Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:23, 15 May 2013

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Current large scale clean-up efforts

Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

United States Census Bureau Report

Is an official Census Bureau study stating the number of people who self-describe as Christian Scentists a reliable source for the number of Christian Scientists in the US? is the diff showing the Census Bureau page at which shows variabilty in results over a period of years, which is taken by some to mean the figures must perforce be wrong, and that the study is a "primary document" not allowed by Misplaced Pages. I suggest that a poll which showed no variability would be highly suspicious <g> and that rejecting US governemt reports as not meeting RS is silly - that this is the precise type of fact-listing primary source that is specifically allowed on Misplaced Pages. Meanwhile, we use a figure of "under 100,000" from that greatly respected statistical source on American demographics - the New York Times.

Query: Is the Census Bureau not a WP:RS source? Is a "primary source" for American demographics not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages claims as to American demographics? Is the New York Times article at a superior reliable source for a factual claim as to number of Americans self-identifying as Christian Scientists? And as that group does not seem to keep "membership rolls" is "self-described" sufficient to state number of adherents?

NYT text: Though officials do not provide membership statistics, scholars estimate that the church’s numbers have dropped to under 100,000 from a peak of about twice that at the turn of the 20th century.

Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

In general demographic data from the United States Census Bureau are reliable sources. They are far more reliable than say a population figure given by the The First Church of Christ, Scientist themselves (who would be a primary source).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The only other figure proffered as being usable is from the NYT ascribed to unnamed "scholars". Some editors are positive the number must be lower from personal knowledge, but I rather supsect the Census Bureau trumps personal knowledge in any case. Collect (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree... There is a common misconception that we are not allowed to use primary sources (like Census data) in Misplaced Pages. We can. We must use extreme caution when using them (See WP:PSTS for more on that), but we can use them. Blueboar (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading the NYT source, I would not call it superior. The USCB has a known and well documented system of creating their demographic data and are normally very transparent (with Congressional oversight even), however the NYT doesn't provide the raw data and the "scholars" are unknown to the reader. Their data can be attributed to the source, but I would prefer the USCB data if I had to chose one or the other.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that the ARIS poll numbers are not described as a being derived by potentially faulty methodology. They are guesses, not actual populations. All other secondary sources describe a religion that has been diminishing in population since the 1970s, so this ARIS poll should not be accepted as fact. Other sources tell a story of multiple church closings, the lack of young church-goers to replace the natural loss from death, the unsuccessful attempts by CS to attract more adherents, etc. This widely known situation cannot be reversed by one guesstimate poll. Note the complete absence of news articles describing a notional boom in CS population. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The US Census poll is not reliable for the claims you wish to make. It was not designed to be as accurate as you wish it to be with small religious groups, but to give very rough ballpark figures, at best. With a sample size of only about 50 respondents answering that they were Christian Scientists, the margin of error would be far too great to justify either the level of accuracy you wish to convey, nor the contention that there has been an increase in the number of Christian Scientists over time. The report is based solely on raw data, with no interpretation. No one at the Census Bureau would stand behind either of the claims you wish to make. Sorry, but you're using an inadequate source for the claims you wish to make. The source is undoubtedly reliable for a wide-ranging ballpark figure, but you go far beyond the intentions of the designers of the survey when you portray them as anything more than that, or to use them to contradict more precise surveys and scholarly calcualtions. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Your point is valid, that the ARIS poll did not tap enough people in order to determine how many Christian Scientists are in the US. They estimated 228,182,000 adults in the US in 2008, and from their poll responses they estimated 339,000 of them to be CS. This is 0.15% of the population, which implies that 0.15% of their poll respondees said they were CS. Out of 54,461 interviews they conducted in 2008, about 80–81 of these said they were CS. The margin of error is too great with such a vanishingly small pool. A much better methodology is to examine the number of churches and CS groups, and estimate the population of each based on typical observed sizes. Such a methodology was used by The Atlantic in 1995 to arrive at a population of 100,000 CS adherents in the US: "Suffering Children and the Christian Science Church". The same article estimated 7,000 CS children existed in the US in 1989; these few children are not enough to populate a notional (and unbelievable) 175% increase in numbers from 2001 to 2008. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Aha -- you know that the figures can not be right! Unfortunatrely for you, the poll is more accurate than your assertion that "number of churches limits number of self-described adherents." If so, then Russia could not ever have had many Orthodox Christians when there were virtually no churches <g>. Personally, I regard huge polls (>50,000) to be fairly accurate - and to assert that it is off by a factor of three is mind-boggling. BTW, AFAICT, Christian Scientists do not have to attend churches - in fact it appears that most self-described adherents do not attend CS churches. So working to numbers that way is pretty useless. If the number labile? Yep. But so are political affiliations in the US. Collect (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Caroline Fraser in The Atlantic gives absolutely no methodology att all. Nada. None. So your refererenc to the "methodology" of that journal is risible. Collect (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion raised my eyebrows for several reasons, one of which is that the Census Bureau doesn't measure religious affiliation. The data source is the American Religious Identification Survey, not the Census. The Census Bureau's statistical abstract of the United States (a very reliable source, IMO) merely reports the information, accurately and reliably. Counts of membership/adherents of religious denominations are often challenged; the numbers depend on who's counting, who they count as a member or adherent, and how they go about collecting the information. When there are conflicting numbers from reliable sources (such as ARIS and the denomination itself) Misplaced Pages should report the different numbers and tell where they come from. If there's a problem here, it's the perceived need to report exactly one value in the Misplaced Pages article's infobox. --Orlady (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The 100,000 figure has been repeatedly added to the infobox. I suggest a factor of three error in a large poll is unlikely. Collect (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A factor of three error is very, very likely. A factor of 10 is what I would expect from the sample size. The sample was far too small to obtain the level of accuracy you desire. Definitely far to small to ralk about trends. Sorry, but raw numbers from crude surveys like this don't mean much unless they have been interpreted by qualified scholars in reliable secondary sources, which is not the case here. The conclusions you have drawn are based on your own OR improperly using primary sources.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the ARIS report itself reports "a standard error of under 0.5 percent for the full sample" . For very small groups like the Christian Scientists, this completely dominates the result. For large groups, it's a very good margin of error. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"A factor of three is very. very likely"???? With a small number, the square root is a good approximation for "one sigma" -- you assert that a 6+sigma variation is "very, very likely". Last I looked, the odds of being that far off on a large poll (positing that 81 is statistically a large enough number to use statistical analysis on) are about 50 to 1. So much for "likely." Meanwhile, there are zero reliable sources for any other statistical analysis. BTW, a "factor of ten" is at the 9 sigma level roughly -- or a bit under one in a thousand. Likely? As for using USCB published studies -- and calling them OR -- that is as big a misuse of "OR" in a post as every made on Misplaced Pages! And stephen -- the "error" is not based on the largest number - but on the number in the subset - read up on Probability and Statistics ... Statisticians use the number in the exact response, and determine individual error likelihoods on each. Collect (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Umm... nope. Don't know where you pulled that out of. And using a source for a purpose it was not designed for is indeed OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Collect appears to have been pulling his statements out of orthodox statistics textbooks.  This suggests that the propositions that “No one at the Census Bureau would stand behind either of the claims you wish to make” and that Collect is “using a source for a purpose it was not designed for” imply that somebody has personally asked someone at the Bureau.  Is this inference accurate?

The ARIS academic research team uses random-digit-dialed telephone interviews.  Presuming that more children have been given own telephone numbers, the 2008 sample would seem to have rather less bias error than the 1990 survey.

A random sample n > 10,000 is a “very large random sample”.  If pn > 30, you can use it to calculate a working estimate for any pN, no matter how large.

Note.  The Census Bureau mentions (but doesn′t directly recommend) the American Religion Data Archive as a source for religious data.  See American Denominations: Church of Christ, Scientist.  The membership data are most likely fraudulent, because most editors or publishers would have known that they were made-up.  The data on churches maybe could be used—with great care−to estimate trends within certain time frames.  Reported number of churches: 1993–1995 average = 2,400; 1998–2002 average = 2,100.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Collect did not tell me or others on the page that he had started this discussion. All secondary sources that I'm aware of say that, at the height of its popularity in 1936, the church had around 270,000 members in the US, and that the figure is now under 100,000 (many sources say considerably less than this). The only source that differs is the church, which I believe says 400,000.

An editor arrived a few weeks ago on the talk page with the American Religious Identification Survey from 2008, which put the figure at 339,000. Collect is now being very aggressive about repeatedly restoring this to the lead and infobox; it is too much information for the lead even if accurate, but it's also highly problematic. In addition, Collect appears to believe that the Census Bureau report and the ARIS are different things, and is reporting them in the lead as two separate surveys.

This was discussed on the article's talk page in March, and there were objections to including it. The survey suggested that there were 339,000 Christian Scientists in the United States in 2008, and 194,000 in 2001, so that the figure is growing significantly. But this contradicts all the secondary sources and all the evidence; the Christian Scientist on the talk page also agrees that there is something odd about it. So I think the survey should be ignored entirely, or at most reported in the section about the church. But it definitely shouldn't be in the lead or infobox. SlimVirgin 00:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Aggressive? First - I was not the only one adding the Census Bureau publication. Two - the agreement here seems to be that the USCB is a reliable source publisher of a survey - and thus is not a "primary source" and if it were, governmental primary sources are generally used on Misplaced Pages. As to numbers being labile in surveys - they may well be, but that does not make the survey non-existent. I would point out that the Wicca figures also vary over time. In fact, if a survey showed no chabnges, that would be far more unusual. Cheers -- but deleting reliable sources with genuine statistical backing in favour of "unnamed scholars" seems against Misplaced Pages policy. Lastly, as this is a noticeboard for getting independent views, I think iterating arguments from a talk page is pretty useless. YMMV. Collect (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Collect, you began this noticeboard entry with your argument. How can you expect only your voice to prevail, when others have valid arguments? You cannot stifle discussion in this manner. All editors are invited to noticeboards. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What Collect expects is not pertinent.  (What all Misplaced Pages editors expect is that the participants will be addressing their attention to each others′ comments about the topic.)  --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoa everyone. Let's simmer down here. The primary question of this noticeboard is is X a RS for Y content. Can there be more than one RS for a given figure, or different figures? Sure. I think as was suggested above, being inclusive of the reliable sources that are available and listing them with attribution to the sources would provide the most information to the readers of the article in question. Would this compromise be OK?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree on both points.  Collect’s sources appear to me to be more authoritative; but listing both estimates is helpful.  It discloses the existence of a serious and interesting dispute about even the most objective property of the group: its size.  (About which I have no opinion, should anyone care.)  --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the data can differ depending on geographical location. Pass a Method talk 09:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Report from the RefDesk(Science)( Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science#accuracy_of_a_poll): My understanding of the statistics is sound, and those who asserted otherwise have been shown factually wrong by others who also have had courses in probability and statistics. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What an asinine sort of remark. Let folks read on the RefDesk noticeboard that the number to a 95% confidence level would be 270,000 to 410,000 and the odds of being "off by a factor of three" are on the order of one in a million. As for rejecting statistics but allowing "estimates" by unknown "scholars" that path leads to insanity on Misplaced Pages <g>. Collect (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Collect, while Stephan's terse comment could stand to be a bit more detailed, he is correct that your synopsis of the RD/Sci discussion is...less-than-sufficiently nuanced. The Ref Desk discussion appears to have identified a number of plausible ways in which a report like this could inadvertently be susceptible to overestimating the population of small-minority groups. For instance, the 95% CI you've quoted was calculated by Bowlhover, who in his very next sentence notes that the number could be badly skewed by even a miniscule false positive rate (per false positive paradox).

Of course, all this is somewhat moot. The Census Bureau is a generally reliable source, and we shouldn't be second-guessing figured published under their imprimatur without reliable sources offering viable alternative data. (If there are other sources which have made a credible attempt to produce a better number, we should certainly also consider them, particularly if they explicitly touch on the census data in their coverage.) It's also worth bearing in mind that there is a distinction between the number of people who might identify with a particular faith in a telephone survey, versus the number who actually attend services regularly, versus the number who actually follow a more-or-less strict version of that faith's teachings. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Again - the USCB "published" the study of 54,000 people done by a group which has now done several such studies. The argument that it could be off by a factor of three was risible -- and the argument that polls in general can have "false positives" is true of every single poll ever made <g>. And "false negatives" also exist, of course. Actually - I think that religious affiliation is far more labile than some assert, and that saying "fewer peope attend services" of a group which does not stress religious services is less useful than a large survey is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Polling data can only be used as a measure of religious self-identification, not as a measure of membership. I don't know if the Christian Scientists can be included among those who keep rigorous statistics, but for example Gallup polls of Episcopal Church affiliation consistently show twice the membership tallied from church records. The ARIS numbers can be taken as reliable measures of affiliation, but cannot be compared to membership numbers. Mangoe (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The actual church appears to assert about 400,000 ... but was ruled out as a "self-serving claim" on the talk page. In short - less discrepant with the ARIS figures than with the unsourced NYT figures (the Atlantic figure is simply a "claim by assertion" without any claim that it is based on any actual study). Collect (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: One of the editors now opines

There is no snark in my recommendation not to represent the 2008 ARIS number in Misplaced Pages's voice. When Misplaced Pages editors are faced with multiple sources in conflict we attribute the various conflicting reports. In representing to the reader that the church has been in a long decline since about 1941, the fact being reliably sourced, any increase in membership will be hard to accommodate in prose

Is a reliable source excludable on those grounds -- that because it contradicts what we are telling the reader, that therefore it ought not be used? I found this a quite interesting position -- that facts which contradict what we tell readers should be excluded because what we assert as fact would be "hard to accomodate in prose". Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing against a point that I did not make; your argument is against a position that nobody holds, the classic straw man. The ARIS poll is going to be mentioned and attributed, not excluded. Binksternet (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The precise quote from that editor is given in italics. I take it from this post that you have ;;no objection;; to using the statistically valid reliable source poll figures from ARIS published by the Census Bureau in that article and infobox? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to continue to object. The ARIS data specifically denies the validity of representing their values as membership numbers. You can see for the "Anglican" column a discrepancy of about a million between the ARIS affiliation count and actual tallied membership, which itself is a little inflated because the base data isn't kept as up-to-date as it might be. I can tell you that the continuing Anglicans and ACNA do not have anything like a million members between them. The NYT number seems intended to be represented as a membership number, and an average membership of around sixty is a much more plausible value than the well over two hundred that the ARIS numbers would give. In any case the range of numbers tends to imply a certain uncertainty, all the more so since other sources refuse to provide any value. The ARIS numbers could be included in the body of the article with appropriate caveats, but they categorically cannot be included in the infobox as "members". Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The claim is that 339,000 Americans self-identify with that church. The concept of "membership cards" was not asked nor imputed by ARIS at all. Are church self-identification numbers labile? Yep. But your assertion that ARIS self-identification numbers are off by a facotr of five *60,000???) is on the order of a likelihood of one in a hundred million per discussion at the RefDesk <g>. Meanwhile, no numbers are in the infobox. I guess several editors are so absolutely certain they know the truth that solid statistical evidence is moot <g>. Collect (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you keep confusing sampling error with the many other sources of error, several of which are also discussed at the ref desk. That does not make the source unusable, but it does raise enough of a red flag to require explicit attribution and careful phrasing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Collect, enough with the drama. I am aware that the number isn't in the infobox—and it should stay that way. I said exactly the opposite of "don't use the number at all," so you can stop berating me about that. My point is that, regardless of how good you or anyone else thinks the number is as a matter of self-identification, the article needs to make very clear that this isn't a membership number, because everyone who works with these statistics knows that affiliation survey numbers tend to be two or more times actual membership numbers for groups that keep and publicize good records. It's not impossible for both the NYT and ARIS numbers to be accurate, but if any number goes in the infobox, it's the former. If we choose to report only the ARIS numbers we have to also say that a membership count is unknown. But really, I don't see the problem with reporting both sources, since they do not contradict each other. Mangoe (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: SlimVirgin asserts that the ARIS numbers are an "anomaly" and "disputed". Might someone tell me that an editor "knowing" a figure is an "anonaly" makes a source other than reliable? I would note the RefDesk unanimous consensus was that the number is highly unlikely to be greatly in error. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just to note that all the figures are in the article. The issue is that Collect is repeatedly restoring the ARIS figure to the lead, as though it is unproblematic, so that the lead now looks contradictory, and is placing one poll on a par with the scholarly sources. SlimVirgin 22:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• RfC here. SlimVirgin 23:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW: The only "scholarly methodology" given was "multiplying number of churces by 87 because that was the ratio used in 1936" <g>. Somehow I think a survey of 54K people is more accurate than that particular "scientific methodology". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't more accurate because they are not measures of the same thing; as a measure of membership the ARIS numbers are inaccurate, as ARIS itself says. And as we have said many times over: Collect, you have no standing to object to the estimation method. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Is TVAddict reliable?

I am having some trouble verifying that TVAddict.com is reliable. Have anyone else had questions about this source? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So, no one has a problem with this source, which appears to be almost entirely reader-sourced and riddled with rumor? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the content from the website that is to be used as a source?

What content will it be used to verify?

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ethnologue appears to be not reliable for Dravidian languages

Ethnologue lists Dravidian languages, which as such have apparently never been discussed or acknowledged by mainstream Dravidologists or any linguist for that matter. Example: Allar language Allar language at Ethnologue Neither google books, scholar, JSTOR Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL find anything in this direction. Although Ethnologue is cited by reputed linguists, I don't understand, why no mainstream linguists ever talked about the "Allar language". One of the most reputed of the Dravidian scholars is Bhadriraju Krishnamurti. His book "The Dravidian languages" is considered a reference book of highest order, but he didn't even mention the "Allar language", while many dialects were discussed. So when there are absolutely no mainstream scholars, how reliable is Ethnologue on Dravidian languages? And don't think the "Allar language" was the only candidate, there are a lot of so called languages, which have only a presence in Ethnologue. I could provide a whole list if required, with questionable languages.-- Dravidian  Hero  22:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

M. Paul Lewis is the editor of the Ethnologue, 16th edition. His CV is at .

Bh. Krishnamurti wrote the article "Dravidian Languages" in Frawley (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Volume 1 (Oxford University Press, 2003). Following the article, there is a "Language List". The first language listed is "Allar: also called Chatans. 350 speakers in India. Kerala, Palghat district." --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The list was compiled By B. Grimes though, who obviously used Ethnologue. Krishnamurti had no hands in this.-- Dravidian  Hero  23:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And you know that how? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Because Grimes is credited at the end of all compiled language lists in that encyclopedia, not only Dravidian. It's available here: gbook. At page xiv they write they compiled them from Ethnologue.-- Dravidian  Hero  00:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily indicate that Krishnamurti hadn't seen the list. Anyway, given that Ethnologue suggests that Allar has only 350 speakers, it would hardly be surprising to find that it hadn't had much in the way of scholarly attention. Do you have any specific reason to think that it doesn't exist beyond the fact that you can't find other references to it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I would atleast expect it to be listed here: List of endangered languages in India -- Dravidian  Hero  01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You were not asking for references, but anyhow: http://www.unesco.org/culture/languages-atlas/index.php -- Dravidian  Hero  01:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Dravidianhero's bias against Ethnologue has nothing to do with linguistics, but is clearly based on his bias against the Summer Institute of Linguistics, a Christian NGO. Here are just a couple of Dravidianhero's links regarding Ethnologue and the people of SIL to illustrate his opinion: , , . Ethnologue has been cited by, and used as a reliable linguistic reference, by: International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (Oxford) (both first and second editions); Bernard Comrie, ed. The World's Major Languages (Oxford); Anatole Lyovin An Introduction to the Languages of the World (Oxford); Merritt Ruhlen A Guide to the World's Languages, Volume 1: Classification (Stanford); Albrecht Close Sprachen der Welt (K.G. Saur) (this source also specifically lists Allar, for example, pg. 112). And to put the stamp of "false" on Dravidianhero's claim that Ethnologue is the only source for these peripheral languages, there is V. Zvelebil "Language list for Dravidian," Archiv Orientalni 65:175-190 (this source specifically lists Allar, for example, pg. 177). Zvelebil doesn't even cite Ethnologue since he got his information elsewhere (he used other linguistic surveys of the Dravidian homelands). And Zvelebil was a well-known and well-respected scholar and specialist in the languages of India including the Dravidian languages. Dravidianhero has made the claim that no Dravidian scholar has ever mentioned Allar. This mention in Zvelebil's list also puts the stamp of "false" on that claim. All of Dravidianhero's "questionable languages" are in Zvelebil's list, and remember that Zvelebil was a well-respected Dravidian scholar. He was such a famous Dravidian scholar that he even has his own Misplaced Pages article ;) --Taivo (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources noticeboard. This is not a discussion about 'bias'. You have already been advised at WP:ANI not to personalise things. I suggest you take heed of that advice. As for citations for Allar, I see that Ethnologue cites 'Shashi and Shri 1994', though unfortunately without further details. It is also worth noting the alternate names given: "Aalan, Alan, Alanmar, Alar, Allan, Chatans" - a search under the different names may also be worthwhile, though I'd like to see DravidianHero's comments on the Zvelebil source first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Here is Dravidianhero's fundamental problem: he doesn't use actual references, but only looks things up on Google or Google Books. The reference to Zvelebil (above) is very clear in Krishnamurti's discussion of Dravidian languages (pg 27) and had Dravidianhero actually been holding the book and reading it in toto, he would have found the reference himself. But he doesn't use actual books or sources, he does searches on Google for his "research". That's not acceptable Misplaced Pages practice, especially when he is being confronted by scholars who are holding the books in their hands and reading every page, not just the selection of pages on Google Books. --Taivo (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Bias" against this organization is actually relevant to Dravidianhero's attacks on Ethnologue and ISO 639-3. While I have not here imputed to him an overall anti-Christian bias (which was his complaint at ANI), he does have a clearly stated bias against that organization that is clearly in his comments. But even without the issue of bias, my references are clear that his assertions about Ethnologue and about the references to these languages by Dravidian scholars are false. --Taivo (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is probably the Shashi and Shri 1994 reference from Ethnologue, although since I have not handled this volume, I cannot be certain. But from the Ethnologue bibliography, it is probably the same. --Taivo (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions like this are always amusing: "yeah it's RS except for the part I disagree with." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. --Taivo (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Ethnologue bibliography link - I should have though to look for that. It seems to confirm that Ethnologue probably didn't invent the language out of thin air, anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Krishnamurti: "A number of other Dravidian languages are listed in the Encyclopedia of Linguistics (1991) and most recently by Zvelebil in an article (1997). Most of the names represent dialects of the main languages listed above." That maybe explains, why Allar is not a recognized language.-- Dravidian  Hero  02:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Krishnamurti called it a "dialect", but Zvelebil, an equally well-respected Dravidian linguist, called it a language. Therefore, as we have done in most of these "disputed" language articles, we cite both points of view and include links to the Ethnologue article, links to the ISO 639-3 code, and a reference to Krishnamurti (2003). That is Misplaced Pages's neutrality at work. --Taivo (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There are many other well-respected Dravidologists. You made a 1 vs. 300 to a 2 vs 300. WP:UNDUE still applies. Isn't UNESCO some kind of worldwide consensus? Why not apply that here? -- Dravidian  Hero  02:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Are these the 300 you keep referring to? — Lfdder (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a moment Dravidianhero - are you now objecting to Ethnologue as a source not on the basis that Allar doesn't exist, but instead that it is a dialect rather than a language? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That is precisely his objection, AndyTheGrump, which hinges on the definition of "language" and "dialect", which we have tried to convey to him at Talk:Dravidian languages is not a hard and fast distinction that linguists make. Linguists are quite comfortable with the ambiguity and fuzziness in the definitions of each and the boundaries between them. --Taivo (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) There is no "1 vs. 300" or "2 vs 300" at all. You cannot use a Google search or your own hyperbole to make a scholarly argument here. Your unreliable research methods are just making a fool of you. I have cited one of the foremost Dravidian scholars. That's not WP:FRINGE. Indeed, if Krishnamurti thought that Zvelebil was a fringe or unreliable Dravidianist, he would not have cited 25 articles and books written by Zvelebil. Indeed, Krishnamurti only cites four scholars with as many or more publications than Zvelebil--Krishnamurti, Emeneau, Andronov, and Subrahmanyam. So even if the four others cited Allar (for example) as a dialect rather than a language (which they don't), that would still not be the exaggeration "300 to 1/2". --Taivo (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please allow Dravidianhero to answer for himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no "Allar language" according to non-existing sources. That's my objection against Ethnologue. It could be a dialect,language,banana,monkey, if there is no acceptance in scholarship we can't call it spaceship.-- Dravidian  Hero  02:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't rely on non-existing sources. We rely on sources that exist. Sources that exist state that there is an Allar language. A source instead calls it a dialect - and the article should reflect that view too. You have provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim that Ethnologue isn't WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Zvelebil 1997 is "non-exist", Dravidianhero? LOL. Want a link to a .pdf? Archiv Orientalni. Browse down on the left to 1997, click on the arrow. Now click on the arrow next to Issue 2. Now click on page 177 and you will find a pdf of the page where Zvelebil lists Allar as a Dravidian language. The whole article is well-worth reading as well and you'll find most, if not all of Ethnologue's "extra" Dravidian languages listed there. Remember that Zvelebil is just as highly-respected a Dravidian linguist as Krishnamurti. --Taivo (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the great link Taivo, very much appreciated. :) and I can't say I'm surprised to see that even Zvelebil expressed his reservations regarding language vs. dialect. So it's 1 vs. all all over again. But atleast it got more interesting -- Dravidian  Hero  03:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't 1 versus anything until you provide the sources to back up your assertions. Either provide them, or accept that the article will reflect the sources we have. There is no other option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is another option. Leave both terms language and dialect out. That would be most neutral in the case of Allar. Disagreemant?-- Dravidian  Hero  03:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No. There is no reason whatsoever why the article can't reflect what the majority of sources we cite say. It will of course have to note the minority view. Anyone with the remotest familiarity with linguistics will be aware that the language/dialect boundary is ill-defined anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. --Jayron32 04:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

ISO 639-3 lists Allar as a language and assigns it a language code, therefore the first choice is always to call these speech varieties "languages" unless there is positive evidence that they should be called something else. In the case of the two Paharias that Dravidianhero was using in his other forum shopping today, there were positive comments from reliable sources that they were dialects, so they were combined into Malto language with the comment that some sources call them separate languages. In the case of Allar, however, there is no positive comment in any source that says it is a dialect of anything. Krishnamurti's comment that some or all of Zvelebil's "extra" languages were dialects does not mention Allar at all, so we have no way of knowing 1) if he was talking about Allar at all, 2) if he was including Allar when he wrote that some could be dialects, and 3) what, if any, language it would be a dialect of. According to Ethnologue, it shares about equal amounts of vocabulary with Tamil and Malayalam, so would it be a dialect of Tamil or a dialect of Malayalam? But even making that determination would be original research since no Dravidian scholar has written "Allar is (probably) a dialect of X". Since there is no positive evidence that Allar is a dialect, we cannot list it as a dialect. The only positive statement we have from any Dravidian scholar concerning Allar is Zvelebil's statement that is a language. Dravidianhero's assertions about Allar are simply not based on any positive evidence at all. He is only making assumptions based on inference from a lack of data. That's WP:OR on his part. We have two positive statements that Allar is a language (Zvelebil and Ethnologue) and no specific positive statements that it is a dialect. Misplaced Pages can't be based on speculation based on a lack of evidence. The Allar article should call it a language, but with the statement that its status as a language or dialect may be uncertain due to lack of study. --Taivo (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

On the face of it, that seems reasonable enough - though I'd note that the supposed purpose of this discussion was solely to ascertain whether Ethnologue was RS regarding Allar. And since no evidence has been provided to the contrary, this seems clear. It is a well-respected source, based on scholarly research. Cite it for what it says. And if DravidianHero posts similar arguments concerning the results of Google searches, I suggest you politely post a link to WP:OR, and then ignore him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

10-4. --Taivo (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If DravidianHero can now cite these 300 sources - or even a few of them - we can of course look at them. Otherwise it seems to me that at this point the best course of action is for proper citations to Zvelebil and Krishnamurti (and Shashi and Shri if someone can track it down and confirm its validity) to be added to the Allar language article for now, along with an indication that Krishnamurti considered it a dialect. I really can't at this point see any reason to assume that Ethnologue isn't RS for this simply on the basis that a rare language (sadly possibly even extinct by now?) doesn't show up under a rudimentary search. As for why it isn't listed by UNESCO, I've no idea - but I see no reason whatsoever to assume that their list even claims to be exhaustive. If at some future point DravidianHero can come up with properly-researched citations for the 'dialect' perspective this can of course be looked at again - though I'd strongly recommend that DravidianHero reads WP:OR, and avoids arguments along 'Google doesn't find it' lines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Utter nonsense. There is no reason at all that Ethnologues coverage of Dravidian languages should be considered less authoritative than its coverage of other language families. It does have errors, but these can be corrected for by using other material as well, and they do not mean that it is generally unreliable. There is no other source of comparable scope. There is some serious forum shopping going on here as well.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Dravidianhero grasping at straws till there were none left, a three-day saga. Will there be a sequel? — Lfdder (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur. As a historian, such spurious arguments make me cringe. Agenda pushing? HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions on sources for the Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union.

I would like to start a discussion on adding more content and sources to the Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union article. I have listed some of these new sources on the article talkpage.

I would like to start with this source

I would like to include it on the end of the sentence in the article

During the purges of 1937 and 1938, church documents record that 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested. Of these, over 100,000 were shot.

I would like to reword the article to instead say

During the purges of 1937 and 1938, church documents record that 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested. Of these, over 100,000 were shot. Time magazine reporter Richard N. Ostling puts the amount of executed clergy from the Soviet at an estimate of 50,000.

This leads me to my next question is the source right now in the article for the primary sentence also valid?

During the purges of 1937 and 1938, church documents record that 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested. Of these, over 100,000 were shot.

Is Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev and his book "A century of violence in Soviet Russia" which is published by Yale press. There currently is an anonymous IP edit warring on the article attacking Yakovlev in some very ugly ways. It appears that the IP is not able to be banned and there may not be allot that can be done from what User talk:Rschen7754 has said here Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacob_Peters. So is there a way that I could also get verification and Yakovlev as a source? Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think these are very good RS. However, your information about someone "attacking" something, SPI investigations and specific numbers with long explanations are not needed. You should only state who was the author of the publication, the publisher, date of publication, and any additional information about the source. Your goal here is to only ask 3rd opinion about sources, rather than to prove that you are right, but someone else is wrong.My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Books by insiders with no academic qualifications are usually not good sources. It is ironic that anyone would consider a book written by the Communist Party's head of the Department of Ideology and Propaganda to be reliable. TFD (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

e-mailed PDF from a research assistant

I had e-mailed the person listed on an organizations website as the research assistant if they could post a certian item in PDF online. She responded with a PDF via e-mail. Obviously they want this public but how can I make this a reliable source. Is asking that they post it on their website the only way? See Talk:List_of_the_largest_Protestant_churches_in_the_United_States#PDF_-_options_to_make_it_a_reliable_source for more details.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the PDF a copy of an article that was published in a RS journal?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Indian American history

I am wondering whether the following source is a reliable source:

• Francis C. Assisi (2005). "Indian-American Scholar Susan Koshy Probes Interracial Sex". INDOlink. Retrieved 2009-01-02.

INDOlink is the publisher and tt is presently being used to verify the following text in the Indian American article:

1600s: The East India Company brought over Indian indentured servants to the British American colonies.

Additionally, is the source a reliable source:

• http://www.indiacurrents.com/articles/2007/05/16/indian-slaves-in-colonial-america

An editor at Talk:United States is using it to claim that there were Indian American slaves in the United States in Jamestown, Virginia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The second source looks pretty persuasive that someone at Jamestown named Menefie had an indentured servant described as "East Indian" in 1622 and 1624. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

So Til Eulenspeigel's opinion India Currents is a reliable source overall, or just that article? What about INDOlink?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the websites overall, but from what those specific articles are saying, I assume good faith that they are not making facts up about 17th century sociological studies and are thus reliable for those claims. 17th century sociological studies aren't a field where anybody gets away with fabricating data for long because it is all in documentation. And it's not historically unfeasible that there would be a handful of indentured servants from India in Virginia at that time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I bring this up is per WP:REDFLAG. This is a very extrodinary claim, that South Asians were slaves in the Jamestown colony. Even if this is a reliable source, if there is this 17th century sociological studies, there should be other reliable sources that have information out there that says that there were South Asian slaves at the colony.

Also the article from India Current doesn't itself cite its sources for others to be able to see where they get their inforamtion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I found one of the sources stated in the article from the National Park Service. This dates an East Indian being a slave in 1635. I will add this to appropriate articles.

If someone would like to close this and archive it, I would be appreciative.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Where and how is this being used? A single source that says that there was one East Indian 'headright' shouldn't be used to make a more general statement. (Also, a headright is not necessarily a slave.) --regentspark (comment) 16:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a legal distinction between "indentured servant" (which the few East Indians would have been) and a "slave". This was mainly a legal distinction since for practical purposes they were pretty much the same thing. A "headright" means whoever imported him was claiming extra provisions and arable land for having imported him. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

They are very different things. In many cases, indentured servants take up the position willingly. Not always, of course, but in most cases and one 'indentured servant' is definitely not enough to assume that there was even one East Indian slave in 17th century America. --regentspark (comment) 00:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I am modifying Indian American, and History of Asian Americans with this information that is new to myself. I will also be modifying the summarization of Asian American history in the Asian American article once I am finished with the History sub-article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I've replaced "slave" with "indentured servant" in those two articles. That's what the source says. --regentspark (comment) 20:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:History of Asian Americans#East Indian Slave. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Atyachar Virodh Samiti as a source for Namantar Andolan

Our article on Namantar Andolan draws quite extensively on Atyachar Virodh Samiti (12 May 1979). "The Marathwada Riots: A Report". Economic and Political Weekly. 14 (19): 845–852. JSTOR 4367590., most notably for details of the violence brought upon on Dalits by caste Hindus. For example,

Riots affected 1,200 villages in Marathwada, impacting on 25,000 Dalits and causing thousands of them to seek safety in jungles. This violence was organized by members of the Maratha community and took many forms, including killings, molestation and rape of Dalit women, burning of houses and huts, pillaging their colonies, forcing them out of villages, polluting drinking water wells, destruction of cattle and refusal to employ. This continued for 67 days and none of the civil rights body came to save Dalits. Schedule caste Gram Sevak was assaulted and attempt was made to burn him alive. In Yetala village when two Dalits contacted Police sub inspector were beaten up in Gram Panchayat Office.

is sourced to it. I am unable to ascertain who the members of this Samiti (loosely, "committee") were/are. The introduction to their report says:

The shocking experience of massacre, loot and rape of scheduled castes in Belchi, Agra, Pantnagar, Marathwada and Bajitpuir, among other places, has demanded the attention of all humanist, progressive and Leftist forces.

It was as an attempt to understand the role of the caste system vis-a-vis class struggle and class organisation that the Atyachar Virodhi Samiti was constituted.

The Samiti sought, among other things, to highlight the nature and extent of repression of scheduled castes in Marathwada in Maharashtraiand to draw lessons for future action which the scheduled caste masses, including poor peasants and agricultural labourers, may have to take when such attacks occur again.

With this objective in view, some representatives of the Samiti visited the riot-affected areas of Nanded, Parbhani and Aurangabad. What follows is a report of the visit.

Can we accept as being reliable given the publisher is Economics and Political Weekly? Or do we need to be concerned regarding their apparent anonymity and apparently preconceived desire to respond to a "call to action" (... all humanist, progressive and Leftist forces, etc.) No-one is arguing about this - the query is for my own peace of mind. I am trying to fettle the article but there is not much point in checking statements against sources if the sources is not acceptable in the first instance. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I found this book citing the Samiti. Seems to be a reliable source.-- Dravidian  Hero  00:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm worried about this source for historical fact. The events described are so dramatic and shocking, that we would expect them to have been written up elsewhere. Do we have any corroboration? Note that it forms part of the history of a university. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Burl Reid

Hi, Burl Reid was born in Aus he just grow up in Tasmania. That information is incorrect in his article.

Tasmanian is a part of Australia. But you should take your concern to Talk:Burl Reid, it is not appropriate here unless you want to discuss a particular source. Zero 03:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

TVOvermind

I saw an article on this stating that The Cleveland Show has been canceled.. However, I don't see that news anywhere else on any repeatable sites like Deadline, Zap2it, and Entertainment Weekly. Is TVOvermind.com a reliable source? Macbookpro1990 (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fox is scheduled to hold its upfront presentation on Monday, May 13, at which there should be an announcement about the series. We can wait until a more official announcement comes down since that is less than 1 day away. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Superdownloads.com.br

At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/FireCMD, a Superdownloads review has been argued to support notability. By its own description, Superdownloads "Operates in Brazil since 1998, as a large catalog of software with more than 30,000 available for download from games, demos, shareware and freeware." Is this a reliable source to establish notability? Msnicki (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Not in the slightest. Software catalogues can establish nothing beyond the fact that software exists. The website derives its income (possibly indirectly, via advertising) from hosting such material, and any reviews cannot therefore be seen as impartial. There is nothing to indicate that such 'reviews' have any credibility. Nor would there be any reason to see the review itself as evidence of notability, even if it were from a credible source - it merely describes the functionality of the software. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Rfc on Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka

I have started a Rfc on Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka which is relevant to this noticeboard - "Does this article comply with Misplaced Pages's core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research?" Please feel free to comment here. Thank you.--obi2canibe 19:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

FetLife

I could use an outside opinion on the FetLife page, if anyone's got a few minutes. A number of references have been added recently, but also over the article's history, that I don't believe consitute reliable sources. I'm not up to speed on where the line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable sources, though. There are only 16 sources in the current article, so I don't think it would take long for someone knowledgeable to review. I'm a little out of practice on WP practices, so if this is something that should just be templated, please let me know. Thanks! – RobinHood70 22:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be best of you posted the links that are concerning you, but just by taking a quick look I would say you are right, several sources are problematic: Footnote 3 for instance no longer has a live source (the webpage it links to is dead) and was an SPS to begin with. Check out WP:SPS

The source for footnote 6 is a blog, which makes it an unreliable source as it is again an sps. If you have other concerns post them and I'll try and help.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Luke! Part of my difficulty arises from determining what's a blog and what's not. Some of the "blogs" these days operate more or less like reputable media organizations, where others are really just a spiffed up version of Joe Blow's opinion. Gizmodo (6) was indeed one of the ones I was wondering about. In addition, I'm also wondering about: Salon (5), Jezebel (7), Gawker (13), and Sex and the 405 (15). I'm not sure what to make of the nginx ref (16), since it's a rather non-standard source, but I think both that and the other one you mentioned (3) would fall under ABOUTSELF, at least assuming I can find a replacement for it, or a wayback link or what have you. – RobinHood70 05:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm totally shocked that any editor of Misplaced Pages would consider Salon to be "a blog." I mean, really, read Salon's own Misplaced Pages article. --Meitar (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's simply not something I'm familiar with. I never said it was a blog nor anything else, just that I didn't know whether or not it was considered a reliable source. Numerous publications have Misplaced Pages articles, but that doesn't mean they're reliable sources for Misplaced Pages citations. To quote the article, and the magazine's former editor-in-chief, "Is Salon more tabloid-like? Yeah, we've made no secret of that." That right there makes me believe that it's appropriate to ask if it's generally considered a reliable source. – RobinHood70 06:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the ways to try and figure this out is to look at the "about" page on the publication's website. Salon's "about" page hereand here appears to have a full editorial board which indicates fact checking. On the other hand, blogs generally are an SPS with no editorial oversight to insure accuracy and thus are not considered reliable.

Gawker has an editorial board too, but its news are summaries of reports from other publications, in which case if used one would have to also mention the original publication; an alternative option would be to use the original news source. Jezebel is doing the exact same thing as Gawker, it publishes news summaries, and has a board, but its Forums and opinion pieces are just that: WP:SPS. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Luke, that was very helpful. I'll go over the article later today and see what needs to be done. – RobinHood70 16:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(←) Okay, I've gone through the article. I'm still not sure about two of the refs:

1. The Jezebel ref looks like an opinion piece to me, but I still have a hard time with how to judge that with any certainty. It's probably not needed anyway, since it's got the Salon ref already, which looks to be professionally and neutrally written, at a glance.
2. The Sex and the 405 ref looks okay to me, but since it's the only ref supporting the info it's attached to, I'd like a second set of eyes on it. From what you said above, it looks like it has some form of editorial control, though perhaps minimal, and the article itself doesn't appear to be just an opinion piece. – RobinHood70 18:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Tsutomu Miyazaki

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20070818192957/http://www.charlest.whipple.net/miyazaki.html

Content in two sections that referenced this site (regarding Tsutomu's early life and alleged mental health issues) was removed with the edit summaries "Removed info from unreliable source; will store this info on talk page until a reliable source can be found." (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tsutomu_Miyazaki&diff=prev&oldid=548010837) and "Moving unreliably sourced info to talk page until a reliable source can be found" (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tsutomu_Miyazaki&diff=next&oldid=548010837).

Some of the content was later restored with the edit summary "reverting vandalism": https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tsutomu_Miyazaki&diff=next&oldid=549410999.

I'm thinking that Charles T. Whipple's self-published site isn't a reliable source for this. Not sure what the guy's credentials are. From Googling him it seems like he mostly writes fiction.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Open access journals and repositories: Assessing reliability

Hi folks,

I have a general question about assessing reliability when using open access journals and repositories. These journals vary in reputation and level of peer review. What are the best practices for determining reliability with them? Thanks! Ocaasi 14:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is probably no one simple method which applies to all cases. There are different types of evidence which can help build up a picture. One common way is to look for published evidence of what kind of reputation that the publication and/or its authors and editors have amoungst relevant experts and people whose opinions are likely to be reliable themselves. In other words, for every field, reliable sources tend to form a network of points which at least passingly refer to each other. It can also be a good idea to look at what information is available about the fact checking of the publication.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. The problem here is with OA journals published by small companies starting a large number of journals, only a few of which are remotely likely to become notable. Some of them have extremely low standards, thus leading to some doubt about whether their peer review is adequate to be a RS. I think we have to go title by title, and article by article. The assumption is that a journal article published by a notable mainstream scientist is a RS. Published by an unknown, then we need to rely on the quality of the peer review. There is no journal in the world of such high quality that tit has not published work that has been subsequently retracted, and many famous scientists have published some of their work in very insignificant journals, or in a few cases even pnly in non-peer-reviewed repositories such as arXiv. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As Andrew and DGG suggest, there's no real magic formula. For medical information, the guidance in WP:MEDRS certainly still applies. (Things like MEDLINE indexing are a positive but not infallible sign, for instance; review articles by recognized authors are generally a better bet than primary studies.) Be reluctant to cite brand-new studies from brand-new authors in brand-new journals; use tools like Web of Science to look at how often – or even whether – a particular study has been cited by independent authors in other journals. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

First, look at the author's section of the website. It should explain the level of peer review or other screening. Then look at some of the articles to see if the writers are academics in their field and there is extensive foot-noting. The website should also explain if it is owned by a university or academic publishing company or a thinktank. You can then check if the publisher has an article in Misplaced Pages or has been discussed at RSN. I find that generally disputes do not arise because of the reliability of sources, but the weight to be given to opinions expressed in them. TFD (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Lighthouse Pub

(cross posted from the no original research noticeboard):

The creator of the Lighthouse Pub article has used his own blog as a source and claims to be a former journalist . If he can provide examples of his past work in the relevant field from reliable sources, could his blog be considered a self-published expert source, therefore passing the WP:NOR requirement? He has started listing some published articles on his user page. --Drm310 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the book Steep: The Precipitious Rise of the Tea Party a reliable source

Steep, which is published by the University of California Press and written by Lawrence Rosenthal, head of the Center for Comparative Studies of Right-Wing Institutions at Berkeley, and Christine Trost, the program director,, has a section about Robertson and the teaparty.org on pp. 73-75.

Robertson is decribed in numerous sources and received outsized media attention during the incipient stages of the TPm. Even so, a number of editors have been arguing for the exclusion of Robertson from any mention in the article. This academic source would seem to establish notability, along with other sources. SilkTork suggested filing here in relation to this question--broadly construed--regarding another source (MJ opinion article) that would appear to be of lesser stature. Please refer to the related discussion Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Dale_Robertson_and_teaparty.org--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinion column by Stephanie Mencimer in Mother Jones

Gosh it would be nice if you noted the 'actual discussion points rather than giving a somewhat mislearing version thereof. No one at all has questioned "Steep" as meeting RS. The part you elide is the use of an opinion from Mother Jones, properly cited as an opinion, which called Robertson "bogus" etc. If we have Robertson in the article, it is clear that the MJ opinion is notable, reliably sourced, and proper. And that is the actual focus of the "reliable source" issue on that page. Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Mother_Jones_Magazine_as_a_reliable_source is the salient discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion as I read it involved Mother Jones opinion of this individual not a discussion of Steep. Perhaps the section could be renamed appropriately.Capitalismojo (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Then correct me if I'm wrong, but your description seems to impute that your intent on having the MJ opinion piece recognized as RS was so that you could make recourse to its statement that Robertson is "bogus" in order to disqualify everything that any other reliable source has to say about him, thereby denigrating or outright dismissing other even more reliable sources than opinion pieces in marginal new media.

Furthermore, I do not approve of the subsection you've created, as it distracts from what this thread is aimed at resolving.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Collect. The attempt by Ubikwit to steer the discussion toward reliability of the book by Rosenthal & Trost is just a teensy bit disingenuous. The two debates here, which make up the overall debate that Ubikwit has become exercised about, are (A) an opinion column by Stephanie Mencimer in Mother Jones about Robertson, and (B) whether Robertson is notable enough to be discussed in a top-level article about the Tea Party movement. Most believe Robertson belongs in a spin-off article we are preparing, which will probably be called "Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party," but the debate about (B) doesn't even have any business being discussed here at RSN because it's a content dispute. Also, there is absolutely no issue regarding the reliability of the book by Rosenthal & Trost. The real question here is about Mencimer's op-ed column, and its use in the spin-off article. I would suggest that if it's clearly attributed to Mencimer and labeled as an op-ed column, it can be used. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

And you are attempting to deflect the discussion in another, that being bigotry.

Robertson is not, in fact, notable only for his bigoted signs, but as the publication that is the subject of this thread documents, his was the founder of a Tea Party organization with a significant following, and was frequently sought out by the news media before his fall from grace.

You claim that there is no question about the reliability of the book Steep, but you would exclude the material included therein about Robertson while including the material from the MJ piece???

Am I missing something in that logic?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, you're missing something: the main question is whether Robertson is notable enough to go into the main article, or whether he should only be discussed in the spin-off article. It seems that consensus at the Talk page favors the idea of limiting the Robertson discussion to the spin-off article. Anyway, it's a garden variety content dispute, not really a question of source reliability, right? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP applies on talk pages as well, so you might want to rethink your "bigoted" statement above.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Make a two-step process into a one-step process

In consideration of the fact that the status of Steep (2012) as a "reliable" source has been declared to be uncontested, rather than filing a new thread on the reliability of the MJ article, maybe I can ask the following question in this forum.

In light of the material in Steep on Robertson, is the characterization in the title of the above mentioned MJ opinion piece (January 2010) Wash Post Quotes Bogus Tea Party Leader of Robertson as "Bogus" grounds for excluding the material in Steep on Robertson from the article. A quote from the MJ article states

If the paper had bothered to assign someone to cover the burgeoning Tea Party movement, its editors would have known that Robertson doesn't actually represent anyone, except maybe himself.

The section in Steep starts with the following passage.

The 1776 Tea Party, also known as TeaParty.org, is the national faction most directly connected to the anti-immigrant movement(my emphasis). Its corporate headquarters are in Woodland, Texas, north of the Houston area, where a Texas certificate of formation of nonprofit corporation was filed in February 2009. Its staff positions are situated in California. With 12,458 online members as of June 1, 2011...

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Question Reading your bit from Steep, I now wonder about the accuracy of this. A quick search shows that the California office is just a FEDEX pmb location, and what does "online members" even mean? Unique visitors? Email list? Current donors? Made up number? I don't know, perhaps you have and could share additional info or refs? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I graduated from the flagship University of the UC system located in the city in which the some of the UC Press offices are located and often walked past the building, here is a link addresses .

Online members refers to the fact that TeaParty.org was a website based national organization, as far as I can gather from the information available. Note that the organization was based in Texas but run by staff located in California, probably where the IT infrastructure was located.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously books written by experts in their field and published by universities are reliable sources. This work came up because its description of teaparty.org appears to differ from that in a Mother Jones editorial published several years earlier. TFD (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Opinion pieces in Sanctions against Iran

Please see an ongoing rfc here. The article is riddled with opinion pieces, many of which are used improperly. In particular, two opinion pieces are attributed to the publications themselves. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Can a fansite ever be considered as a reliable source? - ToonZone

I am re-posting this question (that I had originally asked a week ago), since it was archived without receiving any replies, aside from one by an editor who had already discussed the matter with me. We need the opinions of other editors, so please weigh in!

As I was working on the article Ed, Edd n Eddy, I noticed that it was using toonzone.net as a reference. I know that this website has received some opposition on this board before and initially, I was quite skeptical of it myself. Having discussed the matter with an editor who supports the website though, I've been unable to come to much of a conclusion on it either way. It appears to be a fansite of sorts, which is why I am hesitant about using it, but if any fansite could ever be considered as a reliable source, it would probably be this one.

Now, I'm not sure that any of the writers have credentials apart from their work on the website, but they do seem to comprise a "staff" of sorts. While it doesn't seem that this is a full time job for any of them (this page classifies them as "volunteers"), they do have specific titles and duties. This page mentions news editors, reporters, moderators, graphic designers, administrators, and webmasters. Also, as opposed to just reporting rumors or information that they get from other publications, this page (unfortunately, the original page from ToonZone seems to have gone dead, but there is no reason to doubt that it was transcribed correctly) indicates that the website actually engages in its own investigative journalism. The main reason why I think that ToonZone might possibly constitute a reliable source is because of the incredible reputation that it has managed to acquire. This link includes praise from two-dozen professionals in the field of animation and quite a few professional publications have even used the website as a source. Here are the links.

• Time
• The Atlantic
• The A.V. Club
• Gawker
• Crunchyroll
• Space.com
• Anime News Network
• Bleacher Report
• MovieWeb
• Scoop
• Moviefone

Apparently the website has also been cited by The Oakland Tribune, The Chicago Sun-Times, and The Kansas City Star, although I have not actually seen links for those. I'm definitely opposed to using critical reviews from ToonZone on Misplaced Pages, but am unsure whether it might be suitable for referencing certain pieces of information. In this article specifically, it is being used to cite a description of what happened during a panel at Comic-Con. In any practical sense at least, I don't see why the website should not be considered as reliable for this kind of information; it's not exactly difficult to accurately write down something that was said at Comic-Con and the above sources all see the writers for ToonZone as trustworthy. I recognize though, that the website might not meet everybody's standards and since Ed, Edd n Eddy is a Featured Article, I feel like there should be a consensus on this if it is to remain as a reference. --Jpcase (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well i am familiar with that site and i've always just viewed it as a forum/blog not a reliable source for anything. Just my two cents. I call the big one bitey (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Oran Arslan

This is used as almost the sole source for this article . Can it be considered a reliable source? I have never heard of Oran Arslan, it appears to be non-peer-reviewed, and there is no bibliography. It is entirely in Turkish, except for the abstract at the very last page, which is in English. The language therein leads me to believe that this is neither neutral nor reliable. Thanks in advance. Athenean (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Found the page for Oran Arslan . I don't see any publications in international peer-reviewed journals. She also appears to contribute to this Armenian Genocide denying institution . Athenean (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution