Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 164

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 160←Archive 162Archive 163Archive 164Archive 165Archive 166→Archive 170

Simon Digby

The main dispute is on Persecution of Hindus, where a user claims that "historians dispute it" while citing a single writer(not historian) named Simon Digby, and that he who disputed the "80 million" figure. So he should be added. While this figure remains largely accepted by number of historians.

And he keeps edit warring about it, without providing any secondary source that refer to his "dispute". Considering that here, Digby dispute(comment at most) is being used as secondary, so he must be recognized by other reliable source, before it is being recognized here? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Lal's book and Digby's review are probably both safely RS. If we can find other reviews of Lal's book, that would be good too.
There are a couple of corrections to be made. (1) Lal's book doesn't (so far as I can see) say that 80 million Hindus were killed under Muslim rule. He estimates that the population of India decreased by 75 million during the period (1000-1500). They are not the same thing at all. (2) Digby's review throws general doubt on Lal's estimates and the methods Lal used, but he doesn't question this particular figure (see second paragraph on p. 177). (3) Our footnote 3 gives some text in quote marks, not by Lal (because they mention Lal), and with no quoted source. Those words need to be sourced or removed.
Given these observations, I don't think Lal's claim or Digby's doubts are relevant enough to go in the introductory medieval paragraph, where they are now. Instead, somewhere lower down in the text, I'd mention Lal's estimate (but as an estimate of decrease in population, not an estimate of deaths of one religious community) and I'd also mention Digby's review because it makes us question Lal's methods, and that's quite a reasonable thing to do.
I can't read Lal's book, only the review. If anyone else can read Lal's book, so much the better. But if he really does give this 80 million figure for "Hindus killed", I'll eat my hat :) Andrew Dalby 16:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Well Andrew Dalby, you should also clear that if it is appropriate to even mention Digby or not(since he is not mentioned by any other sources for this so called "dispute"), and also that if he is historian(since he is just a writer). There are number of reliable sources, that regarded these 80 million figure to be decreased by population during those 500 years, Such as [1], [2]. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
As per Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, it has been cited, that the estimates by K.S. Lal refers to the 80 million death of Hindus though.[3]. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

But i somewhat agree with:-

  1. Digby is not disputing the figures.
  2. Figures might be related to whole Indian population, not hindus just.

Now that makes such whole content to be unrelated. Right? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Digby is questioning the figures and methods of Lal in a peer reviewed journal, and it is notable enough to mention his critique of Lal's methods since he's a British Scholar (and not a mere "writer" - last time I checked only scholars got their pieces published in academic journals). Given that you've stated before numerous times that "Digby does not exist" and that it is a "fabricated source" what you seem to be implying is that Digby warrants no mention and is unworthy of inclusion. You are trying to represent that as a world view, "80 million Hindus died" when Lal doesn't even claim that. Digby's critique is in a peer reviewed journal. The usual nutty sources seem to take Lal's words out of context (Koenrad isn't even reliable since he's right wing, and represents a biased viewpoint). I suspect that you're one of those Hindu fanatics who can't seem to able to distinguish fact from fiction given how hard you're trying to negate Digby's position (witness: " [is it] appropriate to even mention Digby or not(since he is not mentioned by any other sources for this so called "dispute""). StuffandTruth (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the reference that is proof that Digby is a historian from the Indian Express. [4]. StuffandTruth (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It is a re-print. Obviously you fabricate the source since it is neither secondary, nor it is disputing the figures. Sweta Dutta who wrote the article is not a reliable source. Digby is not a historian, I bet you regard everyone as historian who you think to be supporting your isolated view. But interestingly not everyone is historian. He is only a writer. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Blade, Andrew's already answering your question on whether or not Digby should be included: "I'd also mention Digby's review because it makes us question Lal's methods, and that's quite a reasonable thing to do." Why are you asking him again? StuffandTruth (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Who the fuck cares if it's a "reprint" - it's held by and published by Cambridge University. Again you're laughably claiming it is "fabricated"? How is someone this stupid? For fuck's sake it's a secondary source since it's published in a peer reviewed article. After giving you a source that says Digby is a historian (again it's here since you're too blind to see), you STILL ignore it. I'm reporting this to an administrator. You're behaviour is getting very disruptive.
  1. Obviously a historian (Indian Express Obituary).
  2. Digby, Simon (1975). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. University of London. Vol. 38, No. 1. (1975), pp. 176–177.
StuffandTruth (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
IndianExpress, or even Guardian, Dailymail can't be accepted as Reliable sources, it depends upon who has wrote the article. You haven't proved how Digby is refuting the figure either. Like it is discussed above. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Read it again Blade: "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable" - Cambridge journals are widely respected widely peer reviewed. Also are you seriously claiming the Guardian and Daily Mail are the same? One is a respected paper the other is a tabloid. And is most certainly RS. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Depends upon the author. It is no more a point whether he is historian or Not. Bigger point is whether he dispute the figure, and even more that if they are related to the hindu population. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

He's disputing the methods of Lal's figure and hence the number. His conclusions are overall that it isn't reliable (he says the sources are so poor that they are "wilful if not fantastic"). StuffandTruth (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
So you are saying that he "questions" its reliability? But not "disputes", because if he dispute, he might be presenting other figure. But here he is regarding them to be not too accurate. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I've asked Stuffandtruth to moderate his language. Bladesmulti, you need to also avoid commenting on other editors. You talk about 'fabricating' sources. What do you think "fabricated" means? It's beyond me why you would think Simon Digby (oriental scholar) wasn't a historian. He is a reliable source and he is disputing the figures. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to wait for Andrew and Doug to respond Blade. The latter is an administrator I contacted regarding your disruptive edits (who has responded above). I want to hear from them since all I'm getting is circular logic from you about the reliability of Simon Digby's work even though he's an Oxbridge academic and historian. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it can be solved. I consider that the line, at the moment "Which is also disputed by historians", it should be "Which is is also disputed by scholar", and then "Digby". Because we don't have multiple historians here to dispute such claim. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
That's certainly what you've not been doing. Doug asked you a question. And frankly I'm asking again. Why are you disputing the sources without merit and making bizarre claims? StuffandTruth (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I can refer to some edits, where journals were usually rejected. Thus i thought that if it is notable enough to even add, since it is not backed by secondary source(other than wikipedia), in terms of authorship. Nothing else. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
(Sigh) "since it is not backed by secondary source"...again with the circular logic...please. This is painful. It is a secondary source. It's in a journal. It's peer reviewed. It's published. It's on the Cambridge website...it's been cited many, many times. Digby's piece is a part of that widely circulating journal... StuffandTruth (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but i was only explaining my actual view, since you asked. Nothing else. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti and then StuffandTruth were banned yesterday for edit-warring. Concerns have also been raise (at ANI) about problems with Bladesmulti's editing in general. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite a lot to read :) I will just give my answer to Bladesmulti's question, far above, "Now that makes such whole content to be unrelated. Right?" This is a good question: if Lal is talking generally about "decline in population", is that relevant to Persecution of Hindus? My opinion, for what it's worth, is that it may be sufficiently relevant as background material to be mentioned in the body of the article. If Lal is right, something in the period of Muslim domination was seriously bad for the wellbeing of the general population of India (the majority of whom were Hindus). To what extent that decline was linked to persecution, it would then be for other sources to say.

I repeat that that's just an opinion. If the consensus of those writing the article was that this material isn't relevant after all, I wouldn't argue. Andrew Dalby 14:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Triple–machine-translated article as source for views on independent movie.

1. Source – An article by professional writer Asher Schechter, published in the notable, Hebrew-language TheMarker, translated by three online services:

2. Wikipedia Article: Zeitgeist:_The_Movie#Critical_response

3. Content: For a year and a half, this Wikipedia article has referenced the Schecter article above. When I came to our article this month, the Schechter article was summarized as:

TheMarker characterized the evidence presented by Joseph in the movie as, for the most part, incomplete at best, and based on speculation at worst. TheMarker also wrote: "After all, the film was an art project, not intended as a coherent socio-economic analysis but to serve Joseph's creativity." TheMarker wrote that Joseph received severe criticism, and summarized the criticism by The Irish Times [which also appears within the same Wikipedia, a few paragraphs above]

This negative viewpoint seemed amiss, considering the title of Schecter's article and the reiteration of content appearing previously in our article. After reviewing the translations, I removed the direct quotations (not a good idea for translations), and I adjusted our summary to be more reflective of the source's overall opinion, as evidenced by what commonalities the three translations share:

Writing for TheMarker, Asher Schechter praised the film's viral popularity and foreshadowing to the Occupy movement, while admitting its evidence to be poor. Schechter excused its deficiencies in light of the movie originally being created as an art film, and he called its reach as an activist effort a success.

My rewrite attempts were deleted repeatedly, and I'm concerned this was done not for a question of verifiability, but rather for an editor's bias against the movie. I'm posting here following a suggestion on our article's talk-page from a third party (who preferred not to give weight to either side). I'm hoping to get additional, neutral opinions on referencing Schechter's general opinion of the movie within our article based on the commonalities in the three machine-translations above. Thank you, startswithj (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If you post at the language reference desk you will find people who can read the original Hebrew and help you summarise it correctly. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Associated Press article being used in Shooting of Trayvon Martin

There is a dispute[5] over whether statements from an Associated Press (AP) article are reliable for a section of the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article that discusses media portrayals of Martin in the aftermath of the shooting. The AP article, "Old Photos May Have Shaped Public Reaction In Trayvon Martin Case", states as fact that an undated photograph of Martin was several years out of date at the time of the shooting, and incorporates quotes from journalism experts commenting on that premise, such as:

Both photos are a few years old and no longer entirely accurate. Yet they may have helped shape initial perceptions of the deadly shooting.


"When you have such a lopsided visual comparison, it just stands to reason that people would rush to judgment," said Kenny Irby, who teaches visual journalism at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla.

An editor feels that because the AP article was published by a large number of news outlets, it should be regarded as a reliable source on which to base the Wikipedia article section. However, Martin's family have said that the photo had been taken only 6 months before the shooting, which occurred when he was 17. (Incidentally, although the point has not been a part of the editors' discussion, the AP article also states that a photo the media used to depict Zimmerman, who had shot Martin, shows Zimmerman wearing a jail uniform with an orange collar, but subsequent reporting[6] suggests that that photo actually showed Zimmerman in an orange polo shirt, not a jail uniform.)

The text in the Wikipedia article under discussion is: 

Portrayals of Martin and Zimmerman

The contrast in the photos of Martin and of Zimmerman which were most widely used in early media reports of the shooting may have influenced initial public perceptions of the case.[340][341] The most commonly published image of Martin, provided to media by his family,[342] showed a smiling baby-faced teen.[340][Note 13] The only image of Zimmerman initially available to news media was a 7-year-old police booking photograph released by law enforcement officials after the shooting.[341] The image showed a heavy-set Zimmerman who appeared to be unhappy or angry,[341] with an imposing stare.[340] The AP quoted academic Kenny Irby on the expected effect, "When you have such a lopsided visual comparison, it just stands to reason that people would rush to judgment," and another academic, Betsi Grabe, as saying that journalists will present stories as a struggle between good and evil "[i]f the ingredients are there."[340]

(citation #340 is the AP article)

There is a disagreement among editors over several questions related to this AP article:
(a) Should a section of the Wikipedia article that discusses media portrayals of Martin in the aftermath of the shooting be based on this AP article?
(b) Should quotations in the article from the journalism experts be included in the Wikipedia article section as above?
(c) Is the AP article's reliability on the issue of the photo's age so high that the mention of the disagreement should be placed in a footnote? Dezastru (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It is rs, but you should try to get a more detailed analysis for a source. Also, the wording does not appear neutral. Often news reporters will ask a few experts what they think, and they may not be representative of what most experts would say. I would just explain what each of the experts say. Some experts for example may have thought that the ethnicity of the individuals might have affected popular reaction. I agree that media portrayal should be mentioned. Whether or not Martin's photograph was current however does not seem that important, since it is the reaction to the picture that is being discussed. TFD (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Use of this AP article, as shown here, has a serious problem regarding balance. The AP article quotes two media experts who disagree about the possibility the photos will have an effect; one says the photos could be important. Another (Gordon Coonfield) says they may have little-to-no effect. In contrast, the WP article only mentions the views of two media experts with similar views. This misrepresents how the source presented it. The WP article is giving the arguments of a single side in something presented in the source as undecided. Also, the errors in that early report go beyond just the age of a photo. There are multiple errors of fact throughout the first half of that piece, errors probably owing to recentism. It could be used as a reliable source regarding evidence of what people thought at the time but it shouldn't be used as a reliable source of 'what reliable sources think about the topic now. I would avoid this source in favor of more neutral and accurate reliable sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

http://guerillabookworm.com

Dear source experts: An article (David Reddish) that I was looking at (rather dubiously) had a source entry which led to the above web site. The source was supposed to be a book review. When I clicked on it, the web page asked me to install software to see the review. I didn't want to do that. Has anyone heard of this web site, and if so is it a repository of book reviews? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

no evidence of professional level review or notability of the site itself. The film project has a nice assessment of what to use Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response. this site fails. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Brad Steiger book

  • Steiger, Brad & Sherry (15 January 2006). Conspiracies and Secret Societies. Visible Ink Press. p. 95. ISBN 1-57859-174-0. There are legitimate reasons to dispense chemical in this manner: crop dusting ... cloud seeding ... firefighting ... and smoke trails in air shows ... The chemtrails that have caused great concern are none of these ...
  • used to support:
  • a definition of chemtrails that does't fit the mainstream definition
  • the presence of chentrails in the 1970s. Other sources says that they were started by two guys in 1990s. Steiger does not report the 1990s origin, despite being well documented in the internet Skeptical Inquirer, skeptical blog.

This book reads very sloppy, and it contains sensationalistic sentences that are not substantiated later.

He contradicts himself, first he says that sulphur dioxide was used in contrails, then says that some scientists proposed using it. He also makes scary comments about how this substance causes acid rain (note the use of "causes" instead of "would cause")

He also says that a certain laboratory "began shooting huge amounts of porous-walled glass microspheres into the stratosphere." but it only proposed doing so in one paper[7]. It's obvious he didn't check any of the original sources.

Note the negative reviews:

  • a Fortean review or other of his books: "My own sixth sense, gut instinct says to avoid this book. There’s some gold here, but there’s also an awful lot of sensational idiocy." [8]
  • a scholar book on Pagan studies: ""These accounts were generally sensationalistic and conflated Paganism with the New Age, "the occult," or Satanism. In the United States, such books were produced by Hans Holzer, Susan Roberts, and Brad Steiger."[9] p. 204
  • a University of Kentucky press book: "[a book] compiled by ufologist Hayden Hewes and paranormal pulp writer Brad Steiger"[10] ("Pulp writers" wrote great amounts of low-quality material in very little time)
  • a Macmillan Publishers book: "And what about the paperback quickie, Judy Garland, by Brad Steiger, rushed out in 1969, the year of her death? (In his extended section on 'Judy and the Occult,' neatly divided into subsections on astrology, graphology, and numerology, Mr. Steiger reveals that when young Grances Gumm changes her name to Judy Garland, 'she took on the vibration of the number nine.')"[11] p. 112

This source doesn't look reliable at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  • (Involved editor) I suggest checking this editor's use of sources in general. I suspect there is some OR going on here. Note that he has subpages with lots of content. Check the sources used there. He is currently blocked (again) and I have had to ban him from my talk page for his aggressive behavior. Here are convenience links:
Brangifer (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
He's using his sandboxes to develop the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat (and perhaps more material). Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow! Reading that AfD is very enlightening. So this isn't the first time he has been aggressive, showed ownership tendencies, and attacked other editors. He has a very negative learning curve, and blocks don't even help, so I see a siteban looming on the horizon. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes Dougweller I'm redeveloping that entry based open the legitimate concerns of other editors and new sources. In your reading, please feel free to identify or tag areas of concern but do not otherwise modify it. The current version is in my sandbox. It still has a lot of work to go ahead of it.
Context and perspective. To be clear, I did not propose to use this source. It was already in use on the entry and I simply chose not to abuse it or let other editors continue to. The summary of edits and reversion to the entry shows that the consensus was to (unintentionally) abuse and repeatedly restore and sloppily verify proper sourcing as was the obvious case here. These very editors refused to take responsibility for verifying material they restored. It was their responsibility to verify especially since I challenged and disputed reverting changes. The result of the dispute was an edit war with these editors which to my discredit, I unfortunately did not avoid. To his credit Enric Naval was knowledgeable enough to bring this decision up and resolve this issue appropriately. Kudos to him. I'm sort of new to WP and the proper procedures are is still a bit of a mystery to me. I'm newly disabled, and memory (and learning) is affected, hence the slow learning curve. A nerve issue in my elbows (and probably some packet loss) causes even worse typing.
I don't care about this source or have an opinion on its merit. I only want the topic I'm working on defined and neutrally approached. Perhaps the legitimacy of this source in defining the phenomena or various nutty beliefs would vindicate my prior edits concerning the source. The source concerns are described here:[12]. I welcome any decision, either way.Johnvr4 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

citypopulation.de/

Thinking to use it as reference for Rajshahi District. It will be fine? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. However, the population figures they use are from the census. You should use the census figures directly. TFD (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Brad DeLong blog RS?

Bringing this here now because this has come up repeatedly at Robert P. Murphy as not RS for BLP. It was discussed at Talk:Robert_P._Murphy#Krugman:Misunderstanding_of_WP:BLOGS and at a WP:BLPN where no involved editors responded. However, it was removed and seemed settled as DeLong's blog not being RS, especially since better sources came up in the WP:BLPN discussion. A few hours after I got around to adding those better sources to the talk page discussion and inferred intention to properly rewrite the section, an involved editor put back the rejected info at this diff.

In short Paul Krugman has mentioned Murphy explicitly a couple times in his NY Times blog (January 19, 2011 and December 31, 2012). However, the added Krugman blog entry does not mention Murphy and says: Brad DeLong vents his spleen on one example, a guy who has been predicting double-digit inflation for years but remains absolutely committed to his framework all the same. There are then two is a long descriptions of DeLong's criticism of Murphy from two different DeLong blog entries. (See diff.) Seems like tortuous synthesis using a questionable source to me. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Later note: Just left notice of this at WP:BLPN since obviously relevant. Should have done so immediately. (Note to self for future reference.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Brad DeLong is a UC Berkeley economist. He is RS as far as economics is concerned. Murphy's blog is used to establish all the facts about his predictions (which is permissible per WP:Aboutself); DeLong and Krugman are only used to assess those predictions (not establish facts). Krugman links to DeLong's discussion of Murphy, and it's absurd to suggest that he isn't talking about Murphy in the quoted text. Steeletrap (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The fact that Krugman himself says "Brad DeLong vents his spleen" shows this is a personal blog rant and not a reliable source. Editors can read details at the DeLong Blog entry. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Brad DeLong more than meets the recognized expert criteria of RS. Experts are allowed to use informal language like that now and again. Gamaliel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
DeLong is an expert on economics, writing on his blog. Reliable, with the caveat that this is talking about an ongoing disagreement within the field. The fact that Krugman mentions the post is a point in its favour, but not absolutely necessary. Krugman links to DeLong's blog post so it's clear that Murphy is the subject. Reliable but you will have to decide how much weight to give to it. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
It's personal blog. We should never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert. See WP:SPS. It's unreliable and a WP:BLP violation to boot. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
DeLong is a recognized expert in economics and his blog is a reliable and usable source, per policy, for his claims and views and ideas regarding the area of his expertise, economics, as long as they are properly identified as his claims, views, and ideas. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Not if it's being used a third-party source about a living person. This is official Wikipedia policy. If you don't believe me, please read WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I am well aware of these policies that you've already linked to previously, but thanks for the reminder regarding what we're already discussing. However, the claims in question aren't claims about a living person. They are claims about economic theories. Gamaliel (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's the diff in question.[13]
"University of California, Berkeley Professor of Economics J. Bradford DeLong sharply criticized Murphy's reaction to the bet. Citing data indicating that CPI never reached 3% (well short of the 10% Murphy needed to win the bet), DeLong criticized Murphy for 'refusing to rethink or modify any of his analytical' positions in spite of (what DeLong perceives to be) overwhelming evidence against them."
This is a clear violation of two key content policies, WP:BLP and WP:V. It should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (emphasis NOT mine). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I might reword or remove material where DeLong criticizes Murphy and not his theories, but the core dispute is one of economics and economic theories. I see no claims about Murphy himself, only claims regarding DeLong's opinions about matters in his area of expertise. DeLong is a recognized expert (I won't bother quoting and highlighting the relevant RS policy regarding that, as I'm sure you are aware of it.) and the content is relevant and permissible under all those policies you've been citing, all the more so because this content is cited by a Nobel laureate in an unimpeachable RS, the New York Times. Gamaliel (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It's completely inappropriate for a WP:BLP. Even if somehow this content were salvageable (completely removing all references to Murphy), at best it belongs in an article in article about DeLong. For serious academic topics such as economics, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. There shouldn't be a need to resort to personal blogs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no question that "For serious academic topics such as economics, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." But that's not the issue we have here. This is an article about an economist who is obscure in professional terms but has been heavily promoted and published within the walled garden of Misenean think tanks so that he manages to become notable, but because of that most of the available sources will be not of the first tier of preferability. An expert like DeLong, the author of numerous academic peer-reviewed publications, will not publish an academic peer-reviewed publication on views of a figure who is relatively obscure professionally, but will address them in his blog if they receive some media attention. So we have to deal with the sources that we have, and it would be irresponsible of us to have an article about an obscure economist and ignore the viewpoint of a significant economist, likely the only expert, academic attention that the ideas of this obscure economist will likely ever receive. Obviously, these sources should be used with caution, and any claims regarding Murphy himself should not be used. But DeLong's professional, expert opinion about Murphy's economic ideas are not claims regarding Murphy himself. Gamaliel (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
No, policy is extremely clear: Never (emphasis NOT mine) use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. I have no idea what part of "never" you find ambiguous, nor do I care. The fact is that the WP:BURDEN of proof is on you to justify why these edits are acceptable. You can either gain consensus for these edits or not. And you are certainly entitled to disagree with official Wikipedia policies, but again, the onus is on you to get them changed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of WP burden, but it is irrelevant here as this is a noticeboard regarding WP:RS and not a discussion about article consensus. Wikipedia policy is quite clear, as is what I have been saying, and I'm not quite sure why you are misunderstanding it or are unwilling to discuss that beyond repeatedly invoking policies you well know we are both aware of. An opinion about economic matters is not a claim about a living individual, no matter how many times you invoke Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no WP:RS issue here. There's simply no such issue with this content or the sources. Wrong place for any concerns about this. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I worry about the use of blogs. Usually blogs are "thinking out loud," tentative thoughts, or presentation of ideas for feedback. They may not be the final position of the author's viewpoint. Is there a general policy about blogs here on Wikipedia. I'm sure this has been discussed. Any pointers? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, see WP:BLOGS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is an important consideration when evaluating RS. So, is the personal blog simply commentary on economic questions or does it contain information about living third parties. If the commentary is confined to economic issues, then fine, use it. But once it, the blog, strays into a discussion about someone then BLP and SPS factors must be considered. "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Is this info worth repeating? Assuming it is, who has done so elsewhere? – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
But these are issues of WP:UNDUE content or BM's WP:NOTABILITY, not RS board stuff. No reason to open this thread instead of using the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Editors are discussing the material and citing RS policy. Also, as Steeletrap is defending the blog on the basis of RS ("restoring RS coverage of inflation prediction...." in the edit summary & above), this noticeboard is an appropriate location. – S. Rich (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Nah. If you believe these are not RS citations, please give specific words in the policy which support that view. @Steeletrap: is just affirming what we all know. It's like when you recite the Pledge of Allegiance. We all know it's the flag, but we affirm it. SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Much of what I said above are direct quotes from official Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It always makes for interesting (if not humorous) reading when somebody claims that direct quotes from Wikipedia policy are wrong or aren't Wikipedia policy. In any case, you asked and you shall receive: " Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (emphasis NOT mine). Are we happy now? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
QfK, we don't use any blogs for sources about living people. Murphy himself establishes all the facts about his failed prediction (which he can, per WP:Aboutself). DeLong and Krugman offer their opinions on these facts, but don't add any new information about Murphy. It is frustrating how many times I have had to explain this to you over the last few months. Steeletrap (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Specifico (and Steeletrap) seems to be saying that WP policy permits SPS commentary about third persons because the material "is just affirming what we all know." Is this what you mean? – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
DeLong and Krugman offer their opinions on these facts, but don't add any new information about Murphy. Since there is lots of quoting going on, I thought I would quote your relevant summation of the issue, since there's a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on here. Gamaliel (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Robert P. Murphy is not an economic theory, he's a person. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, indeed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The URL name, which may have been the original title of the blog entry, makes it clear it's not encyclopedic and is vs. BLP: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/12/when-will-robert-murphy-conclude-that-he-just-does-not-know-what-he-is-doing.html. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with those who say DeLong's blog can not be used in this context. He is not just criticizing Murphy's theories... he is criticizing Murhpy himself. What is interesting is that, if DeLong had published the same criticism of Murphy in an economic journal, or even in an op-ed piece in a major news paper... we could report on his criticism. But, Policy is clear... we can not use his personal blog for such criticism.
The Krugman blog is different... that is a professional blog, published under the auspices of the NY Times. It is the on-line equivalent of an op-ed piece that is published in the dead-tree paper version of the Times. That is OK, as long as we attribute the opinion to Krugman. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that the policy on using the blog on a BLP as quoted above rules out the use of DeLong's blog, but not Krugman's commentary on DeLong's criticism of Murphy. I think this makes for a gap in the sourcing policy in relation to people such as Murphy that are of marginal notability in academia but promoted by advocacy affiliated publications--in this case, Libertarian, Miseian.

The problem is that outside of the context of Krugman's NYT blog, there is not going to be any response from prominent authorities in the field because that just serves to add credibility to the dubious "predictions" and the like being advocated. And that means it is harder for Wikipedians to convey the actual state of affairs to the reader in such cases.
I see that user Itsmejudith has voiced support for its reliability, which I am in favor of, so maybe this is a case where WP:IAR can be invoked. DeLong mentions "ideological beliefs" in that short post, which seems to be most relevant. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:11, 19:18 24 January 2014 (UTC)


New version; Still Brad DeLong blog in BLP issue

RS version of Krugman views. At this diff I put in material from the two Krugman blog entries which actually mention Murphy by name. I only link to Murphy's replies at this point; only one of them is a personal blog entry and the only direct reply to the second Krugman blog entry. Such self-defensive personal blog entries usually are given a bit more slack under WP:RS. In the second Krugman entry he links to the whole DeLong-Murphy SPS blog debate and people who -want to get into that level of nitty gritty nitpicking and name-calling among economists on their personal blogs can just follow Krugman's links. Thus the paragraph in question can be removed. I also here put an Unreliable tag on the whole paragraph in question and noted in text that Krugman did NOT explicitly name Murphy in this blog entry, as he did specifically name him in the other two.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Good. WP:NEWSBLOG authored pieces are fine, even for BLPs. I also agree that attributing is essential in this case. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I've left a comment on the article talk page concerning this edit. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
At this final diff of editor's rewrite of my two paragraphs: Now it becomes a matter of Murphy's self-published blog mentioned first, DeLong's self-published blog second, and then Krugman commenting on them, with a link to Murphy's reply last. That's really building a POV argument misusing SPS in a BLP, IMHO.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There was a request at wp:ver for outside input. This looks like a later stage of a complex discussion, and there is no clear pointer to / statement of what text is in question. Could somebody provide that? North8000 (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Steeletrap revert at this diff is latest version and has same problem as above: Murphy's self-published blog mentioned first, DeLong's self-published blog second, and then Krugman commenting on them both. It looks to me like building a POV argument on SPS, which is not a proper use of sources. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
@North8000: has asked a simple and proper question. Your response is unintelligible. Could you please re-read North's question and state a complete, self-contained, answer so that editors can comment on your concern? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
It may be that the is no answer because the text keeps changing, but maybe I can "gel" one: The "Double-digit inflation predictions" section of the Murphy article as of the moment of my signature here. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello my North friend. You understand, I was asking @Carolmooredc: for a response to your query? I don't see a clear question in this entire thread. That's why these Noticeboard threads are such a sump. They need to pose clear questions, otherwise all we get is crosstalk. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, and mostly agree. But I was viewing Carolmooredc as just someone who volunteered to try to answer my question. I'm also guessing that there is no single answer (because the text keeps changing) and thought that if I could propose something it might provide a concrete basis for a conversation. And if not that, then at least something that I could respond to the request at wp:ver on. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Tweaks to the text not that relevant. What is relevant, as several editor have pointed out, is that self-published blogs cannot be used to diss BLPs. Krugman's WP:RS pointing out there's a nasty blog food fight does not make it WP:RS to quote the food fight, especially when Krugman clearly links to the food fight, allowing those who care to go there. SPECIFICO may not understand policy and thus ends up muddying the waters, but the policy remains quite clear. Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (Empahsis in the original.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

@North8000: Yes, there are three sources involved, and the text keeps changing. So, if may summarize what consensus appears to be heading towards, it's this:

Assuming that this hasn't already been done, I suggest the editors of the article rewrite the text based on that, and then come back, tell us what you came up with, and we can take another look. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The diff that led this section off does what you recommend, though it only mentions that Murphy replies and links to replies, something which can be worked on later. It was immediately changed to the version I've been complaining about that leads with SPS. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I have slightly reworked your material, Carol, after reverting the BLP-violating changes by Steeletrap. I agree with A Quest For Knowledge regarding the three sources: DeLong, Krugman and Murphy himself. DeLong cannot be used at all. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that one thing that is very clear is that the BLP policy clearly prohibits using the DeLong self-published blog as a source on Murphy, and so it also prohibits any text on Murphy that is dependent on that source. North8000 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet: Excellent at this diff. That's a properly written two paragraphs and if it had been written that way originally, within policy, there would never have been hours and hours of debate on it.
North8000: This [Krugman] is well within what a high quality WP:RS can comment on from a self-published blog. Now if Krugman had written "DeLong thinks Murphy is a $&#*, $YOQQ, &^#&* and I agree" we'd probably leave it out. Unless other high quality sources decided to comment saying something like "Krugman and Delong are just so unprofessional...blah blah blah." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
CarolmooreDC, are you referring to Krugman? Because, just clarifying, I didn't comment on Krugman. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, getting tired this PM. Specified Krugman above. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There is also a potential pitfall when using primary sources (e.g. Murphy's blog on himself) because wikipedia editor selection from such can easily create certain impressions. For example, the Wikipedia editor could select only wrong predictions by the BLP subject to cover and leave out correct predictions by the BLP subject. I don't know whether or not something like that has occurred, but I'd suggest at playing it safe with respect to the spirit of the primary sources restrictions. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that could be a problem and frankly I've been too exhausted from the other issue to see if that first paragraph reflects well. Also, there needs to be a few words of substantive reply from Murphy to Krugman, but something else haven't had energy to deal with yet. Still a work in progress! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Consider the salience of the facts reported: Paul Krugman noted that DeLong criticized Murphy's reaction to his [Murphy's] bet about CPI. It sounds like Murphy's bet is a salient fact because it's received some attention from prominent credible experts, even if only in blogs. But describing the commentary on the commentary might be beyond the limits of salience. Reliability is not the whole issue; if these comments and metacomments were themselves important, encyclopedia-worthy events, they would probably get published in something more weighty than a blog. See WP:BALASPS. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

DeLong's blog is posted on the website he uses to disseminate course information and curricula related information to his students, or so it would seem, so that would seem to make it marginally--at least--a "professional blog", though I'm not sure how that is defined here.
There are two other salient points.
First, as Krugman notes on his blog, the predictions of Murphy related to inflation are so contradictory (either to the facts or with respect to Bernake) that he even refuses to debate Murphy, because Krugman doesn't want to indirectly give credibility to the theory that DeLong appears to describe as being related to "ideological beliefs". The fact that Krugman cites DeLong in that context would definitely seem to make DeLong notable insofar as it supports Krugmans refusal to provide a platform for airing what DeLong characterizes as intransigent "analytical positions and ideological beliefs". ::::Second, the reason that criticism of Murphy is not made in more prominent publications is because it is not deemed to be worthy even of such a degree of attention, as testified to by these "blog" posts by two very prominent economists. Murphy is not in their league by any stretch of the imagination, and it is probably only because he is getting air time in other media outlets that they feel compelled to debunk his "predictions".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Accordingly, I'd be inclined to see it as RS.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Everything that you write above is the kind of stretch that is the definition of "WP:SYNTH". Just to review we are talking about the (already) WP:Undue section Robert_P._Murphy#Double-digit_inflation_predictions. It starts with cherry picked Murphy quotes, has Krugman bash Murphy and mention DeLong, and does not even yet have a substantive reply from Murphy, though he has made them. So adding DeLong's WP:SPS would just exacerbate the BLP problems. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I continue to argue that the ban on SPS is clearly intended for statements of facts about a BLP, not (expert) opinions regarding the work of that BLP. The idea is to prevent us from spreading false or dubious information about a living person; the DeLong source does not do this, as it simply represents his opinion about Murphy's economic predictions. Steeletrap (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like the correct reading of the intent of the policy, and I support the use of the statements from the DeLong blog as RS. That rule is not serving the purpose of building the encyclopedia, but as a loophole that is being used to allow an individual that basically has been characterized as an ideologue to fly under the radar of RS and NPOV, so to speak, and instead be presented as a mainstream scholar, without that important critique being aired in the article.
It seems that the wording of the policy may place more stringent constraints on the use of blogs, though. Maybe you could propose some revisions to the text of that policy.
There does not appear to be a definitive consensus that the blog is not RS and cannot be used, so maybe the Arbcom case will lead to some further opinions on this issue being voiced.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:39, 25 January 2014; 06:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Self-published sources reads: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. If you want to propose those policy changes go to the policy page. But don't try to create new policy on WP:RSN. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Note the specific language of SPS... "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people"... It does not say "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about the theories of a living person". In other words... we should not use expert SPS sources for an opinion about the living person himself/herself (we should not, for example, say: "In his blog, expert Fred says that Joe is an idiot <cite Fred's blog>")... However, we CAN use expert SPS blogs to comment upon the expert's views about the living person's theories (we CAN say: "In his blog, expert Fred debunked Joe's theory, calling it idiotic<cite Fred's blog>"). The theory is not the person... and as long as we stick to commenting on the theory and not the person, expert SPS viewpoints are fine. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
That is a helpful and important distinction. How would you characterize the comments of DeLong's statement?

The most terrifying thing of all is that being completely, comprehensively, unmistakably, fundamentally, fatally, totally wrong has not led Robert Murphy to rethink or modify any of his analytical positions or ideological beliefs by even one iota.

Krugman mentions "...people who stick with their ideology..." and concludes that it represents a refusal to learn, but his columns are not SPS.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
To Blueboar who says about the SPS ban for BLPs" It does not say "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about the theories of a living person". That is not a valid distinction. What an SPS says about the ideas of a person, reflects directly on the person and is a statement about him/her. Whether a SPS says person A is racist or that Person A's ideas are racist are a distinction without merit. Iselilja (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
@Ubikwit... My inclination would be to say the quotes you give are comments about the person and not comments about the theories... and so would not be allowed per WP:SPS and WP:BLP. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
@Blueboar... OK, thanks. Iselilja has a point, too. It seems that it will take some work to figure out how to deal with cases such as this, where there is a fringe<-->mainstream opposition and publicity (as well as politics) at stake. Since Krugman has basically covered what DeLong said and linked to his blog, that should suffice for the present. For this case, the policy has basically been sufficient, i.e., if a topic is worth writing about some RS will have published a statement on it.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense to separate factual assertions made on a SPS from statements of opinion. It also makes sense to avoid using SPS to cite personal attacks against a living person, e.g. "racist." However, the categorical ban on using expert SPS to evaluate the theories of living persons makes little sense, and thwarts the general intention underlying the SPS ban (namely, to prevent the spread of false, dubious or unverifiable information about a living person). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

Note that during this discussion Steeletrap has been trying to change policy at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Expert_SPS_ban_should_not_apply_to_opinion_statements.

To me this means that Steeletrap and others have accepted that this SPS cannot be used in the article except in a limited form as specifically described by Krugman. (I'll have to check to see if recent edits overstep those bounds.) Given this RSN is almost two weeks old, can we considered it closed? Or do we need a formal closure? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of opinion book review for BLP.

There's been an ongoing discussion over at Napoleon Chagnon about the status of a book review ( http://anthroniche.com/darkness_documents/0246.htm ) as a RS for a contentious statement in a biography of a living person. Specifically the following claims:

Some anthropologists have criticized Chagnon's depiction of the Yanomami as fierce and violent.

Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins has criticized Chagnon's methods.


I'm willing to accept that the page is a faithful reproduction of a Washing Post book review as it claims. The author of the review is Marshall Sahlins, a respected authority in this field. The book he is reviewing is “Darkness in El Dorado” a work critical of Chagnon.

My issue is with two interconnected problems.

The first is that the review is essentially an opinion piece by the author, and one critical of Chagnon. This would make it unsuitable as a RS for a BLP as per WP:NEWSORG: “Reviews for books... can be opinion pieces.…Opinion pieces are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Since contentious material in BLPs require higher standards than most other material, I don't believe the review meets RS standard since the source is "rarely reliable".

The second issue is that, while the review contains criticisms of Chagnon that originate with Sahlins, it also contains criticisms that originate from “Darkness in El Dorado”, either quoted or paraphrased. This is done in such a way that I can not with certainty say which criticism are Sahlins’ own opinion, and which are being quoted/paraphrased by the work under review. For example, "most of the criticisms of Chagnon rehearsed by Tierney have been circulating among anthropologists for years" seems to be coming from Sahlins himself. “he also attempted to win the hearts and minds of the people by a calculated redistribution of material wealth, and in so doing, managed to further destabilize the countryside and escalate the violence” is an almost direct quote from “Darkness in El Dorado” and not, presumably, Sahlins opinion. Though it could be. As a result, it’s very difficult to say which parts of this review are purely Shalins’ opinions, and which are selections lifted from the work under review.

I would like a consensus on two points:

1) The article in question can not be used as a RS for contentious statements of fact in a BLP because it is clearly an opinion piece by Sahlins This is not a RS for the statements of fact that multiple anthropologists have criticised Chagnon, and that criticisms of Changon persisted over a prolonged period. . This should be uncontroversial, though two editors in that article disagree.

2) It is unsuitable even for a claim that Sahlins is critical of Chagnon. This is because it is so hard to separate the criticisms that originate with Sahlins from the criticisms that he is reviewing form the work. There is not a single clear example of a criticism originating from Sahlins in the article. Even the statement , "most of the criticisms of Chagnon rehearsed by Tierney have been circulating among anthropologists for years", which is fairly clearly from Sahlins, isn’t actually a criticism of Chagnon by Sahlins. It’s just a note of the fact that Chagnon was criticised by others, which may or may not have included Sahlins. It’s also a statement of fact which, if the previous point is upheld, can’t be reliably sourced from this opinion piece. No other critical material in the article is clearly originating from Sahlins. The article is clearly critical in tone, but I think we need something more concrete than "tone" for a contentious statement in a BLP. I think the least we should have is a single sentence that is both clearly critical of Chagnon and clearly originating from Sahlins and not a review of a passage in “Darkness in El Dorado”.


Thanks for your time. Mark Marathon (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is a question about how to use the review in question, why not just quote a relevant passage from the review directly, and make no commentary. Say exactly this:
Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins has said: "<direct quote here>" and nothing else. That way there's no way someone can claim you are adding your own interpretation of the source text. --Jayron32 04:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the article already has large (the largest in fact) section on commentary/opinions surrounding "Darkness in El Dorado”. I agree, it could easily be used in that section in the manner you suggest. The editors in question specifically don't want to use it in that section or in that manner. They want want to use it is evidence that Sahlins and other anthropologists are personally critical of Chagnon and have been for a prolonged period. They want this information in a different section unrelated to "Darkness in El Dorado”. Since any quote from Sahlins likely comes from "Darkness in El Dorado”, they can't be quoted in another section without violating WP:UNDUE unless they can be ascertained as statements of fact or Sahlins' personal opinion.Mark Marathon (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Those issues can be discussed (elsewhere, perhaps), but the specific question here is whether the source meets WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. The issue is whether it is a RS for the statements given at the start of this section. Alternative usages to support other statements, such as suggested by Jayron32, while useful do not resolve the dispute as it pertains usage in the article. Mark Marathon (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
A Washington Post book review by a distinguished expert in the field is highly reliable for how a scholar's work has been received. It is not "personal opinion" but professional opinion. If other views conflict, include them alongside this one. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Judith, I agree that it is reliable for how "Darkness at EL Dorado" has been received. That was never in dispute. What we require is consensus on whether it is reliable for statements of fact about Chagnon. Note also that WP:RS does not distinguish between personal and professional opinion pieces. Either the article is an opinion piece or it is not. If it is an opinion piece, which you seem to accept, then according to WP:NEWSORG. Correct?Mark Marathon (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Reviews of books, films, TV shows, musical productions etc are not opinion pieces. When written by an academic, as this one is, it is academic scholarship. This is the kind of source that a BLP of an academic should mainly be based on, but do apply normal caution. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.deathreference.com/, and a 1918 reference

Is http://www.deathreference.com/ a reliable source, specifically for the claim at [19] that

"throughout Pre-Modern Europe, Child sacrifice was a thriving practice. Children and infants were commonly sacrificed either near river crossings or within new buildings, in which they were then buried or crushed under the foundation stones.

This seems to refer to http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Sacrifice.html: "Burials suggestive of sacrifice have been found in the sites of ancient bridges and buildings throughout Asia, Europe, and North Africa. It was widely believed that territories were under the control of local gods who might be angered by intrusions. Blood sacrifice at border crossings (often marked by rivers) and within buildings were thought to be prudent offerings. Sacrificial victims were also interred beneath city gates.

Children were often selected as the sacrificial offerings. Excavation of the Bridge Gate in Bremen, Germany, and several ancient fortresses in Wales are among the many examples of this practice." The page has a bibliography, which looks like a list of credible secondary sources, but these claims are not specifically referenced (and our writing is also stretching the claims too far even if the source is to be considered reliable.) I also haven't found any description of the site's editorial control. Should we use it?

In the same paragraph, "Child-Sacrifice Among European Witches M. A. Murray Man Vol. 18, (Apr., 1918), pp. 60-62" is referenced. I am not convinced that this identifies the reference properly - which journal was it in? and in any case it could be suggested to be out of date. I think that we should not rely on it, but I would be grateful for your ideas. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Question a: I agree, I can't see any evidence about who creates, publishes, edits the site and whether there is any peer review. If there really isn't any such evidence then we can't treat the site as reliable.
Question b: A hasty comment: that looks as if the journal is Man and the author is Margaret Murray, but I haven't checked. If that's the case, Murray is very notable and (I'd say) reliable; the journal is also reliable. But we'd better know exactly what she says! Andrew Dalby 13:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Andrew Dalby, I have a question about the Margaret Murray page. Is it weighted correctly regarding her current academic reputation? The "Legacy" section seems a bit pointed, the article is laced with broadly negative interpretive phrases (like the ones starting "It was likely", "Murray now became more and more emotional", but many more) and the most quoted source is Simpson, whose quotes consider her only negatively. Our article makes it seem like she's only been discredited,mostly per Simpson, but I don't know if that's the actual assessment from current academic sources. Right now it feels like the article is structured as an argument against her. I don't know what's happening there. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
[Edit conflict:] Very interesting question. My previous response was, as I said, "hasty", and when I made it I wasn't aware of the extent to which she may have favoured now-unfashionable (and indeed probably erroneous) views both in Egyptology and on witchcraft. (If I sounded knowledgeable, it's because I am (was) a librarian, used to spotting authors and titles, not because I am expert in these fields.) I wouldn't retract the "very notable", but I might rethink the "reliable" ... Keatinge is right, of course, [and now Judith, below]: we ought to try for more recent sources anyway.
But, as to the slant of our biography page, I'm not sure yet. The ODNB article (shorter than ours) takes a similar line. It is credited to "Max Mallowan; edited by R. S. Simpson". That's two Simpsons.
Our article on Jacqueline Simpson includes the curious, stray, throwaway line "Also cited for disclaiming theories proposed by Margaret Murray." It looks like a recent inexpert addition, but it's been there since the article was created in 2006, and even User:Simpsonworthing didn't think of removing it. Still, however that may be, it's perfectly possible that the current slant of the Murray article is the current consensus. I don't know (yet) :) Andrew Dalby 15:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The article on The Triumph of the Moon (1999) has a bit more but it doesn't clear anything up. It just points to drama, not clarity. It seems that two people, Hutton (in his book) and Frey (in academic journals) have disputed Simpson's opinion on Murray, both of them being in pagan circles themselves, and everybody arguing. I think there's a modern-day POV battle that's obscuring a more neutral take here. As I said on the Murray talk page, there's no clear indication why Murray needed a century of debunking, with nobody being claimed as advancing or supporting any part of her views for that time. And all of these pagan articles have the same nice pull quotes! You don't see that very often. In any case, I also agree that scholarship that's more current would be needed for the claim cited.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
A 1918 paper is too old to be usable, surely? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as this website is concerned, I don't see how it could be considered reliable. It has no indication of who publishes it, for starters, and that's enough to put me off it. Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I've taken it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

thecelebworth.com

I removed it from a BLP and noticed it's currently being used in 28 other articles. It looks like a part of a spamming campaign, but I thought I'd first see what others think of the site as a source. --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a clickbait spamsite with zero credibility or editorial control. I wonder if it should be spam blacklisted or should it just removed as unreliable? __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed them all. They were added by new WP:SPA accounts, most that have made no other edits. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sibel Edmonds' allegations of coverups by the media and U.S. government

@Petrarchan47 has accused me of engaging in a Wikipedia campaign of trying to discredit U.S. government "whistleblowers." I disagree, of course. If noting, as I did, that a particular "whistleblower" has also been diagnosed as paranoid psychotic happens to discredit said "whistleblower," the party doing the discrediting is not me but the reliable source reporting the diagnosis. Currently at issue is having Wikipedia cite other members of the self-styled whistleblowing community in the various biographies of these people. An example Wikipedia edit may be found here, where Sibel Edmonds is cited as a "whistleblower" with no reference to the fact this person is also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Elsewhere Sibel Edmonds notes that "Both mainstream and quasi alternative media outlets refused to publish or air Mr. Tice’s revelations" and declares that this is because MSNBC "censored his entire testimony on these stunning allegations!" Petrarchan47 referred me to Edmonds' view here that there is conspiratorial suppression at work to answer my question "why Tice's claims weren't picked up by respectable media." Is Sibel Edmonds a reliable source? Does citing the opinions of other "whistleblowers" who share a beef with the U.S. government add value to a "whistleblower"'s article or is it more of a self-referencing loop?--Brian Dell (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Since it is about opinions/statements it's not a question of "is she a reliable source". The following question should answer yours:
"Are U.S. government officials a reliable source? Does citing the opinions/statements of U.S. government officials who share a beef with "whistleblowers" add value to a "whistleblower"'s article or is it more of a self-referencing loop?"
In general, the answer would be yes for both scenarios.TMCk (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
So should that particular Wikipedia edit I called attention to be in or should it be out? You seem to be calling on Wikipedia to give equal time to 9/11 Truthers because "government officials" have a "beef" with the Truthers and are in general conspiracy against the Truthers (or perhaps just "the truth" generally). Does the U.S. government in fact propagate fringe theories equally frequently? If you believe so and you mean to make a general call for equal time I would note that on the bios in question equal time is not currently being granted since unverified claims by the self-styled whistleblowers are currently being given significantly more weight.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Whistleblower retaliation is not a fringe theory. If Edmonds has a fringe theory about 9/11, it is not in the text cited nor in her bio. It stays, and you need a chill pill. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Whistleblower retaliation is also not been even close to proven in the cases at hand here. The issue here is one of RS. As for "chilling", have you decided to chill your project to use Wikipedia's Main Page for political protest purposes or is that still going strong?--Brian Dell (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know Russ Tice or Sibel Edmonds, but the nature of your post suggests tendentiousness. Your post suggest that we're citing a "truther" as a reliable source, when the "truther" appears to actually be verified agent of the FBI-- i.e. someone who's job is to think about these sorts of things. This is a pretty gross oversimplification that cast doubt on the rest of your statement. The diff you cite merely shows her offering an opinion, which is allowed. In general, dial it down. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia currently places the Sibel Edmonds BLP in the 9/11 conspiracy theorists category. Whether people from this category should be deemed RS strikes me as a legitimate question.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
It did before you posted to the message board, but it no longer does. That category is not supported by the article text and was thus a gross violation of WP:BLP. She may be a truther, I never heard of her, but category was not justified. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You've "never heard of her" but you just KNOW that the "category was not justified," do you? How about practising due diligence before editing a BLP? Clearly some other editor (besides me) disagreed with you on this point, since otherwise the category would not have been added in the first place, no? Do other editors not deserve the courtesy of some cursory investigation before reverting them? May I point out that Edmonds is a signer of the "9/11 Truth Statement"? May I also note that she went on the show of conspiracy theorist extraordinaire Alex Jones to [[deprecated source?] declare] that "The evidence points to a massive government cover-up" and when Jones asked her "if 9/11 was an inside job" and "Do you think the evidence is leaning towards that?" she replied "... I would say yes."?--Brian Dell (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I worry we're getting into Wikipedia:DONTFEED territory, but one last stab. The claim that she is a truther was not supported by the text in her bio. Per WP:BLP, Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Good luck, I hope I've communicated with you successfully. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You evidently don't believe I deserve the courtesy of being communicated with given the policy you cite here, but I will return to my point about editors "deserv[ing] the courtesy of some cursory investigation" by noting that you accused me of "a very gross violation of BLP" despite the fact I have never edited that BLP. Very gross violations of a BLP require editing that BLP, do they not? You opened up a new Talk page section on a different BLP calling on everyone to review my editing based on my "error", despite the fact it would have taken very little effort to look at the article history and see that whoever added the "Truther" category, it wasn't me. There's actually a good explanation for why the Truther stuff is not in Edmonds' article: she said it to other conspiracists and so another Wikipedia editor would likely make the knee jerk complaint that the party passing on the information is not reliable as he or she is a fellow conspiracist. Now how about addressing the question of whether whoever did edit Edmonds' BLP did, in fact, commit an "error" in terms of factual accuracy?--Brian Dell (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, Edmonds subscribes to the "those responsible are not being held accountable because X" theory, not the "controlled demolition" theory. That should be reflected in the text of her article, as she's absolutely a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Furthermore, her statements on matters should be taken with a large grain of salt, especially in BLPs. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Has she actually claimed the truthfulness of a a fact that's contradicted by extant evidence? As best I can tell, the only thing she claims to know for a fact is that she relayed some relevant intelligence and her higher-ups failed to prevent 9/11 and covered up their own incompetence. That may be a minority opinion, but it's far from being a truther. (again, correct me if I'm wrong-- I'm not up to speed on all this). (incidentally 9/11 conspiracy theorist isn't a very good term, 9/11 WAS, in fact, a conspiracy, be all accounts. We're confusing JFK conpsiracy theoriests with 9/11 Truthers). --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
One assumes that her assertions on the matter regarding the US government covering up portions of the story are believed by her to be truthful. She details them in the documentary about her. It's a theory with no apparent factual basis behind it. This alone should disqualify her from being a reliable source, especially on BLPs. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You say "One assumes that her assertions on the matter regarding the US government covering up portions of the story are believed by her to be truthful"-- we assume no such thing. What I'm asking is, has she advanced a theory that is provably false. In my opinion, claiming that the US intentionally demolished the towers is demonstrably false. A theory that the people should have connected the dots, failed to, and were shy about admitted that-- that's not a truther. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
In this case, the idea that there are groups outside of Al Qaeda that actually funded and orchestrated the attacks and are being ignored by the government, her claim, is considered false. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
To the extent we're using her as a reliable source to demonstrate obviously false claims, that's fringe. What I've seen so far is just her claim that whistleblower retaliation exists-- which isn't fringe. Having a fringe view in one domain (e.g. Jesus resurrected) doesn't disqualify you from expressing legitimate views in other domains. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Except that her status as a "whistleblower" is directly because of her conspiratorial, fringy viewpoints on 9/11. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The diff cited is sourced to this article about TIce and it quotes and mentions Edmonds. That doesn't appear to be something made up by the editor you're disputing with.(It doesn't directly call her a whistleblower; it says, "Sibel Edmonds, the leader of the newly formed National Security Whistleblowers Coalition", but the connection is made by that source. The citation should be direct and not to "archive.is" as well.) I don't know whether the article is relevant, and there are many profound errors of weight and sense here, but both sides of the dispute have to use reliable sources, not blogs, and not synthesize a description of her, for or against. Having a mental condition at some point does not automatically disqualify a person by itself, and not being quoted in the mainstream media is not automatically some kind of censorship. It looks sloppy and unreliable on both sides here. boilingfrogspost.com looks like a self-published blog and should not be used for any fact beyond evidence of the opinions of its writer. This could probably be handled here just as well.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't even see any evidence that she denies the known facts of 9/11; She may debate some of the facts about the level of government incompetence, but I don't hear her talking about controlled demolitions of the towers or any other tin-foil hat ideas. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what evidence is there that she's a truther? --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The claim I added when mentioning Edmonds comes straight from the her wiki bio, which says "Her later claims gained her awards and fame as a whistleblower." There has not been dispute about it, nor has there been any about Tice, who is constantly referred to as a whistleblower, despite the fact that after going to Congress about lack of whistleblower protection, he suddenly was required to take another psych eval which the government used to discredit him. It didn't work, he stands alongside Thomas Drake as a whistleblower and is continually interviewed about the ongoing NSA revelations. The source I used to quote Edmonds is one brought to the article by Bdell555, whose first edits to this BLP are something everyone should review. petrarchan47tc 19:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Edmonds, I was only speaking to the quality of the sources mentioned so far. It sounded like someone (subject or editor or both or neither) was advancing fringe theories, so I directed them there to sort it out, without prejudice to anyone. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, good advice. petrarchan47tc 19:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem; right now the only diff offered as evidence of anything was a direct quote from a newspaper that was then attributed as a direct quote in the Wikipedia article. That's not a reliable source issue. It sounds like people are arguing about due weight, not sourcing. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes but a determination of general reliability about a party making claims would inform the debate about how much space to give to that party's claims.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The notice board is not a place best-suited for determination of "general reliability" for any and all future or theoretical claims. 1. Source, 2. Article, 3. Content. There's a reason it says, Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y". This looks like free-running content dispute and should be handled on the talk page of an actual article, regarding actual claims in context, I think. I haven't seen a single diff where she's being used as a source for anything. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Why does this board exist if every instance has to be evaluated on a case by case basis and no generalizations can be made about the reliability of a source generally? I raised the issue of Sibel Edmonds here because looking through the history apparently she's never come up before on this noticeboard. Are you saying it wouldn't have mattered because no precedent would have been created anyway were she deemed unreliable in the past? I'd also note that it seems rather too convenient if an RS problem like "The moon is made of cheese"[unreliable source] can be solved by just saying "According to [unreliable source], the moon is made of cheese." The second formulation is definitely better but it's hardly home free. Hector is of the view that "9/11 WAS, in fact, a conspiracy, be all accounts." Does this view have to be engaged again and again on article Talk pages or is there some centralized forum where it can be settled?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed Sibel Edmonds, and replaced it with a statement from Tice. petrarchan47tc 21:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Lion vs Tiger Consenses =Reliable sources

Tiger versus lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bigcat82 is constantly removing refferences and sources to the lion vs tiger subject and "claiming" that they are --un-reliable--, have no sources, are fictional ect...

I am here to show the proof that they are reliable and not what he insinuated"

This is not a fictional book, but a consenses by a Historian with a masters degree:

Master's degree In History from The Vermont College of Norwich University[1] Ken spiro comments, "The Romans went all over the empire to find wild, exotic beast to astonish the crowds. Next, the Arena was lowered to feature combat between them, Romans cheered as Lions tore apart Tigers, tigers went up against Bears, Leopards against Wolves. It goes without saying that the Romans had never heard of animal rights"[2]

- Maters degree info: http://www.kenspiro.com - Direct link to the quota: http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Romans+cheered+as+lions+tore+apart+tigers&btnG= - Year: 2002 - Author: Ken spiro - Book title: WorldPerfect: The Jewish Impact on Civilization - isbn: 978-0-415-10453-1

The source is relating the spectacle of the event, not the merits of one animal against another per se. I don't see how this can be regarded as a reliable source in this context. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact, his sources are the ones that are not reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_versus_lion

His refferences main source comes from a Zoo keeper, not a historian with a degree in history: http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/ewtwet.jpg

Random people who are not qualified (no scholar knowledge) specifically in history via knowledgable to historical records and are basing it off hear say, should not be replacing things that have Masters degrees.


Also:

"Another mosaic in the house of the Faun, now badly damaged, showed a lion standing over a prostrate tiger."[3]

- Direct link to the quota: http://books.google.com/books?id=vt9JwsNcKzwC&pg=PA148&dq=house+of+faun+lion+tiger+prostrate&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5QDnUuK0PM6JogSW6YDgBw&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAA - Year: 1986 - Author: Jerome Jordon Pollitt - Book title: Art in the Hellenistic Age - isbn: 9780521276726

As the original refferences was subjectively used without mentioning the lion standing over a prostrate tiger.

So I await a consenses in removing things that is unreliable and placing a block on Bigcat82's on his subjective, cherrying picking and constant erasing of reliable content for the Lion vs Tiger subject as he has repeatively undid a more reliable vision numerous times: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiger_versus_lion&diff=prev&oldid=591817160

As I just showed its proof of reliability. Golden Prime (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A Master's degree isn't very high on the academic reputation scale. The problem with the sources which you are challenging is that they are many, variate, written by people regarded as authorities (e.g. published by Cambridge University Press or upon the websites of other reputable universities). Even if some of them would be unreliable, this cannot hold for all of them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
And that guy isn't an animal keeper. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And on and on the fairess wheel goes, first I put Clyde beatty in, a person who had directly observed them fighting as stated in his book observation upon 40 years experince (as I provided) and has worked with 1,000 tigers and lions, has accumilated atleast 25 tigers that were killed his lions documented by over 10 credible sources, of news paper and book archives, who he is the Guiness records book holders working with both lion and tiger simultaneously (note I say simultaneously) none of whats in place have any verification working with both and specifically seen them fight, (or else prove it, prove those sources have seen fights, not just assuming) backed by via news articles and books, yet it gets removed in conjunction by a absolutely no credentials (History) level of science, then when I put in a scholar masters degree authority, the zoo keeper who is less credible and reliable then both of the contradictive exclusions, its then dis-regarded yet again, just because a person owns a dog, doesnt mean he knows the history, origin, import/export, leinage, blood-line ect....the same way a zoo keeper doesnt know the history nor cites any specifics of the romans, there were over 50 emperors, in over 5 centurys, where are the records then to support the zoo keeper? There should be thousands if you make a claim such as large as an empire, not just 1, yet I have over 10 Historians, Theologians, Archaeologist that all supports the lion was the usual victor in rome, along with 8 historical artifacts of origination of rome/italy...its non-challangeable when you only have one staged account and one opinion from a nobody (No credentials or tangible proof).

So what exactly are you trying to say? That he (Bigcat82) can post whatever he wants and I and anyone to oppse it will have the data removed? All the revisions are being undone to his bias subjective vision, yet no clarification is being emited, up-held or even verified, the bottom line is, why is Bigcat82 removing things off thats just as reliable and acedemcially even more so then his, and...only...keeping his? Dont you think then both should be heard, used, provided and or be known to the public?

His revision is so bias its ridiculous, whats next, you are gonna tell me that there are only 2 sub-speices of tigers as Bigcat82 has as current? lol

I'm not chllangeing anything, I pointing out the facts, published? What are you talking about, 10 people quoting one incident (Martials Poem/epigram), doesent make many, its still counts as only one, just because 100 newspaper stations publish muhamid ali kocked out george foremen, doesnt mean ali knockd out foreman 100 times, again, there is only one credible and reliable source of the romans/rome/italy historical basis that mentions a tiger defeating a lion, which is Martial even the people who studyed that epigram stated it was un-clear f it was staged, since in that same event awoman killed a lion too, really? A average lady killed a 500lb killing machine...lol, thats it...on the other hand from ancient to modern records we have:

  • Historian Ken Spiro (M.A In History from The Vermont College of Norwich University)
  • Historian Margaret George (University with a B.A. and Stanford University with an M.A)
  • Historian and Archaeologist Martin seyers (Ph.D of Classical Archaeology, Egyptologym at Vienna University)
  • Professor Thomas Gray (Historian at Cambridge University.)
  • Professor Adolph Hausrath theologian (Privatdozent P.D German universities)
  • Theologian Edward beecher (Graduated in Yale college in 1822)
  • Charles Scribner's Sons (American writing company dates back to 1821)
  • Museums and Their Development (Psychology Press, 1656)
  • Native to the holy roman empire, Johan Wenzel Peter (Painting/Root artifact)
  • Native to the holy roman empire Cicero Epigram/remnent
  • Native to the holy roman empire, Carl Borromäus Andreas Ruthart (Painting/Root artifact)
  • Native to rome Pietro Aquila (Royal Emperyium engraving/Root artifact)
  • Visitor to rome Théodore Géricaul: (Painting/Root artifact)
  • Visitor to rome HECHT Joezef Polish: (Painting/root artifact)
  • Visitor to rome Richard westall: (Engraving/root artifact)
  • Roman Royal Athena (Belt buckle/Root artifact)
  • Mosiac in the house of faun (Pompeii A.D)
  • Mosaic in the house of Caecilius Jucundus (Pompei A.D)
  • Two Marbel stone peices (Circa 1700 & the other 1920)
  • Greek statue (Artifact)
  • Phaedrus
  • Plato's dialogues
  • Latin writer/historian Aesop
  • Eye Witness: Mr. Bolton (veorna 1834)
  • Eye witness: Trainer Kose (Turin italy)
  • Eye witness: Rudolf kludsky to several occaisons (Turin italy)

All solid proof of anecdoctal records the same as martials poem showing lions usually won, to actual artifacts depicting lions the victor via mosaics, engravings, etches, antiques, ect ect, historians and thelogian consenses all with Ph.d and Masters degrees, actual staged accounts in other amphitheaters by eye witnesses where the lion won, just so happens all the books, newspaper articles ect all quote the same man as their refference, Marcus Valerius Martialis, and it is widely accepted as the epigram is merely just a poem, there are literaly hundreds of poems written of lions defeating tigers...so lets not go there.

Thats only records in rome/italy, their are (on hand) records from India, Germany, British, chinese, japanese, persians, ect ect, all suporting the lion was the usual winner.

The historic value trumps anything that supports the theory tigers won basically 30x fold, this is consistant with modern experts via animal trainers who observed them fighting, it is in consistantcy with science professions such as Biologist, Ecologist and Natralits, all the credible data indicates the lion is the superior animal in combat, all nationalitys and cultures has the lion the superior animal either in healdry or actual accounts, the same way the on record the lion has killed the tiger more than vice versa.

This subject with out the life experinces and memoirs of Clyde beatty, Bert nelson, terrell Jacobs, Dave hoover and more has no value, no substance, and without those authoritys this subject should be classified as medicore and un-educated, in fact ignorant.

So I say again, I am not against things that support the tiger, I just want both sides as truthful as possible and both sides to be heard, not erasing things because someone is incredibily subjective and bias... is that so much to ask? Golden Prime (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Golden Prime (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Golden Prime (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It is frankly ridiculous to cite Ken Spiro for a claim regarding the relative merits of lions and tigers in a fight - he is describing a Roman spectacle, not making an assessment regarding the fighting abilities of the animals. We don't cherry-pick random phrases from publications on entirely different subjects to use as source. Spiro may very well be qualified to write on 'The Jewish Impact on Civilization', but there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that he is an expert on lions and tigers - or that he makes the slightest claim to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump Ohh, you don't say...and what about everythig else I have mentioned, just grabage too then eh? This topic is so fragile, it needs consistant "hints" that all lead to the same conclusions, not just living in a life of denial obscuring single/individual refferences, so what you are saying is, all the things I have mentioned will be remained hidden from the world because some subjective bias people dont want anyone disagreeing with their own un-educated opinions on subject? lol Maybe you should read up on some of the basics on this subject before you go calling BS to a person who has a Masters degree, while in vice versa you have zero knowledge:

(Last Post on the page) http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17524&PN=6

Oh, wow...all that info, yet not one according to the bias necessities of wiki=goers, finds it reliable...XD WOW! Yeah and cherry picking 2 sub-species of the largest tigers to hide the fact lions on average (as a species) are heavier, taller, larger and bigger in size compared to tigers...what happened to the Sumatran tiger, The Indo-chinese, Javan, south-china, caspian, bali and malayian tiger...ohhh, Oblivious and re-written out of history just because they stand little to no chance to even the smaller sub-species of asiatic lions leo persica, and specifically to your comment, he does not have to know current biology 101 of tigers and lions of today, thats not the catagorie/profession he is in, if you even looked into the subject, Ken spiro was in the HISTORY CATAGORIE, as historians study things that are pre-recorded via remnents, archaeology and written documentation that is passed on from the past, so I dont know even why you commented on that, the other catagorie of EXPERTS OPINIONS would then be able to clarify their profession, as in observation, hypothetises, actual studys of live individuals, which yet again is what I brought via Terrell jacobs and Clyde beatty...probably the highest on hand observers intwined with on the field observers and zoologist such as Dave salmoni and Kailash sankhalka...and yet consistantly on a hour to hour basis has to have the same bias revisioner safe guard it by erasing anything that supports the lion. lol Golden Prime (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Such comments are doing your case no favours. This is the reliable source noticeboard, where we discuss the merits of sources presented here - which is what I was doing. If you prefer, we could discuss the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where your apparent inability to discuss the subject without resorting to insults will no doubt come under scrutiny. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It woulden't matter to me, since someone would be to blame, it has been un-checked via over 5 years, I've conducted a scan of how many sites have cited and refferenced wiki on this subject, an its almost in the thousands with a ripple effect of viewers in the hudred millions, with incredibly mis-informed people all being propelled by a bias revisioner...so if anyone is to blame, it should be wikipedias moderators and admins, as I have only seen nothing but negativity be promoted out of what wiki was allowed to be spewed out, propaganda, ignorance, lies, fakes and more...for shame.Golden Prime (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The only person to blame for your behaviour is yourself - and getting permanently blocked will do nothing for your case. I suggest that rather than continuing with this discussion, which is unlikely to achieve anything concrete, you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:No original research, and then look for material which both complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and supports your position. And if you have specific issues regarding the sourcing and/or neutrality of the article as it stands which directly relate to Wikipedia policy, and can demonstrate them without resorting to personal attacks on other contributors, you could consider raising them in the appropriate places - here for questions regarding sources, at WP:NORN for issues pertaining to original research, and at WP:NPOVN for issues regarding neutrality. You should be aware however that your own editing will be subject to scrutiny too - and that any repeat of the sort of attacks you have indulged in here is certain to lead to sanctions against you. The choice is yours - you can work with us, our way, or you can expect to be shown the door. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)



One other thing - please do not edit your posts after they have been replied to. [20] It can make understanding a discussion next to impossible, and in consequence is against Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My behavior? Whats wrong with it...so basically the rightous, the person who wants to be fair, truthful ect has to be victimized by some uneducated people on subject who basically just pointed out in a small time frame 1/100th Bigcat82 was abusing the ethics of this website, and all I did was point out some mistakes, faults, exploits reliability/credability factors, and exposer of un-phantomed subjectivity unchecked biasness, and yet the very person who was frequent (Bigcat82) for years on this subject slipped passed abusing wiki as a propelling device to get out his own bias wants to pollute the world, cloaked unseen for about half a decade pushing out his own selfish needs without one, just one person interveening and having it adressed, moderated, reviewed, corrected, assest properly...and yet he goes un-corrected, un-challanged and unpunished...in fact aided/helped...Huh!

So what you're saying is, Bias intentions(Bigcat82)>>>>>>>Fair assement(Golden Prime)???? Okay, I'm done, I'll take it else where then. No biggie, since absolutely no one gave reasons and was able to prove the accounts of lions killing tigers were un-reliable...just people living in denial, purposely lying for a false cause... you can stay in a demented, delusional world of bias subjective B.S, I won't Golden Prime (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

One more last thing, I request a user Block on Bigcat82, since he isint and can't give any tangible proof that whats in place now as my last undo, is unreliable, as all are accounted for via newspaper acrhives, heres of an example...

This is a Newspaper archive with all its credentials:

The Times 2 September 1936 › Page 12 Clyde beattys lion named boss tweed, kills 3 tigers in one fight http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E474f4BFJh8J:http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/38953345/+clyde+beatty++lion+tiger++killed+++site:www.newspapers.com&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&prmd=ivns&strip=1

Thats how it would look like in through the archive, you can go to its main site and purchase a Pdf copy of the article to view it your self, heres another account and how a snap shot peice of the article would look like:

lion kills three tiger’s Source: Altoona Mirror, September 27. 1928 http://i1119.photobucket.com/albums/k625/Leofwin/lionvstigeraccount4.jpg

So since Bigcat82 has no reason of removing what I posted of lions killing tigers accounts via reliable sources, it is in terms vandalizing, so I would like a mod to place a block on his account if he persist in removing credible and reliable occaisons to have a bias subjective and pro-data topic.Golden Prime (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If you wish for a contributor to be blocked, this isn't the place to propose it - WP:ANI would probably be a better place, if you had a good case, based on relevant evidence and a clear understanding of Wikipedia policy. Since you appear to have neither, I would however suggest that doing so based on what you have written here would be a total waste of time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I would also suggest that it might not be in your best interests to raise the matter at WP:ANI, given that you have clearly failed to take previous warnings regarding your behaviour into account - adding material with a patently-false edit summary as you did here [21] is unlikely to be seen in a positive light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You see what I mean, I don't like wasting my time like that...you just called them false...how, wheres your tangibe proof they are false, just saying it is dosent make them false, they are all directed straight to its root source, tell me exactly how is his (Bigcat82) a good case and mine isint? You dident even check for any of his verifications, so stop lying, there are even previous people who undid his revision since they actually read its content, answer one question andy...just one...are there only two sub-speices of tigers?

NO! There are NINE! So how is whats in place already a good case? You shouldent even be replying if you arnt interested in improving anything on this subject, I don't even know why you're here, you say you want reliability, and yet you make up lies and subjective remarks and hide behind wiki rules of abusing authoritys where its not needed. Golden Prime (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work of consensus. If you are putting forward sources that other's deem as unreliable (and they are clearly giving you reasons, btw), then you haven't achieved consensus. You can't revert and insult just to get your way - so either find a way to work with other editors or cut your losses and move on. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I have opened a thread concerning User:Golden Prime at WP:ANI. [22] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

lol you have nothing on me and are making up lies after lie andy, go report me, who cares, we both know you have nothing that was true...I'm waiting andy, it states here WIKIPEDIA'S OWN SOURCE! Tiger there are NINE SUBSPEICES OF TIGERS! I previously added a revision even before the one you undid as ignorant and faslely proclaimed as you were, you offered no proof, and yet the former revision I had mentioned had 2 BIOLOGIST (you can check my other contribs) state all the tiger averages, and the lion on average is heavier and taller, I'm trying to be as historically as accurate as possible, what are you doing? Being subjective, bias and hiding the truth and twisting facts?

You, are CONTRADICITING wikipedias own sources, there are more than 2 sub-species of tigers, yet you and flat out reverted to less reliable content...jesus christ talk about hypocrites, good case? You have NO CASE, you cant even exept the basic cases let alone you ignorantly trying to dis-prove of scholar/masters level'd people who you dident even know the concept between history and biology was supposed to be comprehended...yet again, making up things and being bias and subjective...why are you even here, to be a spaming bot?

For the 100th time I reverted you for edit warring, but I would be interested in you pointing out where in Tiger versus lion it states there are 2 sub-species of tiger because I can't see it. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line is you dident state why you revereted it to a less reliable one and yet all the accounts, everysingle one of them had a source, and you still reverted it out lolGolden Prime (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You were reverted - and blocked - for edit warring. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Amiannoying - reliable?

Amiannoying is pretty well edited and comfortably less misleading compared to NNDB, but still what you think about it? Because I have found some errors in Amiannoying as well.

Thanks Noteswork (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Not remotely a reliable source. See [23] for where they say they get their information from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
So they basically get every information through some secondary source? Thanks Noteswork (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this website a suitable reliable source?

Seeking advice on the suitability of http://www.racingsportscars.com as a source, as used in the Vittorugo Mallucci article. The website is registered to a named individual, rather than an organisation, and I suspect the content is self-published and lacking any editorial oversight. Jaggee (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

On the about page its say " contributions from friends and sports car enthusiasts" ....this would be a red flag in my opinion. BUT....its used all over Wikipedia (thus some must think its ok) ....so we should get others to look at this closely - External links search. I have asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car Racing to comment since this could affect many articles and they need to be aware of what people think of the site as a whole.-- Moxy (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree more, when the car websites are based on news. Than just historicity(you prefer books instead). Noteswork (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
It probably does not qualify as a reliable source, per se, but almost all the information on it is copies of race results, making it a useful resource as a guide for someone building an article, but should not be the sole source of information. Obviously race results and data from official sources is preferred, but some series are defunct and no longer exist, making finding race results near impossible, so sometimes racesportscars is the sole source of information available in that regard. The359 (Talk) 15:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The conclusion I see is that the site is not reliable, but is nevertheless widely used. I guess if it is the only source of something, then that something isn't all that notable - and can be removed. If it just the only online source, of content that could be sourced elsewhere in paper publications, then we need to dig out those paper sources. Either way, is there any policy-compliant reason to allow this site to be kept as a source cited in any article? Jaggee (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Harvard Political Review RS for economics book review?

Better late than never getting to this issue on my long list, dealing with two stalled talk page discussions:

Edit summary reads: rmv review from undergraduate publication. (Harvard students are better than most, but they still have no degree apart from H.S. diploma, and are not qualified to review econ book)
Edit summary reads: rmv article from undergraduate magazine. Undergraduates, whose maximal educational attainment is a high school diploma, are not qualified to review an economics book. (even if they are among the best undergraduates in U.S., as H enrollement would indicate)

Thoughts as to whether the source is RS for these uses? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If this book is worth mentioning as a work of economics or political theory, there must be some mention, review, or citations in RS references. An undergraduate magazine and a cable news pundit don't seem commensurate with discussion of a book of presumably encyclopedic noteworthiness. If RS discussion about the book cannot be found, I suggest creating a separate article for the book and listing it with a wikilink in the publications list of this article. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
An undergraduate magazine is not RS for economics, no matter how prestigious the university. (As a college student, Al Gore founded and was the chief editor of HPR; is/was he an RS for economic?) Steeletrap (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea if it is an RS or not, but I'm not sure the opinions of undergraduates are encyclopedic. For a 38 year old book of the significance claimed by the article, surely we can find reviews from more significant publications. Gamaliel (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I should have mentioned the only reason I put it in was because I frequently have seen reports, book reviews and even opinion pieces from less prestigious universities' student newspapers used in articles. And now I just remembered (duh) this has been discussed at WP:RSN with the reliability of the specific publication being the decisive factor. See 2012Harvard Crimson discussion; 2010 discussion, [2009] general discussion, 2008 discussion (re: Daily Bruin); another 2008 general discussion. Did I forget to mention that Harvard Political Review is the official publication of the Harvard Institute of Politics? (Created as a memorial to JFK, one may remember.) It seems like a one sentence book review on a popular book on economics is well within their capability and the opposition to them are just as baseless as the opposition to inclusion of the Hayek material below. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, the article on the Review says it's "official", the article on the Institute says it's "home to and publishes" the Review. Those two claims aren't synonymous ("home to" is a good meaningless Wikipedia phrase). Maybe we should cite a source for the Review's exact relationship to the Institute. Anyway, it's still a student magazine, edited by students. I wouldn't consider its articles notable unless that particular article has been cited by reliable sources, or, possibly, if that particular writer has become notable later. Otherwise, if not notable, not worth quoting as an opinion on a book. That's my view. Andrew Dalby 20:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we're using book reviews from the Crimson. The Crimson and HPR might be reliable sources for the intellectual and social goings-on of Harvard U. But they are not RS for economics. Their authors may be Harvard students, but they are also teenagers and barely-twenties whose highest educational attainment is a HS diploma. Not even close to RS. Steeletrap (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
If one bothers to do a Wikipedia search for theharvardcrimson.com one finds at least 500 uses of it as a reference. Of course, it's not the official publication of the Harvard Institute of Politics as is 'Harvard Political Review. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of the Harvard Crimson is off-topic for the current discussion. If you disagree, please explain how you think it relates to the issue we are discussing here. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Please note that past WP:RSN discussions are relevant and above I note that as one of several examples of student publications being RS. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
@Carolmooredc: How does the fact that a different student publication has been considered RS for other content relate to the current issue? Are there specific similarities which support a comparison or equivalence in this case? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hayek info RS for same two articles?

@Gamaliel: 's question, and a look at the talk page, reminded me that I got too busy to deal with opposition to including two WP:RS about Nobel Prize winner Freidrich Hayek's comments' on Block's book. Rather than start a separate thread, might as well ask here.

  • SPECIFICO's Removal of Hayek's positive quote here because it might be against BLP and with his recommendation I take it to RSN. A better reference is the "Commentary by F.A. Hayek" p 24 in the 2012 edition of Defending the Undefendable published by Laissez-Faire Books.
  • In John Gray's, Hayek on Liberty (Ed 3, Taylor & Francis, 2002), Gray writes in a discussion of “Hayek’s conception of the natural selection of competing social rules” the following: In some areas, recognition of the vital functions of these scapegoat occupations and practices may prompt demands for the revision of law and of customary morality so as to accord them a greater measure of legitimacy and social approval. It is in this spirit that Mandeville himself wrote, and in which Hayek endorsed a recent Mandevillean work by the economist Walter Block, “Defending the Undefendable”, in which the social functions of such figures as the pimp, scab and the crooked cop are vigorously expounded.” (Note: the google page is no longer available but full context still searchable in an earlier version at Amazon.com)
SPECIFICO objected at this diff that we can't write about "Hayek's state of mind"?!?

So does any uninvolved editor see a problem with using both those Hayek-related materials in both articles? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hayek's view is clearly notable and it would be weird to leave it out. John Gray likewise, with the adjective Mandevillean and the description of the book's content, even if he is only noting Hayek's opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, both views are notable and worth including. Andrew Dalby 09:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
What's the source of the Commentary? -- never mind that it's attributed to Hayek. Is it well-sourced and the context clear? It's an undated unsourced insertion of what appears to be promotional content. Was it a collegial letter to Block's publisher? A deathbed confession? SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks to be RS to me. I don't think it is particularly notable or clear, however. The meaning of "endorse" is vague; does he endorse Block's economics? His ethics? His writing style? There may also be verification issues. All in all, this doesnt' belong on RSN. Steeletrap (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
To address only the RS issue, Gray uses as his ref for "endorsed" an undated Fleet Press' version of the book; Fleet press was the original publisher and can be assumed to have fact checked that Hayek wrote the letter. This description of the 2008 Ludwig von Mises Institute edition of the book does note that Hayek had written "the author". All of this can be added to the references if necessary. It also lists a number of other quotes of Praise including by Robert Nozick and Tom G. Palmer; the original sources of some of them surely can be tracked down. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be painting a picture of solicited endorsements sourced from a number of "likely suspects" by the publisher, eager to promote the book. Now that you've provided the context I think it's hard to claim this is encyclopedia-worthy content. What is "Fleet Press?" SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Personal letters (or emails) from a prominent economist are not reliable sources. If they were, anyone could create a Wikipedia page for herself if she compiled enough friendly or flattering emails, Facebook messages or chat room flirtations, from prominent academics. Doc. Block was a young buck back then; maybe Hayek was just trying to be friendly or supportive, in what he thought was private personal correspondence? Also, since the book was published in 1976, TGP (whose wiki says he was born in 1956) was presumably a *teenager* (or barely 20), without a college degree, when he wrote that review. Steeletrap (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
A few of the above comments by Specifico and Steeletrap were worth making, but the majority of them are infantile. Gray's book is a reliable source. The fact that Gray cites Hayek is, in itself, sufficient for us, but it's better to be able to add a quote from the primary source, which is the text of Block's book, including the full Hayek endorsement, as published originally by Fleet Press and reprinted by Laissez-Faire. The status of these publishers has nothing to do with it. The material is notable, and Gray, as RS, makes it usable. So let's use it. Andrew Dalby 13:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
[Added later:] Unless I missed something, neither at Walter Block nor at Defending the Undefendable do we have any quotations from people who criticized this book. We surely need that too. I've just found the review by D. J. Enright, Times Literary Supplement, July 02, 1976, p. 817. Some good quotes there. Andrew Dalby 13:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I have said the Gray source is RS. I have not said that the reviews from Mises.org -- which includes Hayek's personal letter to Block -- are RS. We can say something like: "Gray notes Hayek endorsed Block's book." We cannot quote the excerpt from the alleged personal letter posted on Mises.org. Steeletrap (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
@Andrew Dalby: I've only made two comments above in this thread. If you would please indicate which one(s) you're calling "infantile" and why, I'd be pleased to respond to your concern. Otherwise, why bother with pointless denigration? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, Specifico, I heard the ping. I'll reply on your talk page. Andrew Dalby 12:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Since we have a reliable secondary source for Hayek's opinion (Gray), there is no reason why we cannot expand on on it by using the primary source (Hayek's letter.) Private letters become acceptable sources once they are published, at least for the opinions expressed in them and a secondary source has commented on them. TFD (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Good evening, TFD. I have argued that we can use the Gray source. The problem is that the Gray source only briefly mentions Hayek's view of Block's book, saying he "endorsed" it. The personal correspondence is published on Mises.org, on a promotional page for the book. That is what is being cited, not the Gray book; and that is what I'm calling unreliable. Steeletrap (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hayek's "endorsement" is not on "a promotional page for the book" but is part of the book published by Fleet Publishing Corporation, on p. xii. (That has already been pointed out above.) TFD (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. I agree that it's not a good idea to use the Mises Institute page, but, since Gray, as RS, mentions this material, it's quite OK to quote it as it appears in the published editions of the Block book. Andrew Dalby 12:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
TFD my old friend, you misunderstand me. The "endorsed" thing is in Gray's book, and can be used. (anything from that book clearly can.)) However, what was previously being cited was not the Gray book, but a personal correspondence not cited therein, which appears on a promotional page for the book near the "checkout" button on Mises.org. bookstore). That was my sole objection. Steeletrap (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Then I think I misunderstood you also. Sorry. This stuff isn't easy. Andrew Dalby 15:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
To answer a few points: New ref welcome. Using positive quotes about Austrian economists is not verboten on Wikipedia. Note that SPECIFICO wanted to know origin of Hayek's comments and I gave it to him, writing "All of this can be added to the references if necessary." I meant to prove where comments came from and am indifferent as to whether that is mentioned in the article. However, both the Gray comment and the Hayek quote belong. Feel free to search if anyone else has commented on what Hayek wrote. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, we still do not know the origin of the Hayek text on the Mises website, but consensus appears to be not to use that source. If you are saying that you have RS documentation as to the origin of the Hayek text, please provide it. While I don't see anybody objecting to the Gray statement, I also do not see anybody other than yourself advocating the use of the Mises Institute/Hayek. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I see four editors saying the quote itself is useable. If you don't believe Mises.org that it was a letter from Hayek, fine, we don't have to use that claim as a source. But if a fabricated quote from Hayek was used in the foreward to the Fleet Street editions of the book, I'm sure Gray or others would have discovered that fact by now. (Feel free to search for any such evidence.) And Gray does use the Fleet Street book as his source for Hayek's statement. Please stop denying what other editors can see obviously is true. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
@Carolmooredc: No more personal remarks, please. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: No more personal remarks, please. – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
@Srich32977: No more personal remarks, please. – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hayek's comments are shown on p. xii of the Fleet Press original edition of the book. Presumably Hayek read the book before it was published. Fleet Press was a reputable publisher of non-fiction that was later absorbed into Macmillan, which is a reputable publisher of non-fiction. Therefore the comments are reliably sourced. Gray used the comments on p. xii as a source. He references the Fleet edition of the book, although he does not mention the page number. Gray's book is also rs, and was published by Routledge, an academic publisher. The fact that Hayek's comments also appear "on a promotional page for the book near the "checkout" button on Mises.org. bookstore", or the fact that the LvMI republished the book, does not mean that the comments published in the Fleet Press edition are no longer rs. TFD (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello TFD. I'm curious how one traces the history of these defunct small presses. The best I could locate was this web page. Is there a source which you've generally found helpful in vetting prospective references? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
That's an irrelevant question (though I, too, would be happy to know the answer!), because Gray's reference to it makes the material usable to us. Andrew Dalby 19:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I typed "fleet press corporation" into Google books search.[24] It shows that the books published appear to be reasonable non-fiction, and that they have been cited in thousands of other books, most of which also appear to be reasonable non-fiction. Some of the cites have "The Macmillan Company" in brackets. Macmillan of course is a major reputable publisher of non-fiction. Also, the fact that Gray cites Hayek's remarks provides evidence that they are genuine. TFD (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be the consensus, provided that the article states no more than what Gray stated in the RS reference. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is clear. We can and should use Gray, but nothing else. Steeletrap (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus that Gray's book is reliable secondary source for what Hayek said. Most editors think that we can also use the page in Block's book, published by Fleet Press Corporation and used as a source in Gray's book, as a primary source for what Hayek wrote. TFD (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Andrew Dalby 11:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. So I can put in the following:

John N. Gray writes that Friedrich Hayek "endorsed" Block's book.[4] Hayek wrote in an introductory commentary in the book that looking through it "made me feel that I was once more exposed to the shock therapy by which, more than fifty years ago, the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position. … Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it. A real understanding of economics demands that one disabuses oneself of many dear prejudices and illusions. Popular fallacies in economics frequently express themselves in unfounded prejudices against other occupations, and showing the falsity of these stereotypes you are doing a real services, although you will not make yourself more popular with the majority."[5]

Then we can spend the next six months deciding what to actually quote from Hayek's commentary... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, gosh, Carol, I don't think you can, not at that length. This appears to me to be a self-standing text by Hayek, subject to copyright, very short, and you can't go beyond fair use. I'd say about a third of the number of words you are currently quoting, possibly paraphrasing some of the rest. If others think I'm wrong here, I'm sure they'll say so! Andrew Dalby 22:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe Mr. Dalby is correct. We can write: "John N. Gray writes that Friedrich Hayek endorsed Block's book." Full stop. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Specifico. But indeed we can additionally footnote Hayek's text via Google Books -- obviously a help to our readers, since we have found the text, and Hayek is (as this and other discussions have shown) notable and of keen interest -- and we can quote it; but briefly. I think I'd go as far as this (shortened from Carol's text above), just for example:

John N. Gray writes that Friedrich Hayek "endorsed" Block's book.[6] In this prefatory comment Hayek observes that looking through the book made him feel that he was again "exposed to the shock therapy by which ... the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position. … Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it," explaining that an understanding of economics requires the rejection of illusions and prejudices, and that it was a real service to have demonstrated "the falsity of these stereotypes".'[7]

Any use? Andrew Dalby 12:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I assumed it would be cut somehow. I was just providing the full quote that originally had been in text so people could decide what wanted to use - or could look to the original for other quotes. As long as the main thrust is preserved, I'm happy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that only first sentence should be in the article, without the scare quotes. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
But why? Hayek's notable, as you yourself have done so much to show, Specifico. Why not quote a bit of the opinion that Gray referred to? It's good stuff, too, whether one agrees or not. "Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it!" Worth a few seconds of our readers' time. Give it to them! Andrew Dalby 17:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's an alternative suggestion: The article could state, "Philosopher John N. Gray noted that Friedrich Hayek endorsed Block's book, Defending the Undefendable, in which the social functions of such figures as the pimp, scab and the crooked cop are vigorously expounded." That gives a bit more substance to the Gray's mention of Block's book without drawing on speculation or OR characterization of the Hayek text. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Where's the speculation? Where's the OR characterisation? And why squeeze out Hayek? You surely agree he's a more notable figure than Gray! Let's have his words! Andrew Dalby 19:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I have not read Gray's book. Does he identify that promotional text we've seen from Hayek as being the basis for the sentence we're discussing? The more interesting and informative content actually would be that Gray calls Block's book "Mandevillean". SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
That's good too, though (I would hazard) more obscure to more readers than the Hayek sentence I quoted :) But, fine. Let's take both.
Yes, for Hayek's endorsement Gray cites the Fleet Press edition of the Block book. That's all set out above (but a long, long way above). Andrew Dalby 19:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I see not reason to mention Gray in the text. That makes it read Gray said that Hayek said. Why not just say what Hayek said. TFD (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I see exactly what you mean, TFD. But this thing has a tendency to go round in circles, and the first circle began with doubts that Hayek's comment is RS. It is in any case a primary source (for Hayek's opinion). Gray, being undoubtedly RS, gives us the lead to quote the primary source that he interprets for us. That's the way I see it, anyway. Andrew Dalby 09:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Using secondary and primary sources to reinforce each other is standard. Let's not find an excuse to knock how Hayek quote 3 weeks after this thread gets archived or whatever. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 09:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the fact that Gray mentions Hayek's endorsement is actually more significant than the "endorsement" itself. In the endorsement, which appears to be a solicited promotional statement, Hayek does not even say that he has read the book. He did however choose to lend his name to the promotion of it so I think that Gray's text and his characterization of Block's book as Mandevillean are good WP content. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In other words leave out any evidence of praise and write Gray so it sounds like criticism of Block as fringe. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Specifico herself hasn't said that she's read the thread above -- a clue, surely, that she doesn't intend her last comment to be taken seriously :)
But I agree with Specifico that we want the the Gray mention, and that in using the Hayek endorsement we need to be selective: just quote a short passage that is a straight response to the book, in clear and trenchant words. Easy to do. Andrew Dalby 19:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm lost here. Hayek wrote admiringly of Mandeville in other contexts. Gray presumably knew that. Any comparison of Block, a living and little-known author, to the enduring legacy of Mandeville would seem to be a significant homage to Block's work. Thus for a scholar of Gray's credentials to mention Block and Mandeville in the same breath seems like a substantial validation of Block's efforts. Hayek's endorsement on the other hand, other than the fact that he was willing to associate his name with Blocks, seems pro-forma and of dubious substance. And Hayek does not appear (to my reading) to have read the book, but just to have noted its content. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, now that it's agreed both sources are RS, at this point proposals for wording should be made at Defending the Undefendable article and then some version inserted into Block as warranted.
Also, is SPECIFICO now calling "herself" a "her"? I see that as of today SPECIFICO's User page still sports {{User:UBX/pronoun:comfort}} so I'll go by that until the User page changes. (Don't want another brouhaha about use of pronouns regarding editors who haven't been real clear on their user pages making it hard to keep track of what's official and what's mere speculation.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
(ec to SPECIFICO)If you "know" whether someone has read a book, "you are a better man than I am ..." Collect (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Did I say that? Since neither of us knows whether he read it, we should focus on what we do know, namely, that he endorsed Block's book. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, the bold pronoun was mine.
...yes, endorsed it, and spoke of his reactions on looking through it. But can you seriously claim, Specifico, after all that's been said above, that Hayek's words are "pro-forma and of dubious substance"? Pure mashed potatoes. I suggest that you re-read the discussion above, beginning "Then we can spend the next six months ..." and ending (if you can bear to stop) "... a long, long way above." Then you'll be able to explain how it is you now disagree with those hard-won conclusions and why, precisely, you think those words of Hayek's are "pro-forma and of dubious substance". They're better than anything you or I or Carol has written in this whole thread! No wonder he got a Nobel Prize and we (so far as I know) haven't yet. Andrew Dalby 10:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

TheDrum.com

An editor pointed out on my talk page[25] about using http://www.thedrum.com/ for citations. I am not sure about the reliability of the site. Kindly, let us know. Thank you,--Bisswajit 14:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a business magazine focusing on marketing out of Glasgow. It looks like it has some editorial oversight, but it seems self-promoted only. It received an award from Professional Publishers Association but that article has also some pretty odd, self-promoting sourcing itself and that award might not mean anything. I'm not seeing any third-party endorsements of this magazine. I would be very hesitant to use this source for much of anything, without more evidence of credibility. (Maybe not relevant to editorial oversight, but I don't see that their articles attract any comments at all). This looks inconclusively iffy to me, unless someone can find something more conclusive.. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
they are a marketing firm, not a news organizaiton.[26] [27] [28] they are clearly first and foremost concerned with promotion and not fact checking and accuracy. Potentially usable, but with great caution. Almost everything that would be acceptably sourced to the Drum would probably have a more reliable source available. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The Drum is a publication with a team of editorial staff and reporters generating content - i.e. primary sources of information[29]. Labelling them as a marketing firm is untrue. The items you linked were 1 - a peer to peer networking "group" they run (I believe it's like a private LinkedIN), paid event coverage (advertising) and a business directory. They exist just as spin-offs from the main magazine, i.e. advertising Jamesfx3 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, I refer you to [30]. My point is that the content they produce appears on Google News. Google News demands the following standards from any publications it accepts [31] - they have a high requirement for original and reputable content. I appreciate this is not "inheritable". But please remember that syndication by Google News is not given to everyone nor non-news sources before you decide this issue. Jamesfx3 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
gnews does not guarantee reliability as gnews also carries [32] as the examiner dot com which is blacklisted on wikipedia .
The site does not claim nor is there any evidence of any firewall between their publication arm and their marketing wings. in fact they claim the opposite "On one level The Drum Network helps get its members on the radar, by giving them access to The Drum's channels; which include the UK's largest marketing website " and "Are you planning a major event? The Drum can help you build its profile through our Media Partnership programme. It could give you access to: • 750,000 unique monthly online users • 80,000 Twitter followers • 16,000 email newsletter subscribers • And the pages of the PPA Magazine of the Year" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is Examiner.com blacklisted?

I've seen sites that were blacklisted before (like Exclaim! which I tried to use when it was blacklisted) become acceptable over time, so I don't doubt it could happen here. Nothing about this particular website strikes me as odd, and I wonder why it is not allowed.

Here's the link I want to use (nowiki because I will be prevented from posting if I allow it to link): 

http://www.examiner.com/review/earthless-and-joy-bring-a-taste-of-san-diego-psych-rock-to-the-pacific-northwest

For the record, I hope to use it in Earthless discography (I had added a statement to the lead paragraph that I reverted because I was hoping to install a citation for it using this link later in the article). I was trying to point out how the band's live concert performances differ from their studio recordings (they don't play discrete songs, they melt songs into one another so that the concert as a whole is just one long song made of several and they don't stop playing until they've finished their set).

Before you ask: I believe this is relevant to the discussion of the reliability of sources because it appears that has had something to do with the site being blacklisted. I want to make sure this particular link is OK to use before I take it back to the spam whitelist and ask that this one be granted immunity to the overall embargo on the site itself. Does anyone see any reason why this link is not to be trusted? Can I use it to cite factual information? LazyBastardGuy 17:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not reliable. For the reason look at their "about" page and their ONTopic Custom Content page and "Write for us" pages. The reason they have "100,000 contributors" is Examiner.com takes money from companies to pay writers to write flattering stories and also let's people write about things when they have clear COI. It's not journalism or independent writing. Here's a testimony promoted by the company itself about how small business owners can "position themselves as experts" (on themselves) and skip the hassle of getting attention from third-party writers. There's nothing stopping anybody in any scene or business from writing a bunch of fluff pieces and getting them published on this site as "expert news and opinion". __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
@LazyBastardGuy: The answer to your question can be found by reading this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both. LazyBastardGuy 18:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources for the Moors Article

I have a problem with a few sources on the current Moors article as they're currently being misquoted (possibly libeled), one from an Afrocentrist author known for pseudohistory, and one by some obscure author that has no validity.

The sources are the following: Ceylon and the Hollanders, 1658-1796, by, Pieris, P. E. 1874-1959, The Story of the Moors in Spain By Stanley Lane-Poole, Arthur Gilman, and The Golden Age of the Moor by Ivan Van Sertima.

These sources are currently being used in the Moors article as I aforesaid.

  • The problem with the content is the fact that the source that involved Ceylon and the Hollanders, 1658-1796, is by some obscure author with no validity, is improperly linked, and has no quotation or page reference. Here it is: [33] Even if it did have all those things correct, it still doesn't change the fact the main problem with the source is that it's some self-published source with no validity and has never been vetted by anyone.
  • The next source "The Story of the Moors in Spain" By Stanley Lane-Poole, Arthur Gilman is a book created by an orientalist and orientalism can indeed distort differences between different cultures, not only that but Stanley Lane-Poole has not much scholarship, but the main problem is that the citation is currently being falsely quoted and possibly libeled. Here is what the citation on the page says: [34] as you can see it says "In ancient times, Africans in general were called Ethiopian; in medieval times most Africans were called Moors; in modern times some Africans were called Negroes." and is quoting/claiming Stanley wrote that, but he did not. Here is the book and you can check, he did not write that material, at all.
  • The next source is one by Ivan Van Sertima and here it is: [35] as you can see a "better source needed" claim is already there. The citation is substantiating the following material "West Africans from Mali and Niger who had been absorbed into the Almoravid dynasty." That material comes from a self-published source by well known Afrocentrist for extremist views who has been chastised for pseudohistory and this is the epitome of OR.

In my opinion these sources should be replaced by reliable sources that support the material, and if that cannot be done, then the material should go with the source. ShawntheGod (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In order - the American Ceylon Mission Press was not a self-publishing operation, it was (as you can see at that article) part of a highly influential and respectable organisation. Pieris wrote at least a dozen books on Ceylon and related topics which were not self-published, many of which have been felt important enough to see 21st century reprints from a variety of publishers (cf [36], where you will also discover he spoke on the subject at Kings College, London in 1937). Moors is not the only page he is cited on. You'd do better to put some of this excess energy into writing a Wikipedia page about him.
There is not the book, merely its front cover; and I seriously doubt we should have concerns about a libel suit from authors who were writing in the 1880s; they might be a bit old for legal action by now. [37] is a non-machine-readable copy, but since User:Inayity has a copy perhaps they will be so kind as to provide a page reference and save some effort.
Furthermore, all that source is actually cited for is that the Moors were medieval and Muslim. I'm not actually sure that is in serious doubt!
Without going further into Ivan Van Sertima, but "The Golden Age of the Moor" was published by Transaction Publishers, who are not a vanity publisher. However, the idea that the Almoravids married Africans into the dynasty is hardly remarkable (frex their article cites Lange, Dierk (1996), "The Almoravid expansion and the downfall of Ghana", Der Islam 73, pp. 122-59.)
Furthermore, that source was tagged by User:Inayity - perhaps if you stopped trying to crowbar changes in and appealing to meatpuppets, they'd have a bit more time to look for something better? Pinkbeast (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Pieris is a complete nobody and just because it was published by a book publishing organization does not mean the book is still not self-published and by "self-published" I mean created by himself, anybody can write a book and get it published by a company, it's not too hard. I really don't even like using books as sources unless they have been vetted quite well. Also, yes [38] here is the book in its entirety. Do you not know how to scroll down the page with your mouse or use the search bar to the left? The book states no such thing and libeling doesn't just involve legal action, that may be a deeper process if the libelous is that serious to whoever the copyright goes to finds it that offensive. Damaging someones reputation by publishing false information under his name is a part of libeling, that misquote can fall under that. If the West Africans entering the Almoravid dynasty is such a common fact, why is that I looked for other sources that state such a thing yet fine none of validity to replace Ivan? Either way, it's not gonna change the fact Ivan is an Afrocentrist known for distorting history and has been chastised for his beliefs and the source is currently making the material OR and is garbage. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by Self-published source. I just need that clarified. Also being Afrocentric (like Molefi Asante) does not mean we throw it out. The actual statement which uses Ivan is actually not a pseudo historical claim. And hence why we left it in and allow people to seek better sources WP:NODEADLINE and this nit picking with some agenda behind it which remains unclear to me (at least) is not helping us to push on and make this article A grade. Give it a rest at some stage and fix something else. It is exhausting going on about Poole. --Inayity (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
When I follow that Google link, the page I get explicitly states "No eBook available".
However, there is a full text of the book here https://archive.org/details/storymoorsinspa02gilmgoog (it might be a different edition, I neglected to check) and, assuming the search function is reliable, that indeed does not appear to contain the sentence you refer to beginning In ancient times. Barnabypage (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
What was actually going on with that is that User:Inayity had quoted a section from the introduction which has now been correctly attributed after I found a machine-searchable text.Pinkbeast (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Snap, I just figured that out too. :) If anyone is still interested, the quote in question comes from the introduction to the 1990 edition by John G. Jackson (writer). The text of this introduction can be found at http://www.amazon.com/Story-Moors-Spain-Illustrated-ebook/dp/B00EKR1VK2/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1380653060&sr=1-2&keywords=moors+in+spain. Barnabypage (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
"Created by himself"? Every book is created by its author, so I really have no idea what on earth you mean by that. (What "self-published" actually means is that the author paid for publication; that the printer just printed, with no concern as to the commercial viability or quality of the work. Pieris's books were not self-published.) And do you have any evidence for these assertions about Pieris or the publisher? "Anyone can get a book published" - well, I'm sure that will be a relief to various would-be authors, but can anyone also get their work repeatedly reprinted decades after their death?
I don't know if this is an artifact of geolocation, but there is no search bar anywhere on that page, no indication that the text of the book is anywhere present; and please remember that it's your previous persona, 70.126.13.113, who was needlessly offensive: I can use a Web browser.
The idea that whoever now holds the copyright on a book published in 1886 (and we've already got one impossibility there) can be libelled because the book was misquoted is utterly absurd.
The source does not make the material OR; see WP:OR. Only if Van Sertima were to edit the article himself based on his own conclusions would it be OR, and since he is dead that seems unlikely.
I suspect this is increasingly far removed from the business of RSN, so I'm leaving it be. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is the original book by Stanley: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Story_of_the_Moors_in_Spain.html?id=OMYCAAAAYAAJ the same link I gave you earlier, hopefully it works now to those having trouble. You then click on the front cover of the book and can scroll down through it all, or use the search bar on the left. I just elucidated what I meant by self-published in the post above, referring to all books, whether they be published from a company or not. Stanley's original book says no such thing, but apparently a version by an Afrocentrist does (not surprising). So that excerpt is not by Stanley himself. Also it can possibly fall under the definition of libel Pinkbeast. Yes it can be WP:OR because this is what OR is "Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" that is not reliable, but also questionable due to the extremist views expressed in that literature. If Ivan's view is so common, why do I see no reliable source that expresses the same sentiments? ShawntheGod (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Colonial era books like Stanley and Pieris are likely to contain nationalistic or racist assumptions and are thus not reliable unless we have recent sources that say that they are still regarded as definitive. Sertima is not reliable for history. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I completely concur about your sentiments on Pieris and Stanley, not to mention Stanley is an orientalist, they are well known for distortion of culture and differences between groups. The funny thing is Stanley did not even jot such words in his original book, but a republished version by an Afrocentrist writer is who those words belong to. Obviously self-published Afrocentrist writers like Sertima with extremist views are in no way reliable. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone care to share their opinions on the source regarding the Moors which is a republished edited version by an independently owned publisher Black Classic Press of Stanley's original work by the Afrocentrist writer John G. Jackson (writer)? Stanley's original version has been deemed as unreliable, so I don't see how a republished version by a publisher that lacks scholarship with some Afrocentric additions are reliable. You can take a look at some of the book here and I think just by looking through a little of it you can already see the extremist questionable views and the dates are not correct. It does not seem reliable in my opinion. ShawntheGod (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, the extremist questionable views don't jump out of the page at me. Whatever, this isn't reliable for history. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's get away from the sources used now, and try to construct an accurate sentence with better ones. "In ancient times, Africans in general were called Ethiopian; in medieval times most Africans were called Moors; in modern times some Africans were called Negroes" is oddly put (part 3), and not really right. I would have said using "Ethiopians" for sub-Saharan Africans was medieval, while "Moors" were often all Arabic-speaking Muslims, whether from Iraq or Spain. But of course the medieval concepts of distant races were vague and variable, often difficult to interpret from sources, and very difficult to accurately generalize about. To the Arabic-speaking world, all Europeans were usually "Franks" (ie French). Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Or indeed rūm, "Romans". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

IMDB reliable source for awards?

Are the awards portion of IMDB[39] part of the curated content that is considered reliable or is that part of the user generated stuff? that we do not use? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasnt aware that any part was curated? Surely there is an official BAFTE site that could be used tho? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe there are parts of IMDB that are reviewed, however as Gaijin suggest there must be better sources for all of these awards. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I think what is being implied here is why IMDB isn't usually considered useful for information like this. Insofar as the award is itself worth mentioning (BAFTA, Oscars, Golden Globes, major film festival awards, etc.) there exists other more reliable sources. Insofar as there is no other source than IMDB, the award isn't probably worth mentioning. Therefore, IMDB shouldn't be used for this purpose. --Jayron32 04:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the awards section of IMDb is curated. They ask for sources of awards data that are submitted and reject submissions of awards reports that contain information that is contradicted by other sources that they regard as more reliable.[40][41] I don't know how long they have had the current procedures in place for verification of awards; it's not inconceivable that some entries for lower-profile awards that were added to their database years ago may be incorrect. For high-profile awards (Oscars, BAFTAs, Palmes d'Or) generally, and for recent lower-profile awards, IMDb awards listings should be considered reliable. Info from IMDb's "trivia", "goofs", "quotes", and biography sections are not reliable. Dezastru (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but for higher profile awards, is there a conceivable reason why one would discard a more reliable source in favor of IMDb? --Jayron32 05:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The question was not whether other sources should be discarded in favor of IMDb. It was whether IMDb is reliable as a source for reports of awards. By analogy: Suppose a source is needed for something said during a speech delivered by US President Obama. One source might be the transcript of the remarks prepared by the president's staff and uploaded to the whitehouse.gov website. Another source might be a transcript published by the Washington Post. Another source might be a paraphrased summary from a news blurb broadcast by the BBC. Another might be a video of the speech at cspan's website. Deciding which source is most suitable is a different matter than deciding whether an individual source should be regarded as reliable. One conceivable reason IMDb might be offered as a source is that the IMDb awards page offers a convenient listing of other, related information that is usually not available from the awarding organization. (For instance, the IMDb awards page for Marlon Brando shows that not only did Brando win a best actor Oscar in 1973 for The Godfather, but he also won a best actor Golden Globe that year for the same role, was nominated for the role for a BAFTA, and won 2nd place awards for the role from the NY Film Critics Circle and the National Society of Film Critics. You wouldn't see any of that at the AMPAS website. As a reader, I find that kind of access to additional information very useful.) Dezastru (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
All of the sources in your example are equally reliable, and that's not what's happening here. I don't see that IMDb is equally as reliable as the awards organization itself or a dedicated news agency. The Marlon Brando page has an external link for IMDb, so it's not a matter of "liking" the site, it's just not a good site to rely on for verifiable sourcing with clearly understood editorial oversight. In-line citations are primarily intended to show verifiability above all, not to point to interesting sites (even though some sites cited are interesting, of course). "External links" or "Further reading" are where we can put links to sites based on their other charms. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The sources in my example are not equally reliable. The video recording, assuming the audio portion is clear, is the most reliable. A verbatim transcript prepared by the president's staff after the speech has been given should be next (although this point might be open to debate). A transcript published by a major news media outlet next. And a paraphrased summary from a major news organization last. (You might be interested in this: [42] [43].) Despite the discrepancy in reliability in the example, the usual practice on Wikipedia is to cite news agency articles. I suspect a couple of major reasons for that is that they are easier to find (higher search engine indexing) and there is the general preference for using secondary sources. But, getting back to IMDb, the question, again, wasn't whether IMDb awards content is the most reliable of possible sources. Nobody has argued that IMDb is more reliable than the awarding organization itself. I provided an explanation as to why an IMDb citation might be of benefit in some situations, as opposed to an AMPAS citation, in response to Jayron23's question about conceivable reasons why anyone would ever cite IMDb. Readers who require a source that carries the smallest risk of error can follow the IMDb link to the AMPAS website, in those cases in which IMDb has been cited rather than AMPAS.
Perhaps I am misreading you, but you seem to be taking the position that IMDb should never be cited as a source for film awards. But consider Deepa Mehta's film Fire. The film won Silver Hugo awards at the Chicago Film Festival and won awards at LA Outfest (an LGBT film festival). IMDb shows some of those awards that the film won. Good luck finding that same information at the websites for the Chicago Film Festival or LA Outfest. The Chicago Film Festival's website's archive page shows that Fire was screened at the festival in 1996,[44] but the website doesn't list it among the award winners.[45] Yet a contemporaneous news report shows that the film had indeed been an award winner.[46] So apart from the issue of whether IMDb should or should not be used for reports of high-profile awards like Oscars, taking the position that IMDb should never be cited as a source for any film awards would be detrimental to the encyclopedia's mission. Dezastru (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Being right about some information is not the same as being reliable enough for verification purposes for citations. From their own FAQ it's clear that they try to demand third party confirmation, but it seems semi-required if the award is lower profile. Please note that we like to see some third party data source for awards. For high profile events that means we definitely like to stick to the official data published. There's no indication what is meant by higher profile so the information is still mostly based on user submission for an unknown amount of awards. Also, Wikipedia is not a list of all awards. If an award has not generated any press beyond an IMDb mention, it's probably not notable enough for encyclopedic purposes. The fact that it sometimes takes user submissions for an unknown amount of its list makes it unreliable for verification by itself. It's a great resource for seeing if someone said it was awarded a prize, but it's not reliable enough to repeat it as a known thing in the article. IMDb is suggested as a link for further reading on all of the pages you mention (which is higher profile than being in a citation) but the article is supposed to be for those things found especially notable and verifiable. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
"From their own FAQ it's clear that they try to demand third party confirmation, but it seems semi-required if the award is lower profile. Please note that we like to see some third party data source for awards. For high profile events that means we definitely like to stick to the official data published." I don't think that is what that statement says. As I read it, it says that they require confirmation to post an award report. For higher-profile awards, they require that the confirmation be from an official source (which I take to mean the organization making the award).
"Wikipedia is not a list of all awards. If an award has not generated any press beyond an IMDb mention, it's probably not notable enough for encyclopedic purposes." No one disputes this. We are discussing whether IMDb reports can be sufficient for citing awards; we are not discussing whether awards that have been noted only by IMDb merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. Dezastru (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that best practice is to use the awarding institution itself. From time to time we get an argument that such sources are primary, but I don't see any problem at all. If an organisation makes an award then it isn't going to lie about it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sky Valley Chronicle

Wikpedia is allowing an online blog named the Sky Valley Chronicle who refuses post who it's writers are. The Sky Valley Chroncile was also connected with an attack piece and threats made to my life via Facebook and Wikipedia attack piece ( Anne Block) which Wikipedia removed citing it as an attack piece.

Sky Valley Chronicle does look like a generally weak source, but it depends what it's being used to support. It's a little bothersome that they call themselves a paper when they're admittedly online only. I can only find them being cited in two articles: Frank Colacurcio and KING-TV. They don't look especially notable and seem overly tabloidy in approach, but I don't see where there's anything at issue right now about them, as they're not currently being used to support any claims. I'd probably accept them as a reliable source for local Ace Hardware Store news but not much else, and specifically not for anything considered controversial. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

r4rating.com

Hey all, I'd like to get some community opinions about the following site: r4rating.com. I first noticed some edits at the movie Drishyam, where an editor attempted twice to include reviews from r4rating here and here. I reverted both of those contributions because the movie article already presents a number of glowing reviews, and two more from a questionable source didn't seem to improve the article.

The contributing editor has also penned a declined AfC of the site here and based on their edit history, they seem to be here to promote r4rating.com by inserting links and reviews into articles. A rough look at the site suggests that the oddly branded "4 rating for you R RATING" (or R4 rating by you RATING ???) might be attempting to aggregate viewer response, akin to RottenTomatoes audience ratings or IMDb's viewer ratings. Curious if the community has any thoughts about this site's suitability for inclusion in movie articles, since I don't notice a lot of consideration for the audience's feelings in objective articles. I attempted to communicate with the contributor, but they ignored me and re-inserted their content into the Drishyam article. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As I look into it this morning, it appears that the site uses content from Wikipedia (without attribution, I might add), for example here, which is also problematic, because that link is used as a reference here. So basically, they've taken content from Wikipedia, then used that content as a reference in the Wikipedia article. Circular! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Is IndiaMapia reliable?

Is this a reliable source for the existence, location and coordinates of Paloorkavu (and, by extension, of any other stubby village articles I come across and feel inclined to upgrade)? IndiaMapia doesn't say much about itself, and I can't find it in the noticeboard archives. PamD 11:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an aggregator to me, and it says We applogize for any errors if encountered by you or any other incorrect info and pledge you to point out the same so that it can be rectified. The contact address is Gmail and it has a very weird link here. I'm dubious! - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

AllicinFacts.com

Source: www.allicinfacts.com

Article: Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#European_colonization

Content: "Within a few years smallpox killed between 60% and 90% of the Inca population, with other waves of European diseases weakening them further."


Copyright information says: Natural Health Publications Limited.

Terms of use: [47]

--Langus (t) 00:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Why would anyone even think that we should use a website for "selected information about garlic" to source a statement about the effects of smallpox on the Inca? It is an utterly ridiculous source to use - and there is no lack of proper academic material on the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Specific page in question, for completeness. Clearly not reliable for Incan history. Yobol (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


Did someone really think this would fly as a source? Really? Collect (talk)

Thank you everyone. --Langus (t) 00:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Jevto Dedijer

The new article Skaramuca sounds like a copy of some of the typical Serbian nationalist forum posts - a glaring WP:COATRACK violation which focuses on a purported Serbian nature of a surname and people, who today by and large seem to be Croatian. Specifically, the whole innuendo depends on Jevto Dedijer's 1909 book. Can this source be considered reliable for claims such as these? Given the confusingly wide scope of the article, talking about people having the same surname over a period of centuries (?) up to the present day, this could even be considered a WP:BLP violation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

ARGNet

Can the alternate reality game site ARGNet be considered a reliable source? I found a couple of articles online that I might want to use in an article, but I am not sure about the reliability of the site? SciGal (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the site I can't find any sign of editorial oversight. The articles therefore are in the category of blogs or at any rate, self published material. They are not reliable, except under very limited circumstances as per WP:SPS and WP:USERG. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I asked because I wanted to use a couple of reviews in an article. I wanted to place the reviews under a Reception heading. SciGal (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that I might have enough material to write the reception without ARGNet. Thank you. SciGal (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC

There is an RFC which may be of interest to editors here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#RFC_to_resolve_conflict_between_MOS:TM.2C_MOS:CT_WP:TITLETM_WP:RS_WP:COMMONNAME Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Are résumés and CVs reliable sources for BLPs?

ChrisGualtieri and I reached an impasse on Talk:David Gould (basketball)/GA1 over the use of a basketball coach's résumé as sourced from his agent. My understanding is that résumés can be used as sources for facts per this and this. Note that the résumé was not put out by the subject but by a firm that could face prosecution if it is found to be inaccurate. Any help would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The consensus from previous discussions seems to be that they should be treated as self-published sources - not to be relied on for anything likely to be contentious. As for your comment about the firm, I see nothing to indicate that they have done anything beyond host the résumé on their website, and your suggestion that they could face prosecution if it were wrong seems questionable. Where are you getting this information from? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
That is my understanding of the previous discussions. The point about the sporting management firm was that it was also advertising its own services as an agent, and this could be seen as false advertising if what it posts is incorrect. So I would expect that it would have done some checking. It is not like a blog where an individual can post whatever she likes. So it is not self-published; but I feel that applying the stricter rules of not relying on it for anything likely to be contentious is a reasonable way to go. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't generalize too much beyond the specific context. I think a CV for an academic at a reasonably prominent institution, hosted by the employing institution, is likely to reliable, for example. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that in general CVs/resumes should be treated as self-published sources, and thus ok to use only for factual, non-controversial data. I would also agree that resumes hosted by an employer may gain credibility, perhaps particularly in the academic case. I think the idea of prosecution for false advertising of a management agency for hosting an inaccurate resume may be legally possible, but not likely in practice, therefore not much of a motive for fact-checking, and so it adds little to the credibility of the source. DES (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Salutary reminder - even publishers such as ABC-CLIO can slip badly

I just came across The Axis Air Forces:Flying in Support of the German Luftwaffe by Frank Joseph. ABC-CLIO describes him[48] as "professor of world archaeology with Japan's Savant Institute, and recipient of the Midwest Epigraphic Society's Victor Moseley Award. His published works include more than 20 books in as many foreign editions, such as Mussolini's War: Fascist Italy's Military Struggles from Africa and Western Europe to the Mediterranean and Soviet Union 1935–45." Impressive, right? At face value, certainly sounds like a reliable source if you don't question it. But leaving aside the fact that the Savant Institute only seems to be mentioned on the web in connection with Joseph, we know Joseph better as Frank Collin, ex-Nazi and writer of New Age and fringe archaeology material. It's actually disappoint to see such a well known publisher misrepresent an author in this way, but a warning to all of us not to take publisher's statements at face value. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick check- his Air Forces book is used in several articles:[49] (reviewed here[50], "Mussolini's War: Fascist Italy's Military Struggles from Africa" used even more widely:[51], "Western Europe to the Mediterranean and Soviet Union 1935–45"is used in [52]. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Having edited in related milhist areas myself, ABC-CLIO books are generally of middling quality. I did find "facts" in them that were wrong, even in books by [far] less controversial authors. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Is the Investigative Project on Terrorism a reliable source?

I want to cite something from this report in the article Council on American–Islamic Relations, but another editor insists I can't, reverting me and another editor. Thanks in advance, Yambaram (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The article's a self-published hit piece and has no place on Wikipedia. (A sample from the first page: writing that CAIR attacks any critic ad hominem as an Islamophobe. Even - gasp! - Daniel Pipes, who has absolutely no anti-Muslim positions at all.) Even criticism has to come from reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this Study abroad organization (associated with Center for Global Education at Augsburg College) a reliable source?

I want to cite this page on the article Hebrew in order to write that there are 7 million native Hebrew speakers (the article currently uses a 1998 source which gives the ridiculous number of 5.3 million speakers, and a heated discussion on the talk page didn't produce any consensus about this). Thanks in advance, Yambaram (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that webpage[53] does not appear to be a reliable source. It appears to be a self-published source making a broad claim about a third party. There are probably far more reliable sources (ethnographic or linguistic studies published in scholarly journals, or even articles from tertiary sources, such as a major encyclopedia) that could be used to substantiate the claim intended. Dezastru (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Deadspin

While not the most ideal source, can someone comment if this Deadspin article is reliable for the opinions of two journalists who are skeptical that Dock Ellis threw a no hitter while on LSD? This story has been around for decades, and the opinion by these journos seems highly relevant and provides some balance to this claim.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

While it's true that this is not an ideal source, it should be reliable for stating that two sportswriters have expressed skepticism about the claim, as they appear to have been interviewed by the author of the article (or by a contributing author). (However, it would be most faithful to the source to use that information in the context of explaining that Ellis himself had at one point said he had been on acid and that a number of commentators other than the two skeptics have chosen to believe that the legend is true.) Dezastru (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

How reliable are the abstracts of journals compared to the actual text of the article?

The Wikipedia entry on abstract (summary) states: "Consulting the abstract alone is inadequate for scholarship and may lead to inappropriate medical decisions. ... An abstract allows one to sift through copious amounts of papers for ones in which the researcher can have more confidence that they will be relevant to his or her research. Once papers are chosen based on the abstract, they must be read carefully to be evaluated for relevance. It is commonly surmised that one must not base reference citations on the abstract alone, but the entire merits of a paper."

That said, assuming that (in addition to the abstract) the complete article is available, should citations (or selected quotations) be made to the abstract? I have been under the impression that the article's text always takes dominance over the abstract, and that abstracts are not designed to be cited to. Please advise. --Precision123 (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't cite the abstract. Treat as being only slightly better than a GBooks snippet view, ie: it lacks full context. There may be important provisos or development of argument in the body of the article itself. - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
In many cases, however, the full paper is behind a paywall while the abstract is freely available. In such a case (perhaps particularly in non-medical contexts) citing the abstract may be better than including no citation at all, which may be the only other practical choice. For example at Great American Lesbian Art Show citation number 11 (Stifler, Sarah L. (2002). "Slippery When Wet: An Exhibition Dossier". GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 8 (1-2): 241-249.) is to an abstract. For the matter of that, citing to a GBooks snippet is common and in many cases is perfectly sufficient. DES (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't follow you at all. If an editor can't or hasn't read an article then he or she shouldn't be citing it. If he or she has read an article then it should be cited regardless of whether it's freely available or not. ElKevbo (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Whoah there, a Google snippet should never be used as the basis of a cite. I've seen many cases of lazy sourcing to a cite using Google snippets and it nearly always produces misleading results. For example an editor making a claim ignorant of the fact that a negative on the preceding line completed flipped the meaning of line quoted. I see someone has also had a similar experience below. I personally would not quote a source unless I could definitively verify a claim and a snippet simply can't do that. I would go so far as to make it policy that Google snippets are not a WP:RS. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that an editor shouldn't rely only on a brief passage from a source as the basis for adding information to an article. I don't mind, however, if someone cites a source and also provides a link to the specific passage in question if it's available in Google books or another website; that's less of a bibliographic issue than a courtesy for readers. The full source is the origin of the cited fact(s), not the complimentary snippet. ElKevbo (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Does wikipidia now require to publish entire page/books hereafter? That would be copyright violation. Which is why google books is only showing a snippet preview and not the entire page. So, what is that now wikipedians are expecting to do? As per the legal requirement one is not supposed to publish/quote more than the text that is actually required. If that snippet preview is not clarifying the context there is no way one can quote more than that or otherwise it is a legal violation. Curious wikipedians wanting to know the entire facts must buy the book. Wikipedians must also realize there are publishing houses and people making their living over writing books. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by 'publish entire page/books'. The requirement when citing a source has always been the same - that it meets WP:RS standards, and that the material it is being cited for accurately reflects the source - which would imply that the person citing it has read the source as a whole, rather than just a Google snippet. It has never been a requirement that the source be available online. Many Wikipedia contributors have access to libraries, and for those that don't there are options like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
read the source as a whole Do you read the entire book from the start to the end? Does everyone? Are wikipedians supposed to have read it completely because 1 line in the book can change the entire context. Are you sure the entire of wikipedia are from wikipedians who have read the entire source? If it is so I must start questioning every reference present on wikipedia.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
And in some cases the snippet preview clarifies the entire picture. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, the degree to which it is necessary to have read an entire source will depend on the source, and on what it is being cited for. Wikipedians are expected to exercise judgement and common sense regarding such issues. Anyway, it is clear from the general consensus of this thread that relying on Google snippets is inadvisable, and I only posted here to correct your apparent misapprehension that sources had to be available online. And I'm not interested in debating with you what you think you should be 'questioning' - it is off-topic for this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It is all a matter of degree. Nobody will argue that the best thing is to read a source in its entirety and extract information from there. If that is not plausible, one can use some part of the source with differing degrees of danger involved. A Google snippet is one of the most dangerous things, as it is a more or less random bit of text that lacks any selection process that would make it representative. (Once I cited a very clear statement in a snippet only to later discover that the next sentence, invisible in the snippet, said something like "but nobody believes that any more".) Abstracts written by authors (the usual thing for journal articles) are much better than that because they are intended by the authors to be valid summaries. If one wants to summarise a whole article, rather than to cite a detail, the author's abstract is often a very good start and even protects you from a charge that you are not reflecting the author's opinion correctly. To cite a detail from an article, the abstract might not be good enough since the author might have simplified it for brevity (journals often have word limits on abstracts). An abstract written by someone else is much less reliable than one written by the author, and I would not normally trust it unless the writer of the abstract is an expert in the field. Similarly for book reviews. Zerotalk 13:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

True, but I often find that a snippet view includes the whole of a section or sub-section dealing with a specific topic, particularly when the source is an "encyclopedia" or "reader" with many short contributions by different authors, a snippet may well contain the whole of the specific contribution. In that case it may well be nearly as good as having the actual book. Again an example from the Great American Lesbian Art Show article (which i recent spent a good deal of time citing, so it is fresh in my mind) Catation #9 is (Hammond, Harmony (2000). "Art, Contemporary North American". In Zimmerman, Bonnie; Haggerty, George E. Encyclopedia of Lesbian and Gay Histories and Cultures. Taylor & Francis. pp. 64–5. Retrieved 1 February 2014.) The link is to a Google books snippet view, but it includes the whole of the "Art, Contemporary North American" entry. In such a case I see no issue with a snippet citaiton. DES (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
No abstracts, no snippet views, period. If something is behind a paywall then ask around: interlibrary loans, WP:RX etc. There is almost always a way & if something is that obscure that it cannot be obtained nor verified by an alternate source then it probably isn't worth including in the article anyway. Anyone who relies on snippets etc is plain dangerous to this project: there are plenty of examples outside the scope of medicine where this could be demonstrated, eg: in my dealings with caste-related articles. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not the point of this thread but I'll add that both abstracts and snippet views are fine for finding potential sources. Just don't use them as the source. Occasionally, I use a Further reading section as a location for something that looks useful but is inaccessible to me. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that view. It may be reasonable for stuff under the WP:MEDRS restrictions, I don't work on that stuff much so I won't offer an opinion there. But in many cases a snippet view clearly includes all the relevant section of a large book, and is ample to work from. I have done so on many occasions and plan to continue where it seems appropriate. Where a snippet is cut-off in the midst of the relevant section, then it is far less safe to rely on it, because missing context may indeed be crucial. As for abstracts, it depends how they are worded, and what fact is being cited. If it is merely that researcher X wrote aboput subject Y and the general tone of the reaction, to help establish notability, in a "reactions" section of an article about a literary work, say, an abstract should be perfectly fine. DES (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It will take a bit of time but you might benefit from a read of Talk:Tamil Kshatriya and its archives. Even stuff that appears to be self-contained is not necessarily so ... and you'll never know unless you've read around the limited view. This applies even to such seemingly basic statements as "X are a Hindu caste" - I know because I've seen it happen. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely, I would strongly agree that Google snippets are inherently unreliable and no matter how well intentioned you simply cannot get enough information from them to form a cite. Anyone doing this and thinking its acceptable should be hit with a WP:CLUE stick repeatedly. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I've found it, the source described Laurence Olivier's performance as "Not one of Olivier's best performances." the quote culled from snippers was "one of Olivier's best performances." Spot an obvious problem with snippets? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It depends. There cannot possibly be a "always yes" or "always no" answer to this question. There are far too many different type of journals and abstracts to have a general answer. My experience is with medical journals, and the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. For certain kinds of journal articles like systematic reviews, they will be investigating a very narrow question and often the abstract contains all the information you need, like "Ibuprofen is more effective than paracetamol for treating X" so you do not need the full article. If you get access to the whole article, it'll be 8 pages describing their methodology, and one paragraph at the end stating their conclusion, which is repeated in the abstract. Although sometimes they'll put just enough info in the abstract to let you know if you need to get the whole article to see the conclusion ("We conclude by discussing the relative effectiveness of ibuprofen and paracetamol"--bastards!). Sometimes you'll get the conclusion in the abstract ("Acupuncture was no better than usual care for X") but then you'll need the full article to find out what they mean by "usual care". For other kinds, like for literature reviews, the abstract will probably too brief a summary to be useful and you'll need the full article. It depends. Zad68 15:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem is that you cannot possibly know whether the abstract would suffice without reading the entire thing. I'm no medic but I be hesitant to accept even your Ibuprofen example without reading the detail. As with law, the small print should not be ignored and I'm astonished that people think otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. We should not be using abstracts. Sure, maybe it is the conclusion copied as an abstract, but you can't tell until you read the source. I'd say the same thing about snippets - I've never or rarely seen a snippet of a book that I could be sure presented all the relevant information (including the context). Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree but would be bit more stringent and say that it's a rare instance when it's a good idea to rely on an abstract instead of an entire article. The only time I would think it's acceptable to cite an abstract is if that is the specific item an editor means to use as a source. But that should be a fairly rare occurrence especially if editors are not engaging in original research. ElKevbo (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually this question is regarding a specific situation. An editor has read the entire paper and is citing the entire paper, but is also using a small quote from the abstract as part of the citation. Precision123 is trying to use the discussion here as the basis for disallowing the quote from the abstract as part of the citation. I don't see any support for that in this discussion. I would appreciate comments from uninvolved editors. The article in question is Haaretz, the relevant discussion is here. Dlv999 (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, my position is that any citation, selected quotation, or inference taken from an article should come from part of the article itself (especially given that the entire article is available). Abstracts are not designed to be cited and I agree with the consensus here that citations are made to the body of the article (and specifically, certain pages therein), and not the abstract. --Precision123 (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
So the question is, can a quote be used from the abstract as part of a citation of the full paper, by an editor that has read the full paper and is citing the full paper. Dlv999 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Dlv999, I am unsure what you mean by "citing the full paper." I myself have read the full paper, not that that should make any difference in evaluating the merits of citing abstracts (e.g., citing scholarly journals generally involves citing page numbers). Any conclusion or inference drawn from an article should be drawn directly from a specific part of the article itself. Citing or quoting abstracts is not responsible editing. --Precision123 (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Most of the discussion here has been about a hypothetical scenario in which an editor may try to cite the abstract without reading the paper. That is not the situation we are discussing. The editor has read the whole paper and is citing the whole paper. they judge the abstract is a good summary of the whole paper and are quoting from the abstract as part of the citation. Apart from yourself I haven't seen any other editor objecting to that course of action and I would be interested if there are any objections (other than yourself). Dlv999 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Easy peasy. Read the article. Read the abstract. If the abstract is a fair representation of what's in the article then go ahead and use it. If the abstract is not a fair representation of what's in the article then don't. The abstract is usually (though not always) the author's attempt at summary - far better to trust their choice of summary than an anonymous Wikipedia editor's (who likely has an axe to grind and doesn't have to go through a peer review process to grind it.) You're welcome.Dan Murphy (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Per Dan Murphy, but is this just about the quote in the footnote? If so, it is no problem at all. Leave it in as a quote - add that it is from the article abstract - or leave it out, or find a quote in the article body. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The question is not about summarizing the journal article, but rather about citing a certain conclusion or inference from it. As the choice of language and context might differ, even slightly, it is better to cite a specific section of the article rather than the abstract. Indeed, citations are generally made to specific pages, even if it is to the conclusion section at the end of the article, and not to the abstract. This is especially the case when the entire article is readily viewable. --Precision123 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Itsmejudith, I had found the relevant part in the article body, which should be favored. --Precision123 (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, this may give us some insight
  • From Indiana State University:

    ABSTRACTS: Sometimes the index entry will include, following the basic citation, an Abstract. An abstract is simply a summary of the main points of the article. This is more common in a specialized subject index. The purpose is to allow the researcher an idea of the article's content before taking the time to go to the actual article. Abstracts often contain important and useful information but using the information in the abstract (perhaps 50-100 words) is in no way the same as reading and summarizing the actual article. Do not cite the Abstract as if it were the complete article!

    [54]
  • From the University of Southern California:

    Never Cite Just the Abstract! Citing to just an article's abstract does not confirm for the reader that you have conducted a thorough or reliable review of the literature. If the full-text is not available, search the HOMER catalog by journal title to see if we have it. If USC does not have the journal, you can request it from our interlibrary loan and document delivery service.

    [55] --Precision123 (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but no one here is considering citing the abstract without reading the paper. We have read the paper and consider the abstract to be a good summary of the paper. The paper is being cited, a quote is being used from the abstract as a footnote in the citation. Dlv999 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Please avoid the use of "we." Second, "using the information in the abstract is in no way the same as reading and summarizing the actual article. Do not cite the Abstract as if it were the complete article!" What they warn against sounds like exactly what you suggest doing (i.e., using the abstract to cite the article in its entirety). These two guidelines point to the same conclusion: the most reliable thing to do is to cite a specific part of "the actual article." --Precision123 (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Those are guidelines for undergraduates writing papers for credit in classes. How in the world are they relevant here?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, both universities have graduate and professional schools and the guidelines are used for PhD and other doctoral candidates. Aside from that, as noted, they were being used for insight as to the reliability and verifiability of abstracts versus the actual article. Both support the conclusion that citation to the actual article is what is optimal. --Precision123 (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it makes sense, even where MEDRS applies to say that you can never cite an abstract. We ought to be able to apply some common sense, and it really isn't comparable to using a Google snippet. It might make a difference whether you are citing the abstract for findings or background information, and it's going to be important to consider the possibility that the abstract might lack some important context or caveat. For example, this abstract contains the information that there is no known cure for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. I fail to see what difference it makes whether I source that information to the abstract or the article. It's not as if I am likely to download the full article and find that the statement is false. Formerip (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Per the guidelines above, it seems that abstracts are not designed to be cited to, but rather a means by which readers can decide if they would like to read the actual article. It is not about finding the statement to be false once the article is opened; rather, it is about upholding reliability and verifiability of conclusions. As choice of language might differ, it is the actual article that is dominant. Note again that citations are made to certain sections or pages of journal articles--not the abstracts. --Precision123 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Why do you think it should matter what a source was designed for? All that really matters is the level of risk associated with citing to it. If there's no risk, there's no harm. Formerip (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not a matter of "harm," but about accurately citing the author's research/viewpoint the best way possible and citing to the language of the source in the most reliable way possible. Per above, citing to the actual article (which is designed to be cited to) is what most reliably and verifiably conveys the merits the article. Note also, that most journal articles have conclusion sections. --Precision123 (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
If it's not about harm (i.e. how reliable the source is), then it's not really something that needs discussing on this noticeboard. But you're confusing me because, whether the article or the abstract has been referred to, surely that actual text of the citation is going to be identical, and so no more or less reliable or indicative of merit in either case? Formerip (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry you were confused. The fact is that the choice of language or a given inference is not always identical in the abstract as in the actual article. When that happens, it appears that the best thing to do is cite the actual article (the reliable source), which is actually meant to be cited to. We come across thousands of citations to journal articles; they are generally cited to specific pages, not the abstract. The university guidelines have given us some definitional insight into what an abstract is and what it is not, and seem to frown upon citations to the abstract as a way of citing to the entire article. Put simply, when we have the actual article's words, why would we use the abstract? If there is a difference, even slight, the actual article is dominant. --Precision123 (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
OK you've convinced me that an article is a better thing to cite than an abstract. But that's not the question. It doesn't mean that an abstract can never be reliable. Formerip (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, FormerIP, I am sorry for the confusion. Let me try and divide the issue here. An abstract does often do a good job outlining some of the main points, but I found that it would be inappropriately and possibly unreliably used to cite a source in its entirety. I agree with the guideline that "using the information in the abstract (perhaps 50-100 words) is in no way the same as reading and summarizing the actual article." That said, if we want to quote or paraphrase a conclusion from the source, it ought to come from the actual article, not the abstract. I hope we are on the same page now. Best, --Precision123 (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
If we're on the page where it says: "it depends", then sure. Formerip (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are some more citation guides and descriptions of abstracts:

  • From Skidmore College:

    Remember: Abstracts do not give you a complete picture. They may sometimes be inaccurate in the details, so you should not cite the abstract. If the abstract and the discussion differ, you should go with the information given in the introduction.

  • From the College of Benedict & Saint John's University:

    You should not cite an abstract, which is simply a condensed summary of the article written by the author to help researchers know if the information will be helpful.

  • The guidelines of many journals[56][57][58][59], in accepting submissions, state:

    Abstracts should not be cited unless the abstract is the only available reference to an important concept.

  • This guide to scholarly article writing states:

    Abstracts cannot be cited as references.

--Precision123 (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As others have noted, there are several questions being discussed here all at once.
  1. Is an abstract reliable? If it's published in a reliable peer-reviewed journal, yes, in Wikipedia terms it is, and in all usual cases the abstract is written by the author of the article.
  2. Should we rely on an abstract to tell us what the article says, or when we are citing for a fact or claim? No, we shouldn't. Only the article says what the article says: only the article says exactly how confident the author is about facts or claims.
  3. (Rare case.) Should we quote from the abstract? Not normally, but we might -- why not? It's like quoting from the first paragraph or the conclusion: it might happen to give the author's view more succinctly than any sentence in the body of the article. But then we should say in our text "X writes, in the abstract to his paper ..." because the reader needs to know that we are doing this.
  4. Should we link to the abstract? Well, yes, if we can't link to a free copy of the article, and we can link to a free copy of the abstract, of course we should. The reader can go on from there, buy the article, find it in a library, get it through JSTOR or Athena or whatever. We will be citing the full paper, adding a link to the page that contains a free abstract.
  5. Should we cite the abstract? No, we cite the paper. By following the link, all that some readers will be able to see for free is the abstract, but others, e.g. in a subscribing library, will be able to see the whole paper.
  6. (Rare case.) If we quote verbatim from the abstract, what do we cite? We cite the paper, and add the word "abstract" -- e.g. where we would normally put the page number. We also make clear in our text that we are quoting from the abstract.
That's how I see it. Andrew Dalby 10:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision123 is thoroughly confused (and probably not alone in this) with the distinction between citation and quotation. Academic guidelines want you to cite the full paper; but that's we do too. But I see no problems with quoting (from) abstracts in general; they are part of the full paper. Sometimes it might be necessary to add context from the full paper, but it's rare that the abstract (which is written by the authors themselves) doesn't correctly summarize their own paper. In some areas of research, even the "full" paper might not have all the details, some of which might be relegated to a technical report. So it depends if you need those details or not...

Also, abstracts aren't usually written willy-nilly; the rule of thumb is that ten to 500 times more people will read your abstract than will read your full paper [60]; this isn't a great secret and is something you can read in any academic/science writing tutorial. So any researcher worth his salt will usually write a useful abstract (with that fact about readership in mind).

As for following to the letter the essay-writing advice pages addressed to college sophomores (at best), which say one must read the whole work before citing it, ask yourselves if some academic cites a several-hundred-pages book, say [61], (which has some 500 citations in GS or ACM DL), simply to say that "SPARK is a subset of Ada focused on safety-critical software development using formal methods [Barnes 2003]." is okay or not without him/her heaving read the whole 430 pages of the book (which doesn't even have a formal abstract, but you can probably equate the book's introduction with that). Because that's what an academic will do: cite the most authoritative (which usually means the most detailed) source on something, even when they mention it in one sentence and almost certainly haven't read the whole text (because they don't need to for what they are citing it for.)

By the way, the heading on top of this noticeboard discourages this kind of purely theoretical discussion as counterproductive. A concrete triplet of Source, [wiki] Article, and Content is what should be discussed here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No confusion on my part. The issue is that some editors insist on present a specific finding of the source, and the only support they have to cite OR quote it is from the abstract (e.g., "Haaretz reporting is more favorable to the Israelis"). There is one sentence in the article that makes a relevant point but uses different language ("Haaretz was more likely to present stories as told from the Israeli side"). The editor's suggestion to write "Haaretz reporting is more favorable to the Israelis and more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side" is an attempt to use language from both (that language from the abstract is not repeated in the note) and give undue weight to such a point. There is no reason to use "and" here and I recommend just quoting the (and citing) the part of the actual article. Additionally, the editor suggests that including the "and" would somehow better summarize all of the researcher's 5 findings. This is untrue. The researcher found that Haaretz was more likely to personalize Palestinian deaths than Israeli ones and more likely to give Palestinians the last word ("end quote") in two other findings. How does including "and" summarize those two other findings? I doesn't. That is why we should simply quote the author's research in the article. That is the author's sentence. --Precision123 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Resources for Articles for Indian Railways

Most articles regarding Indian Railways quotes http://indiarailinfo.com/; http://erail.in/ and http://www.irfca.org as source. Though by far it may be accepted for map or creating route diagrams, but distance between any two railway stations or a length of a railway line largely differs with the Official website. Also the website is mostly with user generated content. So is the case of Indian Railways Fan Club (Indian Railways Fan Club), most of the web pages are have contents user-generated and casting doubts over verifiability and reliability, since they are neither accurate (to the most) nor updated. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 16:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right. The Indian Railways site is a much better source, and we don't use wikis or sites based on user-generated content. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I'm writing here to check something for a new user, User:Kareem1790. He created a page for a new site called FolioWonk and has added the page as a source to various different articles. I've removed the sourcing since it's a new and unproven site, but I thought I'd ask here for confirmation. Here's one of the links added. The page does seem to have an editorial board, but I can't truly verify how much editing goes on and so on- you guys know the usual drill about verifying editorial staff and whatnot. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any reliable sources mentioning it, so I'd say no, it's not. Anything it might be used for appropriately will have clearly reliable sources I'd say. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Dougweller. There are no named authors or contributors identified for the linked article, or disclosed for the website in general. This source appears to fall into the category of self-published sources making a claim about a third party. Dezastru (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ghassanids

Claims of Ghassanids being Hellenised backed by one unreliable source(source 3), and two misrepresented sources (sources 1 and 2):

that emigrated in the early 3rd century from the Southern Arabian Peninsula to the Levant region, where some merged with Greek-speaking Christians communities.[8][9][10]

Only the unreliable "Sufi Trails" source makes the claim that the Ghassanids were Hellenised. The other two sources never mention that. The editor failed to provide quotes/exact page numbers in the dedicated talk page section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ghassanids#Arabs.2FHellenisation). Article is currently protected due to edit warring (involving user Lazyfoxx who written the above). SaSH172 (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Source 3 appears to fall into the self-published sources category (regardless of the funding source), and on that count is unreliable for the intended statement and should be removed from the article. I don't see any statement in source 1 ("The King of Ghassan") that says the forebears of the Ghassanids had "merged with Greek-speaking Christian communities". Source 1 may be reliable for other statements in the Wikipedia article (I haven't read the entire article), but it does not appear to be reliable for the statement being discussed here. Source 2 (A Guide to the Postclassical World) might be reliable for some statements in the article, but we would need to know what statement in that source is being used to support the line being discussed here. What is the statement in the source and which page can it be found on? From my skimming what can be viewed from the Google books' excerpts (search for "Ghassanids"), I don't see any clear statement that can be used to support the intended Wikipedia article line. So, in the absence of additional information it appears that that source is also not reliable for that statement. Dezastru (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.aurangzeb.info/

Can http://www.aurangzeb.info/ can be used as a reliable source on wikipedia (it has the snaps of many of the original orders of a tyrant)?—Khabboos (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No. It is an exhibition organised by a group called FACT India, and it seems that the exhibition was controversial when it was held live. Individual items in an exhibition are primary sources. Explanatory material accompanying exhibitions may be reliable if it is authored by a highly regarded body. This doesn't fall into that category. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.kenspiro.com/
  2. ^ Ken Spiro (2002). WorldPerfect: The Jewish Impact on Civilization. ISBN 978-0-415-10453-1.
  3. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=vt9JwsNcKzwC&pg=PA148&dq=house+of+faun+lion+tiger+prostrate&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5QDnUuK0PM6JogSW6YDgBw&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAA |author=Jerome Jordan Pollitt |year=1986 |isbn=9780521276726}
  4. ^ John N. Gray, Hayek on Liberty, Edition 3, revised, Taylor & Francis, 2002, p. 43, ISBN 0203004019 Quote: "Hayek endorsed a recent Mandevillean work by the economist Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable, ... "
  5. ^ "Commentary by F.A. von Hayek, Nobel Laureate" in Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable, Fleet Press, (1976 or 1978 edition?), p. xii, ISBN?
  6. ^ John N. Gray, Hayek on Liberty, Edition 3, revised, Taylor & Francis, 2002, p. 43, ISBN 0203004019 Quote: "Hayek endorsed a recent Mandevillean work by the economist Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable, ... "
  7. ^ "Commentary by F.A. von Hayek, Nobel Laureate" in Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable, Fleet Press, (1976 or 1978 edition?), p. xii, ISBN?
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference saudiaramcoworld.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bowersock was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ "Deir Gassaneh".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_164&oldid=1136075333"