of which the first is sexual immorality"? This statement was reverted in a form that did not explicitly state who are the two scholars in question, and I was accused of "willfully misrepresenting the content of the source" (here). I have now restored the statement in the more explicit form (here).
  2. In relation to the claim that Jesus interpreted the sin of Sodom as only lack of hospitality, are the cited sources reliable for the statement that this is "a view that others describe as merely an argument from silence (cited source 1, p. 218), especially since inhospitality and homosexual activity were probably not mutually exclusive categories for Jesus, and the two best known 1st-century Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus understood Genesis 19:4-11 to refer explicitly to homosexual behavior (cited source 2)"? This statement has been reverted without explanation, apparently in pursuit of a policy of exclusion from the article of any view other than that favoured by the editor who reverted it. Esoglou (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Roscelese has threatened to have sanctions imposed on me if I do not accept her interpretation of the sources. That makes it all the more important to have the question examined by the experts here. She has reverted the article to a form that presents as fact her view that the Talmud and the Gospels exclude any sexual element from the sin of Sodom. She has made the claim, not based on any evidence that I can identify, that the sources cited by Loader "identified the sin of Sodom as socioeconomic" (in reality, Loader expressly speaks of Rabbi Jehuda's "four 'sins of Sodom'", one of which was sexual immorality).
I have responded by saying to her: "I think it is you who have misinterpreted Loader. He does say that the socio-economic aspect is 'prominent', that an overbearing attitude is obvious from the actions of the Sodomites; but he says that the evidence suggests that Rabbi Jehudah's 'four sins of Sodom' (not just a single sin) existed as a group a century earlier. I suppose it is possible that Loader merely cites Strack in support of his statement about Rabbi Jehuda's fourfold division of the sins of Sodom. Loader mentions other sources also that speak of the sexual immorality of the Sodomites as an element of their wickedness: the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ('they offended in their bodies'), the Targum Onqelos, and the Targum Neofiti ('revealing their nakedness').
"You have made no attempt whatever to justify your reverting of the evidence that shows that there is another view as well as that which holds that Jesus identified the sin of Sodom exclusively as lack of charity." Esoglou (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Globalizing Cricket

There has been some discussion as to whether this is a reliable source: Dominic Malcolm, Globalizing Cricket: Englishness, Empire and Identity (London: Bloomsbury, 2012).

Personally, I see no reason whatsoever why this is not a reliable source. It certainly qualifies under WP:SCHOLARSHIP: as a book published by a reputable academic press, it will have been peer-reviewed and so vetted by the scholarly community. Its author is Senior Lecturer (equivalent to Associate or even Full Professor in North America) in the Sociology of Sport at Loughborough University.

Your thoughts are welcomed on this matter. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Assuming the statements provided by Murray are factual, the source is as reliable as any. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Malcolm's book meets the requirements of a "reliable source," and I'd also like to suggest a review of two other works in dispute for this same discussion. The question about Malcolm's book arises from his referencing of other works, specifically: Cricket: A History of its Growth and Development by Rowland Bowen. The discussion is happening over here: Talk:History of cricket to 1725.--Oline73 (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In principle, I am opposed to the use of this book because it promotes theories that are unsound and has been found to contain false and misleading information. However, it does have a reputable publisher and so I daresay it will meet WP criteria. However, it must be used with caution especially as it fails to comply with the consensus view of early cricket history achieved by numerous established sources written by recognised authorities. I would also add that, in another discussion about the book, User:CDTPP (who is a subject expert) has confirmed that he has read and reviewed it and pronounced it "risible". Whenever I see the book cited, I will check other sources that I know to be superior and overwrite as necessary. I am currently doing this at History of cricket (1726–1740) where I have already removed or replaced two complete falsehoods taken from this book; having said that, a section has been added to the article which is useful and only needs copyedit and the source can stand re that section. So, okay, no need to proceed with this discussion except that the book must be used with caution and its supporters must accept that references may be removed or replaced if and when incorrect or dubious content is discovered. ----Jack | talk page 06:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The actual text of Malcolm is -

In the 1755 laws, provision was made to allow an injured batter to retire and to resume his/her innings at a later time (a further indication that such injuries were relatively common), but not to be replaced or substituted. Presumably due to the suspicion that such a regulation would be flouted (and the ramifications this would have for bets placed on matches), an additional law decreed that the umpires were to be judges ‘of all frivolous Delays; of all Hurt, whether real or pretended’ (Rait Kerr 1950: 97–98). Globalizing Cricket: Englishness, Empire and Identity, Dominic Malcolm

So the volume does not make the claim that this appeared in the 1927 agreement. Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC).
I will attempt to check my copy of Rait Kerr within a few days. Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC).

Self-published book being used for Arthur Lawley, 6th Baron Wenlock

An editor and an IP have been adding references and material from a self-published book by David J. Hogg (talk · contribs), who says on my talkpage "I have written the only biography of Sir Arthur Lawley in conjunction with the Empire and Commonwealth Museum in Bristol, U.K. and the National Trust at Tyntesfield. I was helped extensively by Eustace Lord Wraxall, Sir Arthur Lawley's grandson. The book was presented to the Governor of Tamil Nadu in 2010, and is in all the major libraries in the United Kingdom. I have given a lecture on Sir Arthur Lawley at the Royal Geographical Society in London, U.K. I am a Fellow of teh Royal Geographical society. All my basic references are in the iBook if you need to check these." Our article on the RGS does say fellowship is an honor, but also there are over 10,000 fellow. Worldcat shows it in 8 UK libraries,[25] none in the US. I removed them from Lawley's article but was reverted by an IP which has been also adding them to other articles. I'll go and notify the editor/author now. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that Hogg has written three self-published books. I see no indication that he has ever been published by a reputable third-party publisher in any medium, I can find no mention of any of his works in Google Scholar, no indication that he is recognized as an expert in the field. Definitely not a reliable source, and the effort to salt Wikipedia articles with it by the author sounds like WP:SPAM Fladrif (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

copying from my talk page again:

All my citations in the article on Sir Arthur Lawley, 6th Baron Wenlock have been removed by two Wikipedia editors.

I have written the only biography of Sir Arthur Lawley in existence — "Sir Arthur Lawley, Eloquent Knight Errant". I worked in conjunction with the Empire and Commonwealth Museum in Bristol, UK and the National Trust at Tyntesfield in England. I was helped extensively by Eustace Lord Wraxall, Sir Arthur Lawley's grandson. Robert Bell of Langcliffe, Sir Arthur Lawley's great grandson, was also very helpful. All the family portraits, photo albums, books diaries and letters were open to me. The Foreword to the book was written by Lord Wraxall and the Introduction by the Governor of Western Australia. The book was presented to the Governor of Tamil Nadu, and is in all the major libraries in the United Kingdom. Much of the work was done at the Bodleian Library in Oxford, Rhodes Mandela House in Oxford, the British Library and the National Archives in Kew, London. I also researched at Harvard, in New York, in Pretoria, South Africa, and in Zimbabwe. I have given a lecture on Sir Arthur Lawley at the Royal Geographical Society in London, U.K. All my basic references are in the iBook if you need to check these. It is quite absurd to reject the leading expert on Sir Arthur Lawley in Wikipedia.

This book was self published in the United Kingdom with the support of the Empire and Commonwealth Museum and Tyntesfield and published by Lady Lawley Cottage and the Red Cross in Western Australia. 600 copies have been sold and it is now an iBook. All my references are in the printed books and in the iBook I enclose the Foreword by Lord Wraxall and the Introduction by the Governor of Western Australia.

I am new to Wikipedia and cannot find my way round your system. Could you please contact the two editors and re-instate my references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.245.173 (talk) 4:13 pm, Today (UTC 0)

Blogs as sources on 2012 Formula One season

I am reviewing this article's Good Article nomination, and at first glance seems to be in good shape (albeit HUGE), but there are many references to blogs, including Wordpress blogs. The issue is that while such blogs are "largely not acceptable" per WP:SPS, the bloggers seem to be well regarded individuals in their field. The nominating editor makes a case for them at the GA review page, but as I have no expertise with the F1 community, I cannot properly decide if these are acceptable despite the guidelines, or if they are to be considered invalid, and thus result in a fail of the nomination. F1 Fanatic (Keith Collantine) is the most important one as it is used quite heavily, but jamesallenonf1 (James Allen, with a professionally built website), joesaward.wordpress.com (Joe Saward), adamcooperf1.com (Adam Cooper) and scarbsf1.com (Craig Scarborough) are also at issue. Three of these are Wordpress blogs, but I am curious if any of our European/F1 editors with a knowledge of the sport can vouch for the credentials of the bloggers. Thanks, Resolute 22:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Death's door

I'm working on a big rework of the article Italian Hall disaster in my userspace here. The source in question for this board is — Lehto, Steve (2006). Death's door: the truth behind Michigan's largest mass murder. Momentum Books. p. 232. ISBN 978-1-879094-77-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) According to the website of Momentum Books, I can't really tell if they are a self-publisher or kind of borderline. On the other hand, sources have described the book (in prose at User:Chris857/Italian Hall disaster#Literature) as "definitive and authoritative".

I am currently using the book for items of opinion in the draft, and the first name of a person in Italian Hall. My question is: to what degree and for what material would this source be appropriate? I think points of opinion and uncontroversial information should be appropriate, but I would appreciate outside opinions. Chris857 (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
PS: The book seems well-researched to me, and the author is a lawyer. Chris857 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

New York Times wrong in 1983 article describing late Laura Branigan's vocal range.

I recently came across an inaccurate inclusion of the late Laura Branigan's name under the Wikipedia page "List of Sopranos in non-classical music." I've been trying to have the inclusion removed, without success.

The two sources cited for this inclusion (Billboard magazine and the New York Times), though considered reliable and verifiable by Wikipedia, have erroneously described Miss Branigan as being a Soprano vocalist. The problem is that she was not a Soprano, but a Contralto; her voice exhibited none of the characteristics of a solo Soprano vocalist, yet exhibited all of the characteristics of a Contralto.

The New York Times article, in particular, was written by a critic with no true knowledge of the classification of solo vocalists and was based off of his observation of a single live concert performance in September, 1983: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/11/arts/pop-concert-laura-branigan.html. The Billboard article is located here: http://books.google.de/books?id=FRMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=laura branigan soprano&source=bl&ots=oGVxUF7Z9_&sig=rf2cBywwaM0-6dWdKxnutxl2tMg&hl=de&sa=X&ei=1riJUIOHOcmGswbM5YCADA&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=laura branigan soprano&f=false.

Furthermore, I came across two other such articles written by this same critic (Stephen Holden): one written a year before (March 1982), http://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/22/arts/hard-rock-laura-branigan.html, in which he once again described her voice as a Soprano, but praised the quality of it as being "lusty and theatrical"; and one written in September 1984, in which he did not describe her alleged vocal range, but once again changed his opinion of the quality of her voice, this time as being "big and neutral," capable of only "shrill mechanical performances" http://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/18/arts/music-noted-in-brief-branigan-s-top-40-style-at-avery-fisher-hall.html. In the cited September 1983 article, he described her voice as "thin and tense."

My point is that a critic who gets paid to write his opinion based off of concert performances is hardly authoritative enough to be considered a reliable or verifiable source, especially given how his opinion of her vocal quality changed over the course of two years, not to mention that he never once took her studio recordings into consideration. We are all entitled to our opinions, but facts are facts: Laura Branigan's vocal quality may sound subjectively different to people at different times, but the fact is that she sang in the Contralto vocal range.

Unfortunately, despite extensive Google searches, I've not been able to find any "reliable" or "verifiable" sources (in Wikipedia's eyes) that correctly describe Miss Branigan's true vocal range. She has been widely known to have had a Dramatic Contralto (erroneously abbreviated to "alto") voice, and it is widely known amongst people, but I've not been able to find any sources considered reliable by Wikipedia that state such.

The fact of the matter is that Laura Branigan was not a Soprano by any means. Her voice was not "thin or tense" on her studio recordings, nor was it "shrill or mechanical," as described by Stephen Holden, but rich, strong, and highly emotive. Her voice did indeed soar, as claimed by Billboard, but it was not a Soprano because she never sang in the Soprano range.

Solo vocalists, unlike choral vocalists, are not categorized solely by the range of notes they are capable of hitting, but by something called tessitura, which is the range in which their voice sounds the most comfortable and natural for the majority of the time. In Laura Branigan's case, she sang most often in the Contralto range, which typically encompasses the notes between F3 (below Middle C) and F5 (two above Middle C), though in extreme cases, the range can extend from E3 (below Middle C) to B-Flat 5 (two above Middle C). Sopranos, on the other hand, sing best in the range between C4 (Middle C) and C6 (High C).

Furthermore, to quote www.dummies.com, which was cited on the Wiki page "List of Sopranos in non-classical music," the greatest strength of a soprano is a strong head voice, which has a bright and ringing tone. Sopranos also have a harder time projecting in the middle register.

Laura Branigan projected remarkably well in the lower and middle ranges; she did not have a strong head voice at all, nor a bright or ringing tone. Her tone was rich, full, thick, and full of weight. Any time she attempted to sing notes up in the head voice range, her voice was being pushed due to her remarkable strength and technique as a vocalist. This means that she simply had a high extension, which was not part of her natural range (her tessitura). Her tessitura closely resembled those of known Contraltos like Tina Turner and Toni Braxton.

While writing this, I found an article from the UK's newspaper The Guardian, which accurately describes Miss Branigan as a "dramatic alto" (though it uses the erroneous abbreviation "alto," rather than the correct term "contralto," but still is accurate in that she is not a soprano). It is located here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/table/2009/mar/20/party-1000-songs-everyone-must-hear. I don't know how reliable Wikipedia considers the Guardian, but I've included the link for completeness.

I also came across a partial article written in 2010 for a South African publication called The Star. I don't know how reliable Wikipedia considers it, but I've once again included it for completeness. It is only a partial article from High Beam Research, requiring readers to subscribe to read the rest, but the visible portion does describe Miss Branigan as a "Dramatic Alto." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-232180760.html

In closing, it should also be noted that Laura Branigan was twice described as an "alto" on her main Wikipedia page without any citations, yet no one seems to have noticed. I detect a double standard.68.44.138.213 (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard. I can't tell if you're more upset that Holden is critical of Branigan's performances or over the classification of her voice. What we don't do at RSN is entertain editors' original research. Billboard, the NYTimes and their music critics are reliable sources, notwithstanding your personal opinion as to Holden's lack of knowledge. The Guardian is also a reliable source, though a passing comment in an uncredited list of top party songs doesn't impress as anything I'd hang my hat on. The Star is part of a reputable news organization, but it is impossible to tell from the Highbeam excerpt what the article actually is or who wrote it; it appears that the article is quoting something from Branigan's publicist when it says officially described as "a dramatic alto, with a four-octave range". A better source than either the Guardian or the Star articles would be this [26] Fladrif (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry to say this, Fladrif, though I believe you are correct in your major point about the reliability of sources, I found your comment to the anonymous editor above to be offensive and violative of WP:Do not bite the newcomers. The editor put a lot of effort into his or her posting here and should not be denigrated for not knowing the ins and outs of Wikipedia "policy," such as it is. Of course, a decision as to whether to include Branigan on that list of sopranos should be left to that particular page. With all good wishes, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for claims about distributed smallpox-infested blankets to Native American?

At Ward Churchill#Writing, we find this:

It was in this book that Churchill first made the claim that the United States distributed "smallpox-infested blankets" to Indian tribes, a claim which he repeated several times over the next decade. The claim has been both disputed and supported by other scholars.[1][2]

  1. ^ Churchill Trial, March 19th Afternoon: Laughing Together; The Race to the Bottom.org; March 19, 2009
  2. ^ Did the U.S. Army Distribute Smallpox Blankets to Indians? Fabrication and Falsification in Ward Churchill's Genocide Rhetoric

My question concerns whether the theracetothebottom.org citation is a reliable source for that claim.

First, it's a blog. Second, the blog cites a Doctor Barbara Alice Mann, who is an Assistant Professor the University of Toledo.[27] who supposedly wrote a book called "The Gift of Disease". Wikipedia has no page on Mann, and it appears that she did not write a book with that title.[28] She did, however write "The Tainted Gift: The Disease Method of Frontier Expansion",[29] which is probably what the blog refers to. Neither book has a Wikipedia page.

Second, the blog describes the testimony of a witness in a trial, a person who "has known Professor Churchill for over 20 years and asked him to write the foreword for one of her books". Even leaving out the personal involvement, is expert testimony ever considered to be a reliable source? Most large civil lawsuits have dueling experts arguing both sides of the issue.

If, as I suspect, this is not a reliable source, the following Wikipedia articles may have a better source:
Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas (This source in particular)
and
Siege of Fort Pitt#Blankets with smallpox.
--Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial question of my own: What is the "claim" we are discussing? The claim that Churchill first made his assertions about distribution of smallpox infested blankets in that particular book, or the claim that smallpox infested blankets were distributed by the Army?
Anyway, the blog isn't a reliable source because it's self published. But, it sounds like its relying on the Mann book, which was published by Praeger, which is a reputable, high-quality scholarly press. According to WorldCat, its in nearly 600 libraries. That would be a reliable source.
As for witnesses in trials, we don't allow use of court documents like transcripts as sources because they are primary sources, but if discussed in a reliable secondary source, what the secondary source says could be used with appropriate attribution.
You didn't ask, but the Brown article in Plaigary would also be a reliable source. It is (or was) a peer-reviewed academic journal with a respected editorial board. Fladrif (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Be careful not to mix sources about the British army (Ft. Pitt) with the US Army (Mandans). Not that I'd be surprised in either case, but it's best to keep things straight. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Good point. For some reason that went right past me. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) My question about the reliability of expert testimony was answered, so we can call this one resolved. For those who might be interested in the underlying fringe theory, it is being discussed at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard‎. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

(edit conflict)That isn't what balance means on Wikipedia. I see nothing on the source making me believe it is an opinion piece. If it isn't being used at all, just remove it. If it is referencing something, leave it.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
He would seem to be a notable journalist, and that is probably why he is invited to contribute pieces as a "guest". I don't see how that detracts from the status of his commentary as an expert being published in a reliable secondary source.
The piece itself is not overtly polemical, though it does contain some information that TPM advocates might find objectionable, as it contradicts the self-projected image that many advocates seem intent on promulgating.--Ubikwit (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
If the source is commentary, or an opinion piece, it should be attributed as such. This noticeboard isn't about weight of content in the article space, but whether the source is reliable or not. I do not see why an article republished by the NYT is not a reliable source. That being said if it is commentary or an opinion piece the source should be treated as such, with proper attribution.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
IMO, the source is an invited column. That does not make it an "article", nor does it indicate it is subject to the NYT's or IHT's normal editorial policies. If it were established that Hunt is an expert in the field, which is political science, rather than political journalism, the column would be a reliable source, per WP:SPS. If not, then I see no reason why it should be considered reliable. Unless it is either subject to editorial review, or Hunt is an expert in political science, it is a notable opinion, and would only be a reliable source if attributed in the text. I still don't think it's being used, but the section it's in has already been reverted 6 times today by different people, so I'm not going to remove it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Given that we accept the NYT as a reliable source your attempt to distinguish political journalism from political science smacks a little of desperation. The column is in the news section not the opinion section as well which clearly indicates how the NYT sees it. Its also worth noting that you are arguing to remove the one third party source there, everything else is tea party original material that you have edit warred to reinsert----Snowded TALK 20:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I've read the (paper) New York Times. There are, quite often, columns marked "opinion" or "commentary" in the news section. I don't consider those "reliable", and I don't know how those markings translate into the online paper. "Columns", even in the news section, are clearly the opinion of the author, and are not fact-checked; guest columns, even more opinion and less checked. But, perhaps this discussion should be more in WT:RS than in WP:RSN. We know editorials and op-eds are only reliable for notability and for the opinions of the authors; I don't see why "columns" should be different.
And it's no longer the one third-party source. As I said at the top of this section, I don't know what this source supports, now that the three news articles are there. I have a doubt about the American Enterprise Institute and strong doubts about American Majority as reliable sources, as well, but balance requires that some conservative sources be listed, even though you have edit-warred to remove the relevant primary sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the piece as opinion or commentary, and it is not marked as either, so I concur with Amadscientist on that point. The article is under the U.S. news section and presents an overview of notable facts and statements related to the TPM, from across the political spectrum.
The piece is one of a continual series of articles contributed by Hunt, many of which are attributed to Bloomberg, with by-lines such as the following returned in the search for "LETTER FROM WASHINGTON":
By ALBERT R. HUNT - U.S. / Politics - Article
By ALBERT R. HUNT | BLOOMBERG NEWS - U.S. - Article
He has in fact contributed several articles on the Tea Party, as shown below in chronological order:
  • June 13, 2010 - By ALBERT R. HUNT - U.S. - Article - Print Headline: "Republican Party's Biggest Fight Is With Itself"
  • September 26, 2010 - By ALBERT R. HUNT - U.S. - Article - Print Headline: "Tea Party Doesn't Need Votes to Win U.S. Elections"
  • June 13, 2011 - By ALBERT R. HUNT | BLOOMBERG NEWS - U.S. - Article - Print Headline: "Fragments Split the Tea Party"
  • August 5, 2012 - By ALBERT R. HUNT | BLOOMBERG NEWS - U.S. - Article - Print Headline: "Tea Party Holding Firm for Round 2"
Search 1: [30]
Search 2:[31]Ubikwit (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks reliable to me. I'm not sure what the problem is here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a column, rather than an article. There seems to be no objective way of distinguishing columns intended (by the publisher) to be news, and columns intended to be commentary; if there were, we could all see that these columns are commentary. It may be easier to distinguish news articles from commentary. I don't see any rational way that these columns could be considered other than Hunt's commentary. If consensus is against me, I'll abide by it, no matter how irrational it may be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be making a distinction on the basis of a formalistic point that is based on the assumption that a "column" is necessarily an opinion piece based on the irrational emotional proclivities of a non-expert author.
It seems to me, on the other hand, that the columns in question are of a more periodical nature written in correspondence to events having a time frame longer than a single day.
The piece that has been the object of dispute on the TPM Talk page (I haven't read the other related pieces found in the search of the NYT website) is, as I have stated, an overview piece that attempts to put the TPM into context for the reading public in a balanced manner.Ubikwit (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree that Al Hunt, a 4-decade veteran news reporter and political journalist, is a reliable source for the assertion of fact, especially on matters of politics. The NYT/IHT (it's the same company, using the shared website -www.nytimes.com-, with quality editorial oversight) article by Hunt linked above doesn't make any extraordinary claims, and is further corroborated by several additional reliable sources. While I find this assertion by Authur Rubin revealing, ("As an aside, the NYT is left-of-center amoung major US publications; adding sources from the WSJ would provide evidence of balance." --Arthur Rubin), I am in agreement with his more recent conclusion about Hunt: ("I'd have to say that, assuming our Wikipedia article on him is correct, he is almost certain an expert on politics." --Arthur Rubin) The source is reliable. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    I'll check to make sure it's attributed to Hunt, rather than the NYT/IHT. In addtion, the NYT and IHT weren't under the same management in 2010, so it would be important to attribute it to the appropriate source. So, at this point, I agree that it is reliable (but not BLP-reliable), but needs to be properly attributed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Small corrections: NYT/IHT was one company, using a shared website, and under the same management, in 2010. 'Attribution' is for opinion content, or for challenged reliably sourced content, or content that is contradicted by equally reliably sourced content. Attribution of content not so contested runs afoul of NPOV policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Quite. It is opinion content, or so polemic as to be indistinguishable. However, Hunt is an expert, so it should still remain as attributed in the reference section as being in the NYT, not of the NYT. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Why? --John (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Because accuracy should be a "good thing" in Wikipedia articles. Collect (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
But why, in this instance, is it more accurate to say "in the NYT, not of the NYT"? --John (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Because there is no evidence that it was edited by the NYT (or IHT) editors, rather than just incorporating Hunt's own words. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Really? Is there evidence that it wasn't the subject of editorial oversight? --John (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting exchange, but I would agree that the word should be in, not of, because the reporter is not speaking for the newspaper. We must really assume, though, that his copy was fully edited by the staff and any questions his editors might have had were answered by him. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
That seems self-evident to me, and more important than the in/of question. --John (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Websites as sources for communities/beliefs

Hi there, I was wondering what the rules are for an article that relates to something that has little or no published material. For example, a spiritual or philosophical belief system that has not necessarily been widely discussed in published work, but is followed by many worldwide. If I have been part of a particular "way of life" community for years, of which there are similar groups in many different countries all of whom follow a particular belief system, and I therefore know the details of that belief system for a fact, can that information not be added to Wikipedia? Because it's discouraging to see incorrect or minimal information on something that is such a big part of your life, simply because there are so few third party sources discussing it...in spite of the fact that many people follow those beliefs and share them throughout the web.

What if there is a website that essentially IS the primary source for people within that community? A place where they connect and can reference material to explain to others what their beliefs are. Can that never qualify as a source? Do people with this kind of philosophy need to wait until someone decides to publish a book about it, even though the information is right there and they already practice that way of life 24/7? I'm just trying to understand how I can present information on wikipedia that is a fact for countless people, yet does not necessarily have a published source. Thanks!

Hi, WP:Notable discusses criteria that can be used to assess if a subject should have its own article. In general if it's not discussed in reliable sources, then there's no reason to have an article. The guideline says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list", I've added the emphasis. --Dailycare (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but for example, it's not Christianity, but what if it was? What if there was a branch of Christianity that was widely known but not necessarily written about in books, academic articles, etc.? Should that be completely left off the existing Wikipedia page for Christianity? Or should information that is factual about, say, a pagan religion be left out of the main article, even if the existing information in that article is completely wrong, just because it's not written in a book? Thanks for the help!
In response to your questions, the answers are: (1) If it were Christianity, the same rule would apply. (2) Same for the second question, (3) Yes. (4) No. There are WP:Reliable sources other than books. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree with GeorgeLouis here. Pretty much by definition, any faith tradition which is widely known will be written about in some reliable sources, be they books, independent periodicals or newspapers of some sort, etc. There may be some question regarding how easily available those sources are for some people, but we basically can never use the stated opinion of an editor that they themselves qualify as a reliable source as such, unless that editor somehow confirms with WP:OTRS or some other source some information which clearly establishes that fact. I tend to deal with a lot of the religion content around here, and it may be possible that, if this tradition does not yet have an article here, that I could find sources for it you may not, or, if it does, some independent reliable sources which can confirm that. Unfortunately, without the independent reliable sources that something is followed by many worldwide, we really can't even say that. If you wanted to drop me an e-mail regarding this group/movement, I can check to see what I can find, but, honestly, if independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability don't yet exist, then I think the thing to do is somehow contact some well known independent reliable sources, like maybe Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, if the group is present in the US, to establish the required notability. Otherwise, it might, maybe, be possible to include some minimal information in some related article, based on what few independent reliable sources might exist, but that would be entirely dependent on what those sources do and do not say. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
RSN really doesn't work all that well in the abstract. What we really need to know to comment knowlegably is what source, what article, and what statement in the article the source is supporting. But, if the only source on a particular faith community is its own website about itself, I seriously doubt it is going to pass Wikipedia's notability threshold, issues about the rules on use of self-published sources aside. Fladrif (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

BP

There is a discussion, if the drafts prepared by editor who has declared his COI and have been posted for reviewing/editing at the article's talk page, should be considered as as unpublished primary sources or not. All these draft are attributed with references using mainly secondary sources. Interpretation of WP:COI and WP:PSTS is needed. Please feel free to comment at the BP's talk page. Beagel (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

BP who or what???? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Clicking the link is surely just as fast as asking the question... --Onorem♠Dil 00:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry; didn't spot the live link at the start of the sentence, for some reason. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The Everett FAQ

There are six requests at Many-worlds interpretation to verify the credibility of: Price, Michael Clive (1995), The Everett FAQ, BLTC Research...

—Machine Elf 1735 04:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

To be brief, NO! I don't see how this site could possibly qualify as a reliable source for anything, let alone as a source for a quantum-physics related article. Fladrif (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Charming. Perhaps it qualified as a source for these 10 works simply by providing typical MWI responses for typical MWI criticism... like a FAQ? Anyway, that's what it's been cited for in the WP article all this time. Had they been non-standard responses, it's hard to believe the parade of critics would have tolerated it?.—Machine Elf 1735 01:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Formspring accounts from verified and notable people

Source: Formspring acounts from Pendleton Ward and other notable members of the Adventure Time crew like storyboard artist/director Adam Muto (Just to prove they can be verified… For Pendleton Ward, his official website points to his twitter, which directly points to his Formspring. For Adam Muto, his official twitter states the Formspring address in the tagline. His Formspring also verifies Andy Ristaino's official Formspring account, and same with Cole Sanchez).

Article: List of Adventure Time characters, Adventure Time, etc.

Content: The citations support a variety of behind-the-scenes information, such as how the show is animated, evolution of character designs, the role of director, how names are pronounced/spelled, etc. Some are minor (the names), whereas some are major (like how the series is animated, which hasn't turned up anywhere else).

To the best of my ability, the sources comply with WP:V. The info is from an "established expert on the subject matter", whose "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". In this case, the expert are people who work on the show and thus would know about it, and there reliability has been confirmed by third-party sources (like interviews), as well as the series itself. Next, "the material is neither unduly self-serving" because the information is about the series itself, but it isn't self-serving (ie Muto, Ward, et al are not benefiting overtly from their responses, they just answering questions). The citations do not contain "an exceptional claim"; none of the citations are controversial, and they're only confirming facts. None of the citations "involve claims about third parties", so that one is easy. The sources also do "not involve claims about events not directly related to the source", as they all pertain exactly to what was being asked about in the first place, which is almost always behind-the-scenes info. In addition, "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", as the people who have answer these questions are notable in and of themselves, and these account can be definitely linked to them (see first part). Finally, "the article is not based primarily on such sources." List of Adventure Time characters only uses the source 4 times out 77. But what I'm worried about is if there is a systematic "ban" on Formspring, some elements of other articles (Adventure Time in particular) will suffer (for instance, the information regarding how the show is animated).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to WP:V as that could help interpret the policy better and solve future issues nit just relating to formspring.Lucia Black (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:V is a page about verifiability. This is the page to discuss the reliability of sources.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I think its irrelevant how connected their formspring accounts are to more relevant socialnetworks. Point being most questions are answered "off record" yes third party reliable sources often report things off record aswell but its never usually so relevant unless multiple third party sources.. Making the sourcing that low quality. Formspring is a place where any fan can ask the developers at any time about anything (For further explanation). And I deem that relevant for not reliability but note worthy. These questions were probably asked by wiki users and wanted to ask it for the sake of reporting it in wikipedia.Lucia Black (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

How should sources be referenced on a possible Cathedral?

An article has failed two Good Article nomination partly because of a claim that the church was built as a Cathedral. There are three sources for this, all of them seen by at least some editors as unreliable:

  • Suffolk Churches, a website of a local amateur historian and church afficionado. This is seen as quite unreliable as it is essentially a personal page.
  • UKattraction.com, an anonymous and commercial site
  • The parish website, seen as unreliable as it is anonymous

I've got some editors who say that the claim is unreliable and another editor (not me) who is rater aggressively claiming that it is totally reliable.

So as far as I can see there are three questions. (1) Should this claim be included at all? (2) If it should be included, should the claim be qualified? (3) If it is qualified how should it be qualified?

There is no one who claims that the church was not intended as a Cathedral and its part of the local colour to the article (it seems to be believed by parishoners), although it's not clear whether the Parish website and the UK attraction article were influenced by the Suffolk Churches article.

JASpencer (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, none of the three are satisfactory. There should be something more substantial if the claim is reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Suffolkchurches is one of those difficult cases that run afoul of the two-part test of WP:SPS. It is clearly a self-published source. But the author, Simon Knott, and his website is frequently cited as an expert on the matter of churches in Suffolk, not only by news organizations[32], but also by a number scholarly publications[33] Unfortunately, it does not appear that he has ever been published on the subject matter by a reliable, third party publisher, putting him in a similar category to Joe Bauher [34]. My assessment is that this kind of source can't be used.
I could be convinced that the Church's own archives might be a reliable source under an interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF, but in this case, the claim seems sufficiently doubtful that far better sources would be needed. I found two brief contemporaneous accounts of Mr Goldie's design for the church.[35][36]. Neither makes any mention of it being originally planned as a cathedral. Some better source is going to be needed. Fladrif (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec)The sources are clearly suboptimal. The information might well be correct, readers who know about it will feel that the article is incorrect without it, but we can't really state it. The closest I came to finding a source was this:
"In (264) Mr. Goldie has another collection of sketches of works in progress—porches, monuments, drinking fountains, &c. No. 3 of these, the "Porch of St. Pancras Church, Ipswich," has unquestionable novelty, the entrance doorway being fancifully designed, while, by way of finial to the main gable, a full length statue (of the saint, we presume) is introduced, sheltered under an overwhelmingly heavy canopy." [37]
264 is the exhibit number in the 1861 Architectural Exhibition of Conduit Street Gallery, London. Unfortunately this bit of information seems completely useless for the article and doesn't tell us anything either way about the problem.
My suggestion would be to mention that "according to local sources" (or similar words), Goldie planned the church as part of a cathedral, and link to the parish website. [38]
Better still, try to find out from local people where the information on the website came from. If it was a reliable secondary/primary source, get it and cite it. If it was from a primary source, ask the webmaster to make the text more specific about the source. In my opinion church websites are fine for precise local information which indicates a (reliable, though primary) provenance. Hans Adler 20:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a bit off-piste but, if the sources are considered reliable, what they are unclear about is who it was that intended the building to be a cathedral. The church website says the architect, Goldie, so one possibility is that it was just a pipe-dream of his. Or Rome could have decided on a cathedral on the site then changed its mind. Or, enterprising local Catholics could have proposed a cathedral and had their proposal declined. Lastly, it seems that the church was built from funds from a legacy - might it be that the testator had left money for the building of a cathedral but ended up with a church instead? It would be good to be able to ascertain the full back-story. Formerip (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Knott's website would also indicate that this was a pipedream of Goldie, and there was never any "official" sanction for a cathedral nor any actual plan for a brand new Diocese of East Anglia (which wasn't created until 1976 - 115 years later). He says that St Pancras was built as a satellite church for St. Mary's, and wasn't made a separate parish until 1919 - nearly 60 years later. It was built cheek-to-jowl with slum tenements that weren't cleared until after WWII, explaining why there are no windows on one side, and "it is in fact only part of what was planned by its exuberant architect, George Goldie, to be the Cathedral of a future Diocese of East Anglia".[39] Fladrif (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If the original sketches clearly show provision for a "cathedra" (bishop's seat) behind the altar then it is reasonable to so state. (On the order of The architectural plans provided for a 'cathedra' behind the main altar or the like). IMO Collect (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What seems more likely, assuming that I understand what the sources are saying, is that Goldie drew up pipe-dream plans for a cathedral, and used the chancel portion of those plans as the design for this church. Fladrif (talk)
So the text should be "It is believed by local sources that the church was built as the chancel of an intended Cathedral."? Also taking the claim away from the lead paragraph and only having it in the body. It's certainly believed by people in Ipswich that it was intended to be a Cathedral, and I think that this belief should be shown in the article. However I think the original statement (written by me) was far too certain although the lack of any published contrary opinions ccould make the proposed text a bit more dubious for some editors. I'd also like to keep away from too much speculation. JASpencer (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
there isn't even enough evidence for that. There is no explanation of the basis on which the web sites make that claim. Try: It is believed by local sources that the church was at some point "envisioned" to become part of a cathedral. or "planned," or "intended." "Built" implies that as built it was intended to be incorporated into a large building. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In the above I didn't find a link to the article. Here it is: St Pancras Church, Ipswich. Andrew Dalby 10:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

More than one way to research a claim

A cathedral is for a diocese. This church is in the Roman Catholic Diocese of East Anglia, which was formed in 1976 out of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Northampton, which itself goes all the way back to the re-establishment of RC dioceses back in 1850. As far as I can determine, Northampton Cathedral was always the cathedral in that diocese: the chancel end was built as a college chapel before re-establishment, and then was extended with the current nave specifically with the intent of making it suitable to function as the cathedral, but I find several books saying that it was considered the cathedral from re-establishment. This work was completed in 1864 by the younger Pugin; I have not found a date for when the expansion began. St. Pancras was started in 1860 and finished the following year. It seems therefore likely that if there was any thought of St P's being the cathedral, it could only have been plausible if the nave extension of the current cathedral had happened after St P's was completed, and if there were some thought on someone's part of it replacing the old chapel.

Reading the parish website, it's quite clear that saying St P's was built as a cathedral is incorrect. Goldie (or someone) apparently hoped that if and when the diocese of Northampton was divided, this building would used as the basis for constructing a cathedral for the new diocese. As it happened, by the time of that division the huge St John the Baptist Cathedral, Norwich had been built and there was no reason to expand a church in the cleared slums of Ipswich. The parish version of this story is the only one that is plausible, and even then I see no other way to treat it than as a bit of parish lore. The other two versions seem to be based on the parish version with some of the key details misunderstood or filed off. Mangoe (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So how should it be described? Or is it best to simply leave it out. JASpencer (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any dispute about who intended this: the architect intended it. It's likely to be true, I'd say: he was a staunch Catholic and therefore personally interested; Northampton is a long way from Ipswich and it wasn't out of order to suppose that Catholic dioceses would be subdivided (as, eventually, they were). I don't think it's an outrageous claim to say that the architect had this idea. But the church archive may be the only source unless and until the relevant document is published.
I would cite the church website (the page headed "From the chruch archives" [sic]). We can accept SPS for a claim that is not controversial. In the text I would write, e.g.: "According to the church's own website, the architect, George Goldie, intended St Pancras to develop into a larger structure, a cathedral for a future diocese of East Anglia." That's exactly what the page tells us: putting it into the passive and leaving his name out, "it is believed that the church was originally intended" etc., as the page currently does, is a misleading way to do it (forgive me for saying!). In fact we have the name of the one person who intended this, and we should say so.
I would not put this detail in the intoduction, because the architect's dream is tangential to the eventual use and history of the church: it may however help someone to understand why the structure is the way it is. Andrew Dalby 13:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Andrew. I've changed the article to refer to the claim (more or less) in the way you've suggested. I've also taken it out of the lead paragraph as although it's interesting it's probably not necesary in the summary. JASpencer (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Austerity effect on jobs graph

Relationship between fiscal tightening in Eurozone countries with their unemployment rate, 2008-2012. The extent of austerity measures accounts for 24% of the variation in unemployment rate changes.[1]

Source: Michael Morrison (May 9, 2012) "Austerity: The Jobs Killer" Decisions Based on Evidence

Please see also: Morrison's CV (note professional academic experience and sections such as "Economic Development" and related topics as per WP:SPS)

In article: Austerity

Content question: Is this graph suitable for the article's introduction with its caption as shown here? 67.41.205.108 (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Nope Nor is [40] usable for an article on Sex. WordPress is an Open Source project, which means there are hundreds of people all over the world working on it. and this is on WordPress. Collect (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The source is arguably reliable, but should not be used. Wordpress is reliable where the "expert" clause in WP:SPS applies. I'm not sure it does, because the author is hardly world-renowned. In any event, it would be undue and a bit misleading to include the graph. Morrison himself says that he has assumed that the "change in unemployment is the result of policy". That's a pretty big assumption, and it is obviously also possible that tricky economic circumstances in certain parts of the Eurozone are associated with both increases in unemployment and the implementation of austerity measures. I'm sure there are plenty of reliable sources that do make a causal link though - you should make use of those and not this. Formerip (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Agree with FormerIP to some extent but I also see a place in the article for a figure like this although perhaps not this exact picture, in the sense of a "picture is worth a thousand words". Whether or not austerity increases unemployment is something the article should discuss (in a NPOV manner, with arguments from both sides; there is a lot of confounding variables at play). Figures may be appropriate regardless of which side seems to be more weighty, as figures give an idea of what is going on in the countries which have austerity programs in place. II | (t - c) 04:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if the source were reliable, the graph doesn't make any sense. Lets draw a straight line to indicate a trend. Ok.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's called a linear regression rosetta. But FormerIP is right.Volunteer Marek 07:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, copying that graph "as is" might run into some copyright issues.Volunteer Marek 07:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
There's lots of high quality journal articles on this topic, as well as reports from expert international organisations such as the IMF and OECD, so there seems to be no good reason to use anything other than first-rate references to discuss the impact of government spending cuts on unemployment. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Michael Morrison (May 9, 2012) "Austerity: The Jobs Killer" Decisions Based on Evidence

BP article

Would this source [41] be OK to use for the BP article updates on current court findings? For example:

Transocean agreed to admit guilty as well as to pay US$1.4bn in fines. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't get through to that website at all. Paywall? Also, it doesn't look good. For news use the mainstream news media, which are covering all the developments in this high profile story. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it's looks like a WP:SPS by a lawyer who has a direct stake in lawsuits filed against BP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It appears to be soliciting clients and hence is an advertisement for a law firm and is not remotely acceptable for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to all. Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Historical material for Cumbria location stubs & articles

Source: various pages from the website of the Cumbria County History Trust [42]

Article: numerous WP place articles, mainly stubs, such as Arlecdon in Cumbria, NW England.

Content: As a simple External Link using Cite web, for example:

  • "Arlecdon". Cumbria County History Trust. Retrieved 21st March 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

A new editor recently added an external link to many stub articles of places in Cumbria, NW England. The link to Cumbria County History Trust provide some interesting historical background not previously referenced within the article. They are spam-free. The only obvious concern was that the editor was also adding a “History” section to some of the articles with a sentence saying “see CCHT in the external links below” or similar words to that effect. Potential RS and COI issues were then raised leading to the removal by the editor of the links, in my view to the detriment of the stub. I have therefore offered to present the material for RSN consideration.

The material is NOT biographic and contains no SPAM. An example is [43]. Each page carries a link to a page detailing the numerous historical sources used and includes a standard disclaimer about potential accuracy. Bearing in mind the ancient documents used in some cases the accuracy will always be open to challenge but I do not think the presence of this disclaimer weakens the objectivity of the material presented.

The Cumbria County History Trust is a volunteer membership organisation. It has provided digests on its website of the history of c344 Cumberland villages, towns and cities. Information on the CCHT website has been put together from local history archives & records by experienced amateurs (e.g. retired academics) compiled from a standard set of sources based on training and guidance from the University of Lancaster to be found here [44]. There is a future expansion of this information planned as part of the Victoria County History Project under the auspices of the University of London that will include the vetting of the facts given in the CCHT Digests to a an even more rigorous standard.

The editor hopes that the inclusion of this external link will encourage WP editors with an interest in the article to use the externally linked historical material to develop the stub articles. Whether or not this happens, I cannot see any negative aspect with using this material. It is non-BLP infringing, is at least secondary source in nature and organised under an academic scheme of control with no spam links. It is an improvement on the total absence of local historical information contained in the majority of these stubs and could be presented through citation as WP:RS without comment.

I would be grateful for the community's consideration on this material for External Link purposes. Leaky Caldron 12:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This is local history research of the highest quality. I can't see any problem with it being used as EL for any relevant article. The only problem with using it as a source for historical fact within articles is that it is research in progress rather than completed outputs. There is obviously an extensive fact-checking process in place, and we shouldn't imply that that process is complete when actually it isn't. For example, one of the researchers might unearth an excellent primary source indicating the dedication of a church, but then another researcher might find another source that contradicts it. Published sources take precedence. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the information was carefully compiled by local groups, and is based on information published elsewhere, and sometimes on original documents. Nevertheless, I've spotted one tiny error (not significant) that has been reproduced from an amateur publication some 20 years ago. I expect this, and any other errors, will be corrected as part of the checking process. Dbfirs 18:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Coaster Guy

I'm reviewing Superman: Escape from Krypton for GA, and questioned the use of multiple pages from The Coaster Guy (www.thecoasterguy.com) as a reliable source, on the basis that it looked to me like a self-published blog created by an enthusiastic amateur. The nominator replied that: "From my experience, I've never encountered anything to be wrong on his subject and I know he works with the park from time to time." I'm not convinced, but I'm outside my usual topic areas, so I thought I would bring it here for a second opinion. In particular, the site is used to source the following:

While in the planning stages, the ride was going to be named Velocetron and themed as The Man of Steel. Source

If the Velocetron name was chosen, the queue and station would have had ancient ruins and a giant laser. Source

After 10 months of testing and reengineering, the ride opened on March 15, 1997. Source

Superman: Escape from Krypton closed again on February 5, 2012 (almost a year after the refurbishment) to prepare for the new 2012 attraction Lex Luthor: Drop of Doom. Two drop towers, also built by Intamin, were integrated into the existing sides of Superman: Escape from Krypton's structure. The ride reopened when construction was finished on July 7, 2012. Source

The coaster closed again for a third time after Christmas in 2012 to enable the construction of the park's latest roller coaster, Full Throttle. Its supports were installed over the plaza where Superman's entrance is located. Superman: Escape from Krypton was originally scheduled to reopen when Full Throttle opens in Summer 2013, Source

Thanks for your help. Moswento talky 13:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is not a reliable source

Source: [45]

Article: Bob Menendez

Content: According to an English translation provided to The Daily Caller by a native Spanish speaker, it is reported that a young Dominican woman wrote nine months ago that she slept with 59-year-old New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez at a series of sex parties organized by Dr. Salomon Melgen, a Menendez campaign donor. “That senator also likes the youngest and newest girls,” the woman wrote on April 21, 2012, according to the same translation.

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

The Daily Caller is very partisan in nature. Its prostitution allegation on Bob Menendez is based entirely on anonymous sources (prostitutes). Furthermore, ABC News has talked to the same sources, but concluded that it is not news because it doesn't pass the smell test. ABC News also said the meeting was arranged by anonymous Republican operatives, clearly a partisan effort.

According to the Washington Post: one of the prostitutes later told Dominican authorities that she never meet Menendez, but was paid to make allegations against him.

The Daily Caller claim that that prostitute is the wrong prostitute, because her name and age doesn't match. The Daily Caller has not verify that the prostitutes use their real names and age.

Illegal Operation (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say it is a reliable source, it has editorial oversight, and although it has made its mistakes, as has many major reliable sources who publish on a daily basis (there are some who have disparaged CNN as a non-reliable source at the Fort Hood Shooting article), that doesn't mean that it isn't reliable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
For instance, CBS News made its mistakes as well, but they are still a reliable source. Additionally, multiple reliable sources are covering the Daily Sources contention of the WaPo article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
−
I think it is usually reliable, but this particular item reads very poorly, like tabloid trivia. Can we please have the links to the ABC and Washington Post reports? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Certainly. [46] [47] [48] [49] Illegal Operation (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I would say TDC is non-RS for statements of fact, in the same way that salon.com is non-RS for statements of fact. It is a tabloid that sometimes does real journalism, but the unevenness and lack of day-to-day fact-based reporting (unlike CNN, CBS, or other outlets who do make mistakes but because of their output we can see that they are outliers) make it unreliable. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The story is notable and should be covered using all the news reports. TDC, Washington Post, ABC, also Forbes, Mother Jones and the Guardian have mentioned it. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The story is notable, but that doesn't mean that every website is covering it is a reliable source. Also, Matt Boyle who broke the original "scandal" moved to breitbart.com. Illegal Operation (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Nor is there any requirement to use all reliable sources in any case. The best should be used, obviously, but having many citations after a single fact is discouraged as it looks like synthesis. Just use the single best (most reliable) source for the fact. Yworo (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
That's why I've been saying. There are plenty of reliable sources: ABC News, Washington Past, etc. Also, Wikipedia's policy is: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Illegal Operation (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll second Yworo. The Daily Caller's coverage shouldn't be treated as fact in this case, but their coverage can be described, along with conflicting coverage in ABC and the Washington Post. It's also important to keep in mind that this is a biography of a living person. Biographies should reflect a person's career holistically, rather than becoming a catalog of tabloid-ready controversies. Need to be very careful about how we present possibly defamatory allegations, and how much weight to give them. TheBlueCanoe 06:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with all these last three posts. When I said use all the sources, I meant, all the mainstream news sources that have something to say. Those like ABC and Forbes that aren't part of the story itself should be particularly useful. The original TDC reports can still be linked, as that would be an appropriate use of primary sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The Daily Caller is the one making the statement opposing the reporting originating from Washington Post. For their reply, it could be said the article where they dispute the Washington Post article is a primary source for their own comment. I do not see with providing the direct source for their comment. This meets WP:ATTRIBUTE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's be clear: this is a story in which prostitutes were paid to lie about having contact with a U.S. Senator ([50]). It was picked up and promoted heavily by partisan media (i.e. the Daily Caller) for rather obvious reasons, although more reputable media wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole because it was so obviously dubious and lacking credibility ("ABC News did not broadcast or initially report on the claims because of doubts about the women's veracity and identity."). Seriously - even the New York Post wouldn't risk its journalistic credibility, such as it is, on this crap ([51]). We've really beclowned ourselves by creating a standalone section in someone's biography about this.

    If WP:BLP has any meaning, then we should be very circumspect when someone is accused of a crime with absolutely no credible evidence and no charges filed. We should be even more circumspect when the accusations are so obviously sustained by one-sided partisan media.

    I'm not saying we shouldn't mention these allegations. But if we do, then the coverage needs to be based on independent, reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking, care, and accuracy - not on dubious partisan media. Such coverage would read, in essence: "The Daily Caller, a conservative website, featured accusations that Menendez had patronized underage prostitutes in the DR. The accusations were unsubstantiated, and multiple other news outlets, including tabloids such as the New York Post, declined to publish them given their lack of credibility. Subsequently, one of the accusers stated that she had been paid to falsely implicate Menendez and had never actually met him. The Daily Caller nonetheless continued to promote the claims ([52])."

    Seriously, folks. This episode is actually exhibit A as to why the Daily Caller is not a reliable source, and shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of a BLP. MastCell Talk 22:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

    • The problem there is that you're actively taking a side on the matter. You've passed judgement on TDC without enough evidence to do so, you're assuming one group's word over another when both have a reputation for care, fact-checking, and accuracy, and then presenting the information not neutrally, but with a bias against a source simply because you do not believe the findings. The question is not whether TDC is reliable: it clearly is. The question about whether the claims are appropriate enough to list is another discussion altogether. This situation got coverage in a number of places, so you simply put it, at this point, as "The Daily Caller claimed that Menendez X. Washington Post, in a subsequent investigation, found someone who disputes X. TDC responded with Y." That's about all we can do neutrally. TDC isn't ThinkProgress or Media Matters, isn't WND or NewsMax. It's closer to Salon, we should treat it as such. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
      • You're the one who is pushing the evidence-free assertions here. Nobody in serious mainstream journalism takes The Daily Caller seriously as serious mainstream journalism. We should not either. To put up a recently created hack partisan outlet as a he said/she said equivalent of the widely-respected 135-year-old newspaper is lunacy. Gamaliel (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
        • You present an interesting contridiction. While I would not use TDC as a primary source for an event (much like HuffPo), Tucker Carlson, of TDC is considered a journalist and appears on FNC regularly along with other journalists. Now I suppose if you don't consider FNC as serious MS journalism, than your premise holds true. However, in that case what you appear to really mean, is that no one in left-leaning journalism views TDC as serious journalism, which is probably not too suprising as TDC takes a partisan stance, at least they are honest about it. Arzel (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The scope of this forum is whether the source can be considered a reliable source in the context of the content. Can the Daily Caller be a source for the content it is used to site. Let us look what it used to verify:

In an article[111] by The Daily Caller

“That senator also likes the youngest and newest girls,” the woman wrote on April 21, 2012, according to the same translation

The Daily Caller can be used to verify what itself stated, but the content can fall under WP:BLPCRIME, but that is not for this noticeboard that is for WP:BLPN. The article is about emails from CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) Here is a link directly from CREW of their initial release and the non-redacted version of the email exchange. Here is a link to the redacted emails which is linked in the article which is the subject of this discussion. The Daily Caller content is further verified by this Daily Mail article.

Therefore, the question is not is the Daily Caller article a reliable source for the content, but is the Daily Caller the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Daily Mail reliable sources to verify this content?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the question in my mind is whether editors who view the Washington Post and the Daily Caller as equally appropriate sources should be allowed anywhere near a BLP. You're seriously advocating that we repeat a totally unsubstantiated and apparently false claim that a living person "likes the youngest and newest girls" at a brothel? A claim so defamatory and lacking in credibility that no reputable news source - not even the New York Post - would touch it with a 10-foot pole? A claim promoted solely by a dubious partisan website? Don't turf that the to BLP noticeboard - I'd like an answer here. This is frankly pretty disgraceful, and should disqualify several of you from ever editing a political BLP again. MastCell Talk 18:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPA. Additionally arguments against myself are fallacious. I can agree to civilly disagree with MastCell.
This is not a noticeboard for discussion of BLP guidelines/policy, nor is this a noticeboard about content. This is a noticeboard about whether a source is a reliable source or not.
As the source has been corroborated by another reliable source, and I have linked the original content which both sources write about, we now have a clearer understanding of the sources in question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
That a story is repeated by the Daily Mail is no indication of its truth. Please write the section up, with bare facts only, from the uninvolved mainstream press, mentioning how the allegations were in TDC but denied by W. Post. No editorialising. Double check the wording with BLPN. Do not feel obliged to include all detail. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Judith, to be clear, the allegations were not denied by the Washington Post. Rather, they were investigated by the FBI and found to be totally baseless, a fact reported in the Washington Post ([53]). This confusion is unfortunately perpetuated by a number of the comments above, which seek to frame the issue as a he-said-she-said between the Daily Caller and the lib'rul mainstream media.

Instead, this is a case where someone was paid to fabricate salacious allegations against a living person, and those allegations continue to be promoted by a partisan website despite a universally appreciated lack of credibility. We should handle such situations with extreme care, but instead we seem to be committed to doing the opposite. MastCell Talk 19:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We're not committed to doing anything except for following our own policies. TDC seems to be reliable as a rule but in this case it has become part of the story, so is a primary source. The Washington Post too - note I do not say that their roles are in any way parallel. There is plenty of coverage in the rest of the mainstream press (ABC, CNN, Forbes, NYT, AP), use that. Links to the primary sources may help the reader, but they must not be the main sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I've revised the section to emphasize high-quality, independent reliable sources and to aim at something more closely approximating due weight. Although it's probably already been reverted to the version that highlights the false smears and partisan sources... MastCell Talk 18:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

MastCell has left out that the Daily Caller, and reported by others, that the information for the individuals who claimed they were paid to lie is disputed. To only include the one link to the Washington Post regarding this is cherry picking.

I have provided links to the documents which the article which is the subject of this discussion reported on. That is from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington which has called liberal, as indicated on their Wikipedia article. I have issues with the new "revised" version, but this is not the place to discuss it.

The question remains: Is the Daily Caller the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Daily Mail reliable sources to verify this content? I am of the opinion that they are, and the content was properly attributed to the source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is an abysmal source. I think Wikipedians pretty much gave up on it a year ago or so, when they were caught just plain making stuff up (complete with fabricated quotations). Even before then, there was a clear consensus not to use the Daily Mail for even remotely contentious BLP matters. MastCell Talk 01:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
How about the specific article which was formerly used on the article?
What about the CREW document?
I understand MastCell and myself will disagree, but what is the opinion of other editors?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Neither the Daily Mail nor the Daily Caller is a reliable source. Neither should be allowed within a metric mile of a BLP article. Pretty much per MastCell. --John (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
And what is John's opinion of the CREW source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightCowLeftCoast (talk • contribs)
Your continued insistence on citing the CREW source (but not subsequent CREW sources that say the evidence for these allegations is "skimpy", or that characterize it as a smear campaign) in this forum, when the most appropriate place to discuss them is the article talk page itself (and where I have discussed it with you at some length), smacks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This RSN entry is about the Daily Caller specifically, so CREW don't enter into it. I admit that I cannot come up with an explanation for this behavior that I find sufficiently AGFish, so please, enlighten your fellow editors (perhaps on my talk page, to keep the off-topic discussion here at a minimum). I would appreciate it, anyway. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 00:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Just stick to what's in AP and you will be fine. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree that we need to stick to better sources (e.g. the AP) in this particular case. The AP's reporting makes clear that the accusations were false, and that the women were paid to frame Menendez ("3 women were paid to falsely claim they had sex with Menendez, Dominican police say"). I don't think RCLC will be satisfied with that, but hopefully we can move on.

But I'd also like to put this question of the Daily Caller as a reliable source to bed. This isn't the first time that the Daily Caller has pushed dubious or outright false material for partisan purposes. In fall 2011, The Daily Caller published an article claiming that the EPA under Obama wanted to hire 230,000 additional bureaucrats, at a cost of $21 billion. That claim got repeated a lot - in outlets like FoxNews and the National Review - but it was completely and transparently false ([54], [55]). When they were called out on the falsehood, the Daily Caller doubled down rather than correcting it ([56]).

WP:RS demands that we use sources with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In light of these two incidents, I don't see how anyone can argue that the Daily Caller has or deserves such a reputation. There have been several high-profile instances now where this site has prioritized its ideological goals over basic journalistic accuracy. We should be very cautious about using this website as a source, and should definitely avoid it altogether when it comes to contentious material about living people. MastCell Talk 22:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Too bad you are omitting the up too part that TDC originally used. I remember that story when it came out and equated it as to "you can lose up to 100lbs on the wikipedia diet". Reading is fundamental.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not omitting anything; I'm conveying the view, found in the reliable sources I cited, that the Daily Caller published and defended an ideologically driven falsehood. That's not my opinion; it's the conclusion of the reliable sources I linked. MastCell Talk 00:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You should read those sources more closely again. They confirm exactly what I said with respect to "up to". And the WaPo blog isn't reliable, even under the auspices of WP:NEWSBLOG. It's opinion, and partisan opinion at that. It seems odd that one would discount a source for partisanship and yet rely on another partisan source (the blog) to impeach the former. This is why we can't and shouldn't stick a branding iron onto the face of things we don't like. We look at each article in question to make a determination.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't follow your logic. You think a Washington Post blog is unreliable "partisan opinion", but you think the Daily Caller is a reliable source? Even if you choose to dismiss the Washington Post, there are other sources which called out the Daily Caller for publishing falsehoods. I think you're usually pretty reasonable, but I'm having trouble understanding your viewpoint here. I'd be interested to hear some outside views here, because I think the Daily Caller has clearly demonstrated a lack of fact-checking and accuracy and thus should not be used as a reliable source (per the relevant criteria). MastCell Talk 04:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I should have been more verbose, that's a symptom of tablet typing. I'm not sure what your level of familiarity is with the WP, but their online arm is quite a bit different than the "print" edition. That is starting to change. My understanding of NEWSBLOG is that we accept blog entries from normally reliable sources as reliable themselves. I don't think there is any source on the planet more reliable than the WashPost. The blog in question here and for most blog entries on the WashPost are written by columnists, thus opinion based. Of course we don't need a RS to make a determination if another RS is reliable or not, so perhaps this is moot. However you did state that you had a RS saying the TDC got it wrong. You don't (and they didn't really say that). TDC does make some over the top headlines, no doubt to generate a buzz. We should be more diligent in the usage of such sources so not to mislead our reader, but so far there is no compelling reason to disqualify an entire organization.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; that makes more sense. Let's talk about "over-the-top headlines". Leaving aside the instances I outlined above, the Daily Caller once notoriously printed a headline reading: "NEW URBAN DICTIONARY ENTRY PEGS HARRY REID AS CHILD MOLESTER". The article concluded: "Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson has not responded to The Daily Caller's request, first made August 4, for confirmation or denial about whether the Senate Majority Leader is in fact a pederast." ([57])

That's yellow journalism at its worst. I'd hope no one would seriously suggest that we go to the Harry Reid biography and include a section entitled "Pedophilia allegations" - but we've done essentially the same thing on the Menendez biography, prominently featuring false smears publicized by this "reliable source". I'm not sure how many such examples I need to present to convince people that we shouldn't let this source anywhere near a biography. MastCell Talk 17:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, especially for BLP. I would say TDC's article about Mr. Reid is a non story along the lines of asking him when he stopped beating his wife. Short of corroboration, we can't use this. The Menendez articles are a different story. I would include them only if this story got legs and led to other consequences, for example political fallout. But why speculate? Lets just wait and see what happens. Personally, at the moment I see no need to mention the prostitute whatsoever. We are not a newspaper with up to the minute details.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Given the latest scandal, perhaps we can agree to have a moratorium on using or adding any of their outrageous allegations. I can't recall hearing about a story where a news organization was this widely ridiculed by its peers. That's not a good sign for reliability. The latest article, ironically, is an AP article I saw at the dailycaller. No discussion yet on who in the United States is ultimately behind it at all. Reviewing the front page - I don't know. I've always thought that Newsmax was pretty bad, so if this is like that, it should be used very cautiously. The reality is that a blanket statement is probably not going to be ever get consensus, and I can't see the website being added to the blacklist. Maybe continue to collect evidence of exaggeration and mistakes. Also, to "Little green rosetta" - just because a news organization runs a blog doesn't mean it isn't reliable. I've never heard that news organizations "silo" off their reliability; my guess is that they are generally unaware of the enormous significance that Wikipedia users put on certain titles. II | (t - c) 06:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:NEWSBLOG before you decide if blogs of RS are always reliable sources. Often they are reliable, but certainly not always. It's a case by case basis.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It would seem that in light of the litany of recognized disinformation and slander published by TDC they should be considered an unreliable source, with the usual rejoinder for consideration on a case-by-case basis for specific articles that someone deems reliable being raised here, instead of the other way around. In light of the foregoing discussion, I don't see justification for adopting the premise that their articles are to be considered RS.
It is a waste of time and effort to have to refute on this board every piece of 'yellow journalism' they print because some partisan wants to use it in an attack. I think it has been demonstrated that the burden of proof should be shifted.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Participation on wikipedia is not compulsory. This notice board is precisely the sort of venue that may be used to determine the veracity of a specfic source. AFAIK there has never been an organization that has been effectively banned as a RS. I'm not sure how we would even entertain such a proposal.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think we finally gave up completely on the Daily Mail because of its utter disregard for journalistic standards (I linked the relevant RS/N discussion above). Interestingly, the Daily Caller editor who pushed this prostitute "story" just left to join the Daily Mail ([58]), which I suppose makes a certain kind of sense. MastCell Talk 19:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting read, as it echoes this conversation to a degree, but there was no consensus that TDM was banned as a RS, perhaps for the same reasons I mention here. Look, the bottom line is if an article from TDC or TDM or whatever is unreliable, it should be apparent from the article in question and corroborating sources (or lack thereof). There is no need to cb any RS.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe this hasn't been done yet, but perhaps there should be a basic distinction between tabloid and bonafide news publications.
Articles published in tabloids would not be assumed to be reliable in the proposed schema; it's that simple.
When I referred to shifting the burden of proof, that is all I meant; that is to say, it hinges on what is assumed to be reliable versus what is assumed to require substantiation to be considered reliable.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I gather that it is perhaps controversial to call the media outlet at issue a tabloid, but for all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter what term one chooses to characterize media outlets with a conspicuously poor track record in relation to criteria required by Wikipedia to be considered reliable.
The point is should there be some way of implementing preventative measures against the careless use of such sources.--Ubikwit (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem, again, is that this is one of those situations where ideological dominance kicks in a bit. People with a problem with TDC will turn around and say Media Matters is okay. Those who think Truthout is a bad source will then add stuff from NewsMax or WorldNetDaily. It would be good to settle upon this a bit sitewide, but as it stands, it appears to be case-by-case. As TDC is a journalistic enterprise with a history of fact-checking and accuracy (even if they get it wrong on occasion, as do plenty of other reliable sources), the question moves from "is TDC reliable" to "given the evidence available, is it appropriate to use in this context." Barring more developments in the prostitution case, the piece might actually make more sense in the TDC article than in the Senator's given that the issue has become more about the reporting and less about the activity. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
On what basis do you describe the Daily Caller as a "journalistic enterprise"? Its executive editor was (until his recent departure for the Daily Mail) an individual with no journalistic background at all, whose prior experience consisted of trying to infiltrate and discredit environmental groups on behalf of a conservative PR firm ([59]). The Daily Caller's cavalier approach to factual accuracy has embarrassed its own employees, a number of whom have left as a result ([60]). I agree we should be consistent in deprecating partisan sources (including Media Matters, the Huffington Post, Truthout, etc), but the fact that we haven't achieved perfection in that regard is not an excuse to keep using this particular low-quality partisan source.

Equating the Daily Caller with reputable journalistic enterprises because they both "get it wrong on occasion" completely misses the mark in terms of what makes a source reliable. Reliability isn't defined by the publication of occasional errors. It's defined by a process of accountability in which errors, when identified, are promptly corrected. A reliable is one that shows some serious interest and accountability in whether or not the stuff it publishes actually turns out to be, like, true. That's why the New York Times is a reliable source, and the Daily Caller isn't. MastCell Talk 22:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced TDC is low quality as much as highly partisan. Tucker Carlson is a credible journalist. People leave outlets all the time for a lot of reasons. If the point is corrections, then we have a lot of otherwise reputable sources (like Washington Post, Reuters, Politifact) that get it wrong and don't correct it which are part of that blanket and should pass muster. In cases where we can avoid TDC, I agree that we should. In places where we can't (like Menendez, Journolist, etc), then we need to handle it on a case-by-case basis. It's not Newsmax. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
What people should realize is the sources are the articles. We take into consideration the organization behind the articles, but at the end of the day every published piece of material, be it from the NYT or National Enquirer stands in its own merit. Yes, that National Enqurier has published a reliable story from time to time.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, wrong, wrong. National Enquirer articles only are shown to be not total lies (when they, rarely, do have a grain of truth in them) LONG, LONG after the fact, because other more reputable organizations have followed up the leads and allegations. Since we do not do WP:OR we can only evaluate the reliability of a source based on its reputation and history. The Daily Caller has a reputation for yellow journalism, and happens to also be a partisan source, so it is non-RS. If at some point TDC printed something that somehow happened to not be complete and utter horsepuckey, we would still not be able to use it until a RS repeated it, because until an RS vets it, it is still garbage. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • As a sad but telling footnote, this "story" has collapsed into allegations that the Daily Caller actually paid the prostitutes in question to lie and frame Menendez (Washington Post, Newark Star-Ledger, The Hill, Politico, etc). While these new allegations are no more substantiated than the original accusations (which the Daily Caller heavily promoted), we're left with a situation where in the best case, this website promoted transparently false and defamatory smears against a political opponent; in a worst-case scenario, the website actually paid to have a U.S. Senator framed. Even assuming the best-case scenario, this episode is worth keeping in mind next time someone pushes to use this source for contentious material about living people. MastCell Talk 17:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Just read that TDC wrote up something on Michelle Bachmann, guess that's not admissible either from the TDC source, oh well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Correct. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Off-topic complaints about the liberal mainstream media
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see non-right leaning Main Stream Media sources have seen that the waters have been chummed and the subject is a conservative American politician, and look at all those other sources! Guess those left-leaning sources are germane?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Please review WP:SOAP. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The previous question is not about making a stance about the non-neutrality of sources, but a question about sources.

Guess those left-leaning sources are germane?

I have already said that the political lean of a source has no relevance on whether a source is reliable or not, but that doesn't mean that it can't be pointed out. Furthermore, others have wanted to label certain sources with their political lean in the article space, but do not view that the political lean of others sources should be mentioned.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, if the left-leaning nature of the MSM is in question, there is already a section about it on Wikipedia. And a cursory search finds multiple reliable sources (including books, and scholarly sources) that give significant coverage regarding the subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, please review WP:SOAP. You are editorializing, and this is not the appropriate place for it. Perhaps write an essay or something. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 02:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
And what would UCL recommend the essay be about? And how would it contribute to the subject that is discussed in WP:IRL?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The essay is called User:Lionelt/Countering liberal bias. Feel free to expand it. I've already tried deleting it. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Andrzej Michalek "Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne"

Map in question. Previous version had the name "Stralsund" in it for the sake of double naming convention but this was removed as the name didn't exist yet in 1121.

Over at the Lutici page, a user is removing a map based on the argument that it is based on a "bad source" (whatever that's suppose to be - sounds like "a source I don't like") [61].

The source is a book, "Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne" ("Western Slavs. Early feudal monarchies") by Andrzej Michałek, according to Polish Wikipedia and the book itself, a historian with specialty in military history. The publisher is Bellona Publishing House, a publisher which specializes in books in military history. It collaborates and has published works by famous and respected historians such as Henryk Samsonowicz and Lech Wyszczelski. It also published a well established historical journal Mówią Wieki. Additionally, according to Polish wikipedia [62] it is one of the largest publishers in Poland and awards a prestigious annual prize "Nagroda Klio" (apparently called "The Nobel of History", though I'm pretty sure that's just within Poland).

The objection to the source is that... well, I'm not exactly clear, based on talk page discussion [63] - either something to do with the fact that the editor thinks that a particular name of the place didn't exist at the time, or that no place existed at the time, or that... I dunno. Not sure how these arguments are actually relevant to the issue either.

Is this source reliable or not? Volunteer Marek 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue I have with this book is not whether it meets WP:RS in general, but if it is reliable for specific pieces of information drawn from it. The contested claims referenced to this book are:
  • A campaign against Stralsund/Stralow in 1121 ([64][65][66][67][68]; link to discussion). The claim that this place existed already in 1121 is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim as no history of Stralsund sees its origins that early. Thus, I expect that if the claim is to be introduced here that Stralsund already existed by 1121 that there are additional references added, best from prints dedicated to the history of Stralsund, which would support that claim. No such references were presented until now, and the most probable reason for this is that these refs just do not exist. The book has made an error here that must not be included.
  • A joint Danish-Polish campaign against Rügen in 1130 leading to the defeat of the local tribe who swore allegiance to the Polish duke ([69][70][71]; link to discussion). Here, the book mistook the island of Rügen for a neighboring Pomeranian island, Wollin, against which a successful Danish-Polish campaign in 1130 with a subsequent acceptance of allegiance by the local prince is established by primary as well as secondary sources. The primary source for this is Saxo Grammaticus XIV (relevant excerpt quoted here in German, also quoted is the acceptance of this by the long-time chief archaeologist of Wolin, Filipowiak), another recent secondary source specialized on Rügen and surroundings is Bengt Büttner: Die Pfarreien der Insel Rügen. Von der Christianisierung bis zur Reformation, p. 27, who also details the Danish-Polish campaign of 1130 and has it directed at Wollin, not on Rügen; same is true for the Pomeranian history by Oskar Eggert: Geschichte Pommerns vol. 1, p. 54, just to name a few specialists for the history of that region. Obviously, the book referenced by VM is in error here.
That the book is only reliable as a general overview, and rather not when it comes to details, is also evident from its intended nature as an overview work.
  • The book does not reveal its references for the claims
  • The book is a general overview over the West Slavs
  • The author had within a very short period of time not only published this West Slavs book, but also an East Slavs and a South Slavs book ([72]). His main publications are about crusades.
    So this is not a scholar publishing the results of his work, and he seems to have made a few errors by summarizing the work of others. Obviously, the intend of an overview is not to publish unreferenced novel theses about details of local histories, and some confusion of placenames just happens in those books from time to time. These obvious errors need not be transferred to wikipedia and treated as facts, per the policies WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:FRINGE. They are not even WP:NOTABLE enough to pretend there actually is a scholary discussion about that or that these errors represent a minority view - these are just errors. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)(diffs added Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC))
No, these are just pretexts you've invented to remove a source you don't like. There are neither exceptional claims here, nor errors.Volunteer Marek 17:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
If the claims were not exceptional, how come you are unable to produce additional references confirming these claims despite being asked to do so multiple times? Secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Stralsund/Stralow/whatever in 1121? Secondary sources that Stralsund even existed in 1121? Secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Rügen in 1130 resulting in an oath of allegiance by the local Rani tribe? Skäpperöd (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And Skapperod - with regard to the map (one thing at a time please) - can you at least be clear and precise as to what exactly this "exceptional claim" is supposed to be? Initially I thought you were objecting to the name "Stralsund" being included. And indeed, in 1121 this name did not exist since the area was inhabited by Slavs. German colonists did not get there till several decades later and that's when the name "Stralsund" came about. But I've removed the name of the map and you are still making objections about "exceptional claims". Very vague, ill-defined objections. What exactly is it that you object to?Volunteer Marek 18:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Just re-read my posts, especially the one right above, and if you have any references to secondary sources supporting the claims made by Michalek do present them, or, if you agree that Michalek confused something there and there are no such references, do say so. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I have already read your posts, including the one right above, and I still don't understand what this 'exceptional claim' is supposed to be. Can you please explain it directly, succinctly and clearly.Volunteer Marek 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, one last try. The following claims you added to articles and referenced to Michalek seem to be factually wrong, since there are no secondary sources supporting them. Thus, they fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. In particular, I (still) want you to present here secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Stralsund/Stralow/whatever in 1121, secondary sources that Stralsund even existed in 1121, secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Rügen in 1130 resulting in an oath of allegiance by the local Rani tribe. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Whether "Stralsund" existed or not is irrelevant and a total red herring. This "exceptional claim" is not being made.
The source for Boleslaw's campaign west of the Oder and to Rugen is the very source we're discussing. For these to be "exceptional claims" you would need to actually show a source which directly contradicts the claim, which you haven't done, or show sources which indicate the impossibility of the claim (which you haven't done).
Let me clarify a few things here. Are you really questioning whether Boleslaw campaigned west of the Oder in 1121? Your comments on the talk page seem to suggest it. If so, then THAT is an exception claim. If not, which part of the campaign EXACTLY are you claiming to be an exceptional claim? Volunteer Marek 23:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Whether Stralsund/Stralow/whatever you call it existed in 1121 is pretty relevant if you claim that a campaign in 1121 was directed at that place. Are you able to present any secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Stralsund/Stralow/whatever in 1121, any secondary sources that Stralsund even existed in 1121, any secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Rügen in 1130 resulting in an oath of allegiance by the local Rani tribe to back up these claims you made and referenced to Michalek? Skäpperöd (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I - or the reliable source - make no claim that the campaign was "directed" at "that place". Are you questioning whether Boleslaw campaigned west of the Oder in 1121? Or just that part of the campaign? Volunteer Marek 00:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
That there was a campaign by Boleslaw in 1121 into the Müritz area is undisputed, I added that material myself and can provide more references for that if necessary.
You added Stralsund/Stralow as a target of that campaign [73][74][75][76][77] and that is part of the dispute. Your unability to produce any secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Stralsund/Stralow/whatever in 1121, any secondary sources that Stralsund even existed in 1121, any secondary sources on a campaign of Boleslaw against Rügen in 1130 resulting in an oath of allegiance by the local Rani tribe (as you claim with reference to Michalek's overview book) is evident by now, underlining my point.
I am thinking about forwarding this discussion to DRN, as this is probably not the appropriate forum. It would be great if you meanwhile revert your contestet additions per WP:BRD. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
That there was a campaign by Boleslaw in 1121 into the Müritz area is undisputed - ok good. So let me get this straight: you don't have the problem with most of the map, but just that little blue arrow pointing up from Dymin to Strzalow, is that right? This is supposed to be this "exceptional claim"?
And again - Michalek IS a reliable secondary source. You just don't like it. If you want other sources which talk about Boleslaw's campaign here is one which mentions that Boleslaw campaigned in the area of today's Straslund/Strzalow explicitly [78].
And one more time, for this to be an "exceptional claim" you have to provide reliable sources which directly contradict it, or sources which show the impossibility of it being the case (that's also actually showing that there's an "error" here, rather than just having some anonymous Wikipedia editor called Skapperod claiming that a reliable source made an error). You haven'd done either.Volunteer Marek 15:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Under the premise that the pdf linked above is a decent source, where exactly (which sentences on which page) does it say "Boleslaw campaigned in the area of today's Straslund/Strzalow explicitly" ? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It's reliable. If you search it for the name "Stralsund" it's easy to find. Now, do you have any sources which directly contradict this claim or show that the claim is impossible? Volunteer Marek 19:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Your summary that the the pdf linked above (a reprint of a 1939 book) "mentions that Boleslaw campaigned in the area of today's Straslund/Strzalow explicitly" is misleading. The sentence reads: "Ekspansja polska i niemiecka zetknęłyby się w taki sposób ze sobą na przestrzeni górnego biegu Piany od Jeziora Morzyckiego ewentualnie po okolice dzisiejszego Stralsundu."
Your translation "area of today's Stralsund" is correct, which does however not support your claim of a capture of Stralsund and does not even suggest that Stralsund existed back then, but you left out the important qualifier probably (ewentualnie) identifying even that as speculative and not as explicit as you claim.
So the quoted statement does not support any of the contested claims made by you with reference to Michalek, which means that there is still not one secondary source backing those claims (Michalek himself is a tertiary source per WP:PSTS). Skäpperöd (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Where in the world have I, or the source, made a claim "of a capture of Stralsund"??? Nowhere, you made that up. That's a pure Strawman fallacy. And there is a qualifier "probably" but so what? You have not presented a single source to contradict this particular source, just your own speculation and opinion. Sorry, when it comes down to "anonymous user Skapperod on Wikipedia vs. published reliable source", reliable source is what we go with.
And this tertiary source business - now that it looks like your original objection holds no water, you're simply moving on to inventing a new pretext.
To sum up: we have two sources which support each other. Both are reliable. You have claimed that some "exceptional claim" is being made. This is not the case. You have not provided a single source or other shred of evidence or support (other than your own opinion) which contradicts either of these two reliable sources. Can we finish this discussion regarding the map now? There's still the whole Rugia thing to talk about.Volunteer Marek 21:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Re "Where in the world have I, or the source, made a claim "of a capture of Stralsund"??? Nowhere, you made that up."
You made that claim e.g. here, here, and here. You have also drawn a map with a large arrow pointing at an encircled dot named Stralsund/Stralow, claiming that happened in 1121. If you do not remember even making these claims that led to part of the dispute, is there a chance that it was somehow done in haste and you do not have an interest in upholding them, so we can strike at least these points and concentrate on the contested 1130 campaign? Skäpperöd (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough, though it really would've saved a lot of time had you been explicit that what you object to is the phrasing "captured Stralsund". We can change that to "probably campaigned in the area of Strzalow (future Stralsund)" . And why where you removing Demmin then? Anyway, I assume that you don't have any objections to the map so yes, we can move on to the Rugia/Rugen business.Volunteer Marek 22:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I am glad that there is at least some progress here, but "Strzalow (future Stralsund)" still implies that place existed in 1121. What exactly does Michalek say, can you quote the respective sentence(s) here? Skäpperöd (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I can see that this will degenerate into a discussion of whether the pre-Stralsund "settlement" at the site was a city, when it dated from and if Stralsund can be said to be a successor to Strzalow. So I'll just change it to "future Stralsund (Strzalow)".Volunteer Marek 22:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you please nevertheless quote the respective sentence(s) in Michalek, regarding Demmin and Stralsund? You said above M. is not talking about a capture, so what exactly does he say then? Skäpperöd (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I looked at a snippet preview of Michalek p. 102 available on books.google and it seems that Michalek did not write anything related to Demmin and Stralsund in 1121. Rather, there is a small unreferenced map [79] looking exactly like your map [80]. Apart from WP:COPYRIGHT, I don't think that any information from this illustration as well as your copy of it should be included unless there are secondary sources confirming them.
It is sufficient to mention that Boleslaw did campaign from the Oder river towards Lake Müritz and back in 1121 (undisputed, multiple prim. & sec. sources available), because by doing that he had to cross Vorpommern anyway. We could replace the capture/Demmin/Stralsund bit (no secondary sources supporting it) by sth. undisputed like "crossing Western Pomerania." Skäpperöd (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a volunteer at DRN and have closed that request without action, due to this unresolved discussion here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(break)

To sum up what we have got here so far:

  • The book in question [81] is an overview work about West Slavs not citing references for the claims of interest here. The author of the book has within a few years published similar overviews about East and South Slavs and else published about crusades [82]. The book is used as the sole reference for claims and a map added by VM.
  • The reference for VM's claims of a capture of Stralsund and Demmin by Boleslaw in 1121 [83][84][85][86] as well as for the map drawn by VM [87] is an identical map on p. 102 [88]. The book does not elaborate on the contested details in its text.
  • No secondary sources can be found to substantiate the contested details.
  • Efforts to find such sources only resulted in finding one reprint of a 1939 book [89][90] that says that German and Polish campaigns in 1121 met in the Müritz and upper Peene areas (undisputed) and probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund [91] which does not back up the claims made by VM.
  • The reference for VM's claim of a joint Danish-Polish campaign against Rügen in 1130 leading to the defeat of the local tribe who swore allegiance to the Polish duke [92][93][94] has not yet been made clear in terms of a page nr. and a quote from the book. I ask for the exact quote.
  • No secondary sources can be found to substantiate that claim.
  • There are a primary and several secondary sources for an 1130 Danish-Polish campaign targeting the neighboring Pomeranian island, Wollin, which resulted in the subsequent renewal of Polish suzerainity over the Pomeranian prince. A confusion of placenames by Michalek is thus very likely.

I thus maintain that

  • the book is a tertiary source not preferred as the sole source for details per WP:PSTS;
  • VM's claims linked above referencing the book are WP:EXCEPTIONAL as they can not be supported by secondary sources, WP:FRINGE also applies;
  • the author did not intend to introduce novel theses as he is not using references, and novel theses about local details are not expected in an overview about a broad area and timeframe;
  • these claims should thus not remain in wikipedia articles/maps.

Skäpperöd (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The questions I at this point ask VM to answer are
  • (1) Do you continue to maintain that Michalek is sufficient as the sole reference for your claims?
  • (2) Will you re-revert a revert of your introduction of said claims into said articles?
  • (3) Will you make sure at some appropriate board that your map [95] does not violate WP:COPYRIGHT?
  • (4) Can you agree on the following:
    • (4a) replace the capture/Demmin/Stralsund part (1121 campaign) by some undisputed term like "through Western Pomerania"?
    • (4b) remove the claim about an 1130 campaign against Rügen, I will instead add the 1130 campaign against Wollin based on the secondary sources above and others?
    • (4c) remove the map [96] until it is altered in a way that it unambiguously only illustrates events supported by multiple secondary sources?
Skäpperöd (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, the "summary" by Skapperod above is incorrect; it's POV falsehood and spin. I thought we were done with the map issue and it was solved. Apparently not.

Rather what we got here is:

  • A reliable source which was written by a professional historian with a specialization in military history
  • It was published by a very well respected publishing house which specialized in history books
  • It is simply not true that the book does not have references - it has an extensive bibliography.

That really should be the end of story right there. But just to satisfy Skapperod's IDONTLIKEIT objections I've also provided another reliable source (though a bit old, republished in 1975) which directly backs up the information in the map. So it is simply not true that there are "no secondary sources" to support the claims made. This part is just blatantly incorrect.

At the same time Skapperod has not provided A SINGLE source which would contradict the information contained the map. This is because the map is correct so no such sources exist. I've already provided reliable sources so it is really now up to Skapperod to provide sources which contradict the map or drop the matter per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

As to the other questions

  • We can replace "captured Stralsund" with "campaigned in the area of Stralsund". Oh wait, I already did that.
  • The second source I provided explicitly states Na zachodzie podbój polski objął znowuż zapewne miejscowości Kocków i Dymin (in the west the Polish conquest also most likely covered the towns of Kockow (Guztkow) and Dymin (Demmin)". So the wording for Demmin is fine and in fact Gutzkow should be added.
  • We should NOT replace the names of the specific locales with "Western Pomerania" as the latter term is extremely vague. In many applications "Western Pomerania" means just Szczecin and Wolin, pretty far away from Demin and Murtiz lake. That would (purposely perhaps?) mislead the reader.
  • With respect to the Rugia campaign we need to discuss this further. I object to removal of this info, since it is mentioned in a number of sources, although I'm open to changing the date of when this happened.
  • The idea that Michalek confused the invasion of Rugia with an attack on Wolin is Skapperod's own original research. None of the sources he provided suggest this or even mention Rugia in this context. Indeed Michalek explicitly states that before sailing to Rugia, the Danish fleet arrived at Pomeranian towns and then picked up the Polish forces. So there's not even a contradiction here about the timing (which, btw, with respect to Wolin, I've seen as given for 1129 in other sources not 1130). So this stays until we work out the best phrasing which captures the chronological ambiguity in the sources.

So no, map stays. It is based on reliable sources and that really is the end of story. This board is suppose to help us decide whether these sources are reliable but so far no one else has chimed in, unfortunately. However it seems clear to me that the requirements for reliability and verifiability have been satisfied.

We can tweak the wording with respect to Dymin and Kockow but there is no reason to remove them and replace it with ambiguously worded text.

We can keep the discussion on the Rugia question open.Volunteer Marek 15:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

And oh yeah. If you really think the map is a copyvio... because it resembles one in the book (it is not identical by any means), in other words, it faithfully reflects information found in a reliable source - then we can ask someone with expertise in copyright question about this, for example User:Moonriddengirl. I would be happy to make a scan of the map in the book itself so that she can compare it to the map I made myself and let us know about this issue.Volunteer Marek 15:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Re Stralsund & Demmin 1121:
  • The 1939 book does neither support the wording you introduced first, i.e. "as well as capturing Demmin (Dymin) and Stralsund (Strzałów)" [97] and "Capture Demmin, Stralow (Stralsund)" [98], nor does it support the changed wording "Bolesław took control of Gützkow (Kocków) and Demmin (Dymin), and campaigned in the area of Stralow (Stralsund)" [99].
  • The 1939 book actually says "the Polish conquest also most likely covered the towns of Kockow (Güztkow) and Dymin (Demmin)" [100] and "probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund" [101] (emphasis added). That is far away from stating a capture like you do, and it is also far away from claiming that Stralsund existed in 1121.
  • Leaving aside for a moment all the problems a 1939 (!) Polish source might have had with regard to Germany, and presuming the book is reliable for the information referenced, and leaving aside all UNDUE concerns, at least one must follow what it actually says and not turn something that is clearly marked as speculative into a statement of fact!
  • So just to move forward, I would settle for a sentence that reflects these concerns:
"Bolesław launched a campaign from the Oder towards the Müritz area, probably also covering Gützkow, Demmin and the area of today's Stralsund."
Re Rügen 1130: Please at least quote what Michalek claims about a Rügen campaign in 1130 and on which page he does so. That does not settle the WP:EXCEPTIONAL nature of this claim and the absence of support by any secondary sources, but it helps focus the discussion.
Skäpperöd (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
"Bolesław launched a campaign from the Oder towards the Müritz area, probably also covering Gützkow, Demmin and the area of today's Stralsund." - that's almost there. One important aspect is that the campaign was successful (the word "conquest" conveys that). If you just put the word "successful" in there before the word "campaign" I'll be satisfied. I assume this means you're dropping your objections to the map? Volunteer Marek 19:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I object to the addition of "successful," as it could be construed as the campaign resulting in a conquest, as in your present wording. A change from "launched" to "completed" would be a compromise here.
Apart from this compromise about the 1121 campaign, I uphold all objections made above, including the objections to the map. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
So we haven't really made any progress? You're basically trying to push us back to square one and restart the whole thing? The map is reliably sourced. That's really all that there is to it.Volunteer Marek 20:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
And the campaign was successful. And there was conquest. Again, I don't understand why you are objecting here, after pretty much agreeing with this.Volunteer Marek 20:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
A campaign does not automatically result in a conquest. I strongly recommend not getting into new disputes here at this point when there is a chance to settle at least part of the ongoing dispute with above compromise. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course not, you're perfectly right about that. But this particular campaign DID result in conquest, or at least the relevant Lutici tribes/princes swearing oaths of fealty to Boleslaw. At the very least that's called "successful", hence I don't understand your objection to my proposed compromise. Also the source(s) I provided discuss the Polish-German boundary at the time running on the line Muritz Lake-Demmin-Straslund/Rugia (i.e. coast). So it does in fact make sense to talk of conquest here. Now, granted, that conquest was somewhat short lived and the control had to be sort of "split" between Boleslaw and the Emperor in 1135 but it was none the less real. We both know this. So I don't understand why you are trying to argue about it. Again.
I also was working under the assumption that we have managed to resolve at least part of the question, and was quite pleasantly surprised by it. But then you went and tried to restart the whole dispute from square one, by saying you object to the map again, AFTER you've pretty much indicated that you didn't disagree with anything in it.Volunteer Marek 05:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I strongly contest "the relevant Lutici tribes/princes swearing oaths of fealty to Boleslaw" and a "Polish-German boundary" as a result of that campaign and again recommend not opening another box as long as plenty issues are unresolved here already. But that does not prevent implementing a compromise sentence here with regard to the course of the campaign. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
You can strongly contest if you want, but then please provide at least SOME sources to support your view (I already have provided sources). And the problem with the compromise sentence is that seems to be stuck on the word "conquest" and/or "successful". And honestly "completed" sounds silly. I also am a bit bothered that you are going back on what I thought was agreement with respect to the map. Can you explain why you're doing that? Volunteer Marek 05:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, before we discuss anything else (e.g. the outcome of the 1121 campaign), can we please focus here on the disputed issues at hand. My offer to introduce above compromise about the course of the 1121 campaign still stands, to resolve at least part of the dispute. Then we can move on to the map and to the 1130 campaign. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The map IS the disputed issue at hand. Which I thought we resolved, until you, for some reason, restarted the whole argument. As to the wording, as I pointed out above the compromise apparently stalled on the words "conquest" and "control". Again, "complete" is a weasel word - if I mount a failed campaigned I will still have "completed it", just "unsuccessfully". Hence "successful" is the minimum in terms of terminology here - THAT is a compromise.Volunteer Marek 06:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
And honestly, how many times am I going to have to ask you to actually provide some sources to support your objections? Unless you are willing and/or capable of doing that this conversation is not going to go anywhere, I'm afraid.Volunteer Marek 06:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It is very much possible to separate the course and the outcome of a campaign if there is agreement over the first and disagreement over the latter. Do you agree that the campaign was "probably also covering Gützkow, Demmin and the area of today's Stralsund" so we at least have the wording settled for the course of the campaign. It contradicts the 1939 book right now. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

(break 2)

It is extremely difficult to continue to assume good faith in the face of edits such as these [102]. You've added a "failed verification" tag on top off the disputed tag and then restored it after I removed it. This is NOT "failed verification", except in your own personal opinion. The info is in the source. What is disputed is the wording. But there is already a tag for that - and honestly, even that should be removed. It appears that you've decided to escalate the dispute, on top of restarting and erasing the compromises that at one point we've achieved. Like I said, these kinds of actions are hard to interpret as being done in good faith. Volunteer Marek 07:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Side issue, but well:
  • The 1939 book does neither support the wording you introduced first, i.e. "as well as capturing Demmin (Dymin) and Stralsund (Strzałów)" [103] and "Capture Demmin, Stralow (Stralsund)" [104], nor does it support the changed wording "Bolesław took control of Gützkow (Kocków) and Demmin (Dymin), and campaigned in the area of Stralow (Stralsund)" [105] and "took control of Gützkow (Kocków) and Demmin (Dymin) and probably campaigned in the area of Strzałów (future Stralsund)." [106][107]
  • The 1939 book actually says "most likely covered the towns of Kockow (Güztkow) and Dymin (Demmin)" [108] and "probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund" [109] (emphasis added). That is far away from stating a capture like you do, and it is also far away from claiming that Stralsund existed in 1121.
This contradiction could be solved by introducing "campaign from the Oder towards the Müritz area, probably also covering Gützkow, Demmin and the area of today's Stralsund." Skäpperöd (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Like I already said:
1. You have not provided any sources which would contradict the statements which I *have* provided sources for.
2. You seem to have resorted to the tactic of escalating the dispute by restarting the dispute anew, *after* it looked like we had come to an agreement on some issues.
3. You seem to have resorted to the tactic of escalating the dispute even further by adding unwarranted "failed verification" tags on top of existing "disputed" tags.
As a sign of good faith, to show that you really are interested in resolving this disagreement and working out a compromise, rather than just spinning it out into infinity, I ask that you remove the "failed verification" tag. There ALREADY IS a "disputed" tag there. That is more than enough.
Thanks. Volunteer Marek 07:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Btw, the above source states Na zachodzie podbój polski objął znowuż zapewne miejscowości Kocków i Dymin. "podbój" = "conquest". "Zapewne" is most likely so I don't have a problem with that. But "conquest" needs to be in there. Volunteer Marek 07:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The basic problem here is that you introduced and reverted back in information that is solely based on your reading of a map in a tertiary source with no secondary sources at all supporting it. Also, it is unambiguous from the quotes presented right above that the 1939 book you used to reference one of those sentences does in fact not support it, thus a failed verification as outlined in the e/s and above. At least this part of the dispute could be solved by introducing "campaign from the Oder towards the Müritz area, probably also covering Gützkow, Demmin and the area of today's Stralsund." That is a wording supported by the 1939 book. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Putting aside your incorrect analysis of the "problem" here (rather I think it is your inability to produce any sources to support your case and relying solely on expressing your opinion over and over and over again with a seeming intent to tire the opponent out - i.e. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) - the sentence needs to have the word "successful" or the word "conquered" or "took control" in there. That's in the source and the campaign was a success, although from a longer term perspective, an elusive one. I don't see how you can deny that (especially without sources).Volunteer Marek 18:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I wish to note that further sources can be provided, both for the map and the fact that Boleslaw "took control" (rather than just "campaigned in") of Demmin and area around Murtiz lake. Here are two:
1. [110] which has a map which shows Polish control of Demmin and Gutzkow between 1122 and 1127.
2. [111]. The relevant excerpt can be seen here [112]. Quote: He (Boleslaw) recaptured the whole area up to and well beyond the Oder, as far as the Island of Rugen.
Both of these are reliable sources.Volunteer Marek 18:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

News rack: Is it a reliable source

Is a page obtained from news rack considered a reliable source? See this page which I would like to use to replace a dead link ("Nandigram violence can't be justified: intellectuals". Hindustan Times. India.[dead link‍]) in Teesta Setalvad. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hindustan Times seems to be a reliable source for the type of information used here, although the actual text used in the article doesn't follow the source very faithfully. Sources don't need to be available online to be usable, but adding an archival link to the "News Rack" archive could be a good idea. Amending the article to follow what the source says would also be a good idea. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean we could replace [113] with [114]? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of European Peoples

  • Source to check: Carl Waldman, Catherine Maso. Encyclopedia of European Peoples. Infobase Publishing, 2006. xii.
  • Being used at Germanic peoples in the lead.
  • More precisely: It is being used to claim that there are still nations (such as specifically, Sudeten Germans, Alemannic Swiss, and Afrikaners, who are today referred to as Germanic peoples). See diff.
  • Note that the articles more conventional sources are all about the more well known concept of Germanic peoples in classical and early medieval times, when Germanic languages were spreading. The talk page shows further discussion on the matter.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
(I swear: I'm not stalking you, Andrew. This came up on my watchlist, and I've cited this source before, so I thought I'd contribute.) The authors are mysterious to me. The book is recommended in the 2007 Libraries Unlimited Recommended reference books. The book has a recommendation here from a librarian at SUNY. Gale (publisher) hosts Facts on File content. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
LOL No problem. Thanks for your comment. I really do not have a position on it, and I think it needs feedback. The article above has suffered from sloppy mixing of subjects and this source has come up within that context. In my opinion it is a case that will come good if more editors help and refer to "the basics" such as sourcing. More comments from others would also be helpful I think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
That seems a somewhat dubious claim (though I'm mildly clueless about this kind of thing), and we generally try to minimize the use of tertiary sources per WP:TERTIARY. What do secondary sources (and especially academic and/or other expert sources) say? Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I found no review of this source on JSTOR, and only one on Highbeam Research's site. That review, from Reference & Research Book News, is short, but more or less positive. One comment it makes is "The Manx can best be described as Hiberno-Norse, thanks to both the Celts and the Vikings," which indicates that this source might perhaps lean toward engaging in what might be called really specific classifications. I'm guessing the source probably meets RS standards, but it's apparent inclination to use perhaps older terminology, like "Norse" in describing the Manx, seems to itself at times maybe indicate that its positions or definitions might be non-standard. John Carter (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we specifically need comments about whether this source shows significant enough notability for quite a big point for this article. Is this a strong enough source for having a paragraph in an article about mostly Roman period tribes, which suddenly announces that for example modern Afrikaaners are also Germanic peoples, in the same way that say, the Goths were. If it is strong enough then probably we need to create a whole new article, so effectively we are almost needing to say is this source strong enough to base a whole article off of it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, no. Personally, I think it would be very much in the best interests of the editors who come to this noticeboard if we did have separate articles on pretty much all the reference works out there, and particularly noting where those reference sources are thought to be very good and not so good. Based on what I have seen, this source, while a good one, does seem to reflect an unusual view, and while its conclusions that these races are known as "Germanic peoples" is more or less proven by the source itself, if it refers to them as such, this source's view regarding the usage and definition of that term seems to be, at least based on the material I've seen, possibly a definitely minority view. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups (2000), published by Greenwood Publishing Group, the author James Minahan describes various current groups as "Germanic peoples", including the Dutch and Frisians. This seems to be of similar academic standing as the Waldman & Mason. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A better source: DeWulf, Jeroen, "Flemish" in Cole, Jeffrey E., Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia (ABC-CLIO, 2011), p. 136: The Flemish (Dutch: Vlamingen), also called Flemings, are a Germanic people living in Belgium", and p. 110, saying similarly for the Dutch.
At UC Berkeley, DeWulf is "director of the Dutch Studies Program (Queen Beatrix Chair). He graduated in Dutch and German Studies at the University of Ghent, in Belgium, and holds a Ph.D. in German Literature from the University of Bern, in Switzerland. In his research, he focuses primarily on Dutch literature and cultural identity, Postcolonial Studies, and German-Swiss literature" [115]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, we can now see that there are sources to show that a small number of authors have indeed written of modern peoples as "Germanic peoples", but in the mean time I see no one denying that most sources do not. So keeping the context in mind can we really say this is a common usage based on a minority of "reasonable" sources like this? And if so, then what happens to our article? Is it destined to be about a mixture of what most people would consider two different meanings? (Bracketing modern Afrikaaners and ancient Goths into one single ethnic grouping to be handled in one WP article seems "pop culture" to me, and pop culture of an unhappy kind.) The article talk page could do with some discussion. There has, I note, been an edit war on-going while I have posted here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I can only contribute the over-all observation that the term is almost universally avoided in modern (post-1945) folkloristics and ethnology (inasmuch as the latter deals with Europe at all). It will be relatively easy to find a small number of counter-examples, but in general it seems to be considered anachronistic usage for modern groups. The only commonly accepted definition of a modern-day Germanic group is purely linguistic ("speakers of G. languages"), which means it does no longer reflect the ethnic scope of our article. The reason why this seems to be so for the Germanic peoples and not e.g. for the Slavic ones might be that the scholarly community has been loath to use the term due to its unsavoury connotations after WWII ("Germanentümelei"), but this is pure speculation on my part. Trigaranus (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Btw I know I might be thrashing something remotely reminiscent of a horse carcass here, but just do a quick search for "Germanic peoples" on GoogleBooks to gauge how restricted the usage of the term is. I know that is cheesy, but it does at least illustrate my and Andrew's point here. Trigaranus (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Updates:

Self published history site

In the article Hazel Kirk, Pennsylvania an editor insists on using the "Eastern United States Research and Some Mid Atlantic" webpage as a source.[117]. Specifically, User:Carrite is trying to use a page the claims to be a news article from the Washingto Reporter (now the Observer-Reporter). [118]. This isn't a scan of a page or fiche, it's someone retyping it and claiming it is accurate. At this point, we have no evidence that the article ever ran or said what is claimed. This is a Geocities site run by two non-experts. I don't see any editorial oversight or any other reason to claim this is a reliable source. Initially I simply tagged the source as dubious and opened a discussion about it but Carrite insisted on removing the tag and declaring it bogus. So here we are. Previously, there was a discussion about a third party site (publicintelligence.com) hosting a PDF copy of a US Govt. document. [119] Many seems to question if that was allowable, even when it was obvious that the document existed and was reproduced by a scan, not someone retyping it as is the case here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  • This is a case of an overwrought AfD nominator fighting to the last ditch to defend a dubious nomination Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_March_25#Hazel Kirk, Pennsylvania. There is absolutely no reason in the world to believe that the transcription of the Oct. 30, 1905 newspaper article in question HERE is in any way incorrect. There is absolutely no requirement that a published source be linked in facsimile. The basic account of the newspaper article is further verified by THIS account of the same disaster from Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 80 (Nov. 4, 1905), pg. 834. The AfD nominator has removed line-by-line footnotes necessary for the durable documentation of facts asserted DIFF and has attached obviously inapplicable DUBIOUS tagging to the published newspaper article in question DIFF. I attempted to replace the line-by-line inline footnotes (a Wikipedia best practice), which have fortunately stayed. The nominator has also removed an External Link to a specific page of non-commercial historical website on the grounds that I have made use of another altogether different page of that same site in the body of the piece DIFF, seemingly another attempt to "win" a deletion nomination. I am a little stunned that an experienced editor such as the nominator would behave in such a combative manner, arguing that down is up and blue is green to rationalize the undermining of work to save an article at AfD. I'd like a firm ruling that both sources are appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, together with a gentle nudge to the AfD nominator (OP here) to knock it off. —Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Overwrought? And yet you talk about AGF? (thanks for the laugh) Glad you finally decided to discuss something rather than just declare you're right. First off, wrong....this won't really change the AfD because the AfD is about a community by that name and your source is about mines by that name that were nearby. True, there is no requirement that a link be reproduced or linked in facsimilie. However, there is a requirement that the source be reliable and verifiable. In this case, we have a site with no editorial oversight. What evidence is there that they are accurate or reliable? None. It's just two women with a hobby. As for removing the external link, which has nothing to do with this discussion, the link is already being used in the article. there is no good reason to link it again as an external link. External links are supposed to be links not used as sources. Now do you want to discuss the actual issue of just keep making it a personality conflict? ETA: I haven't brought up the second source yet and a "firm ruling" (which isn't how Wikipedia works) would be pre-emptive. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
In what way do you feel that the transcription of the published newspaper account(s) are inaccurate? In short, why are you making this complaint? What is factually erroneous, tendentious, or violative of Neutral Point of View about that transcription? Technically, there doesn't need to be a link to that transcription at all — a simple footnote to the publication and date would suffice. So where did they get it wrong? Carrite (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Your question illustrates the point.......I don't know where it's inaccurate because we can't see the original. All I can see is what they claim is the transcript. Sounds pretty WP:SPS. Since we're being asked to take something on faith, then it should at least be a source with editorial oversight, written by experts or at least a site with a reputation for reliability (you know, those pesky things in RS). this is two probably well intentioned people with a hobby. WP:V is a factor here. I don't really need to prove the lack of accuracy. You need to show this site is a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
All that is required is that the article was published by a reliable source, which in this case was the newspaper. The fact that a reliable source does not make it available online does not detract from its reliability. If you doubt it is an accurate transcription, then you may look at a copy of the original in a library or ask if other editors can check it. It is the same as if the editor using the source had a copy at home that you were unable to look at. TFD (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Whay didn't that rationale apply in the other discussion I cited? Since we know (and we do know) that he doesn't have the original and is relying on the self-published site, that's just wiki-lawyering around the policy. Likewise, he can't properly cite the original because all the information isn't there. It still comes back to this site being the de facto source, not the newspaper that he (or any of us) have never seen. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The entire argument against inclusion appears to be tendentious. The likelihood of the article being a fabrication is extremely low. However, you may use this site, maintained by a published historian, as alternative source for the same material [120]. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Published historian? I'm sorry, I am having difficulty locating that fact. Can you link me to that please? As for it being tendentious, well, I'm not sure when it became ok to retype news articles and call it a reliable source but not accept a unretouched scan of government documents as reliable. Maybe you can understand the confusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure [121]. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, saw that after I posted. A local historian. Still, I'd tend to trust the site and, in any case, these events are covered in multiple newspapers (certainly more than 10).
  • Then use the newspapers and not the self-published site of a self-published "expert". Why is this concept so difficult? You saw this after you posted it? So what you are really saying is that when his name came up in the search, you blindly posted that links without even givng them a cursory glance. Instead, you declared him a "published" historian and posited him as an expert. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I've provided multiple newspaper sources for these events which you're quite free to use should you so choose.
The Virtual Museum of Coal Mining in Western Pennsylvania appears to have been cited by seven publications [122], including one published by the National Academies Press [123]. The Indiana University of Pennsylvania also indicates that this website is a reliable digital repository of historical material, including newspaper accounts [[124] [125]].FiachraByrne (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The response in this section is to the newspaper articles in question, not to another source. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Off topic, but looked at your previous RSN. You couldn't establish it was a published report. If it's an internal document I'd consider it archival and a primary source; you'd need a secondary source to use it (and interpret it for you), otherwise you're into OR territory. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Um, not really. The fact that I had never worked for the DoJ, yet had a copy mailed to me proved it wasn;t an internal document. The fact that I had it and that it was displayed on that site showed it had been published. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you'd come to that conclusion. The ability to secure a document does not indicate its formal published status. Is it catalogued as an official government publication? FiachraByrne (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement that a report that was available outside the agency be cataloged. None. The fact that it was put to paper and made available to hundreds/thousands of people outside of the parent organization makes it published and not internal. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Dissemination does not qualify it as an official governmental publication. Unlike this full text [126]. But you've already had this discussion and it is off-topic. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Facsimile of original available here [127] (subscription). FiachraByrne (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Syndicated or wired article. Same text. Same reporters. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Same reporters? How do we know that? The link the started this thread, the self-pub site, doesn't name any reporters. The Washington Report is the name of the paper. Your mystery source behind the paywall might have names, but the original doesnt, which tends to show that the transcript isn't verbatim. So which is it? Were they sloopy in their transcript or did you fabricate the "same reporters" part? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
One could reasonably infer that where the text is the same or largely the same that the text is the work of the same authors - i.e. the original reporters of this incident. To demonstrate, here are some newspapers which replicated the Pittsburgh report of the incident they are all, largely, the same text: [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153]. You get the idea. Story is written by reporters close to source, a few versions of the local versions go out, these are reproduced in whole or in part by other papers who pick the story up. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Bad faith3. A reasonable inference is not a fabrication. Do you imagine that the above had different authors? FiachraByrne (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Another article (freely available) different text: "Six Dead in Burning Mine". Boston Evening Transcript. 30 October 1905.
Another: "Five Killed in Mine". Daily Tribune. 30 October 1905. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Etc: "Five Lives Go Out". Mansfield Daily Shield. 30 October 1905.
The 9 year old daughter of the mine's superintendent was killed (shot in the head) shortly thereafter: "Slain as she looks for Kris". The Philadelphia Record. 26 December 1905.
That place kept on blowing up: "Miners rescued from the fire". St. John Daily Sun. 22 May 1906.
And: "Fire menaces 300 miners". Philadelphia Record. 22 May 1906.
Also:"Fight to save Hazel Kirk Mine". The Pittsburgh Press. 22 May 1906.
There's probably enough there for you to get started on writing the article Niteshift36, but there's lots more coverage of Hazel Kirk beyond the 1905 mining disasters as well. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Please,try to get this point: Nobody disputes there was a MINE that had a notable incident. There were 3 (or more) mines using that name. The article, however, is about a COMMUNITY. these sources keep covering the Hazel Kirk MINE, not the community. And all of this alleged notability revolves around a single event. Why is it so incredibly difficult to separate a mine and a community? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, given the RSN which you initiated I searched for sources covering this event - is that really surprising? Bear in mind, too, that this was a mining community for which, understandably, the mine would have been a central element. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Look, here's a little article on coal towns in the region [154] FiachraByrne (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
There were 3 mines with that company name. We all accept that. Where is the significant coverage about the COMMUNITY of Hazel Kirk? That's the whole question.Niteshift36 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Have you been through the regional press sources? Anyway, that's a question for AFD. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Regional sources? I've been to the community! And I can tell the difference between a community and a mine. I'm sorry you can't make that distinction. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hazel Kirkwas built in 1901 by the Kirk-Wood Co. of Cleveland to house miners for Hazel Kirk No. 1 mine, which began operations the same year.[155]

Sorry about the needle, which was unnecessary, but the posting of your previous unsuccessful attempt to have a source accepted as RSN - which is totally unlike this source - does not inspire confidence about this nomination or the motivation behind it. These and related events have been covered in multiple regional newspapers (and the shooting was covered in the NYT) which I've posted links to above. If you research commercial databases of regional newspapers you'll find mind more references (for this event and the town more generally). The transcribed text from the originally linked source is repeated in whole or in part in these regional newspapers (there appear to have been a limited number of original reports that were then reproduced or partially edited and reworded in the wider regional press). This indicates that these transcriptions are likely accurate and the two websites listed above can serve as reasonable links for these sources. Hosting an archival source is not the same as self-publishing as these sources have an existence and publication history independent of the websites. The second website I linked to above is, I think, reliable, and considered as such by the Indiana University of Pennsylvania [156] [157]. I don't think there's any plausible reason to doubt that the transcriptions are genuine. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Um, my last effort wasn't unsuccessful. That report, which was published, is used as an offline source. The issue was why we couldn't use the offline source as hosted by a third party, non-RS. When your "archival source" is based on the typing of a cuple of hobbyists with no editorial oversight and no reputation for reliability, then it is far different than a newspaper database. What you seem to be unable to grasp is that if you can cite the papers, there is no good reason to cite a self-pub site. Further, it is apparently beyond the grasp of some here to differentiate between a mine and a community of the same name. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
There's no plausible reason to doubt the validity of the transcripts and it stretches credulity to consider them fabrications. The reporting of the events is not controversial and is reproduced, in whole or in part, in other newspaper accounts. Indeed, I've already provided multiple accounts from accessible newspapers facsimiles of this and other incidents should you choose to use them. One of the websites which hosts the material, The Virtual Museum of Coal Mining in Western Pennsylvania appears to have been cited in seven publications [158], including one published by the National Academies Press [159]. This is an indication of its reliability as a digital repository of historical material. As I've already pointed out, the Indiana University of Pennsylvania has also indicated that this website is a reliable digital repository of historical material, including newspaper accounts [160] [161]. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Could you miss the point more? If there are reliable sources available, why use this hobbyist website? Because someone wants to be lazy and use the easiest answer. Kind of ironic that you've spent so much time defending someone else's inability (or lack of motivation) to find a real source. Even funnier is that I never removed the source or the info from the article, I merely tagged it as a questionable source. You've done all this to avoid an inline tag. Good investment of time. Have the last word. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
A concatenation of bile. Because this version of events is freely available and accessible without going through a paywall. Other than the repetition of the term hobbyist, you've also ignored the evidence that the website is considered reliable by a university and a variety of publications, including one published by the US National Academies. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
One cannot know that another editor is using a correct reference, since editors are not reliable sources. If you doubt the accuracy then you need to look at the original. BTW the link shows other papers as. TFD (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_145&oldid=1140110669"