Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:15, 26 August 2014

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

Properly sourcing standards documents

This discussion is intended to be general in nature not specific to any one source, article, or individual content. Please place any response below the first comment and not between paragraphs to keep the subject for discussion from fragmenting and becoming incomprehensible to new arrivals. Thanks!

I've run into a big problem in how to properly source articles on standard documents (such as national standards, international standards, industry standards, etc). They fit in this strange no-mans land of wiki policy/guidelines. They're not quite manuals, not quite journals, not quite laws, not quite primary, but not quite secondary, etc. They're obviously of import and valuable information for an encyclopedia but at the same time difficult to "fit" into any sort of existing guidance. As a result of their unique qualities sourcing of information along existing wiki policy/guidelines is proving to be difficult. The problem I'm encounter is, what I'm calling, an Intersubjective verifiability paradox meaning concepts can be accurate, reproducible, verifiable, and considered true; simultaneously they are also inaccurate, unreproducible, unverifiable, and considered false. What I mean by that, in the context of standards and sourcing, is that any secondary source which Misplaced Pages would normally consider reliable will always be both verifiable and unverifiable.

Because such standards documents are standardizations of concepts and not iterations of all possibilities within their scope they function in much the same way as laws do. A law which simply states "Killing is illegal" would have the common understanding that it is against the law to kill someone. It would be verifiable, accurate, etc. At the same time as it remaining verifiable, it could also be verifiable that it is not illegal to kill if by accident or duress or if the thing you killed as for food (but if not if a human), etc. The more abstract the more can be verifiable and unverifiable depending on the perspective. In law there are lawyers/judges to argue/determine what is/is not meant by the words/spirit of the law. Then there are academics who study these rulings and often provide excellent secondary sources. In the case of standards they are often more ambiguous than laws (to be more inclusive in scope), there are no rulings or objective analyses, and the academics are often the ones creating the standards not studying them.

Without the reliable secondary sources the only ones that remain are applications of a standard. These are specific to perspective, context, applications within the standard and anything verifiable to that application may also be unverifiable to another application. Any academic/industry analyses not only suffer the same problems, they are even more unreliable as sources because they have a conflict of interest. They may be influencing the development/interpretation of the subject through their analysis despite not being the only valid one (e.g. of similar: politician stating a legal analysis may intentionally or unintentionally influence a case but it's not a reliable source on the law, even if they wrote it).

The closest guidance for this type of situation that I've read to balancing view points/weighting. How does one give weight to conflicting but equally verifiable applications of a standard to be able to summarize the standard itself? Example:

• 1 - reliable sources 1-50 say: "Minor widget maker paints widgets red to comply with international standard of colours for widgets"
• 2 - reliable sources 51-85 say "Major widget maker paints widgets green to comply with international standard of colours for widgets"
• 3 - reliable sources 86-100 say: "Other Major widget maker paints widgets blue to comply with international standard of colours for widgets".

From a balance perspective, all other things being equal, you can't really balance those. If you take the perspective of volume of sources, #1 is the majority view, #2 is the minority view, and #3 is not worth writing about. If you take the perspective of significance of company, #2 is the majority, #3 is the minority, and #1 isn't worth including. You can't really balance them because they may, in addition to being verifiable, also be accurate. Anything you dismiss, for any reason, would have an original research type of effect (ie: changing the meaning through editorializing) - If you find a source that says large widgets should be green with yellow dots, it will still be in the minority and could even be considered to be "fringe" regardless of the accuracy or verifiability. (or it devolves into a "synthesized truth" vs "weighted falsehood" argument)

Assuming for the moment balancing can't be accomplished, with that scenario, summarizing based on those sources can't say anything more than "International standard of colours for widgets resulted in widgets being painted red, green, and blue." You can't say why, or if it's required or just recommended, or if other colours are in the standard, or if in fact green widgets #2 makes are supposed to have yellow dots because they're large widgets not small widgets. The only method you could then use is to begin iteration of possibilities which is absurd and will likely still fail to summarize anything properly.

Even under the exceptions made in the "primary sources" policy one can't summarize the vast majority of standards without "special knowledge" or synthesis. Taking W3C standard for HTML4.01 which is a collection of hundreds of html pages that, even if treated as a single entity, specifies definitions from RFCs & ISO standards, sets definitions outside the common understanding, etc. It would be likely too massive to do as a single article on wikipedia, but if forked would require synthesis because definitions would be listed separate from individual concepts. ISO standards are nicely divided by concept, provide references as needed, etc. perfect for creating encyclopedic content. Except that they have a "directives" document to indicate what is normative/informative/etc, how to interpret words, how structure influences interpretation, so on and so forth. That special knowledge and combining of documents results in OR. Verifiability through synthesis, example: "the standard can be used for colouring widgets in 16 colours and 4 patterns, exampled by 1/2/3 widget maker articles", is ultimately OR since only interpreting the standard explains how many colours/patterns there are, when they're used, etc. Documents which do state such things in explicit enough detail to represent the standard to a reasonable degree of accuracy are similarly not reliable under wiki guidance because they are merely repeating/parroting the source.

If secondary sources are out due to the "intersubjective verifiability paradox" and primary sources are out due to original research, I can think of no way to produce quality articles on these topics. Skimming through dozens of articles already on wikipedia, not a single one was even remotely cited properly. Given the relative importance, influence, and widespread adoption of such documents and their inconsistent quality on Misplaced Pages I bring this to the noticeboard for proper discussion. I have a view to pursue creation of new subject based policy or guideline like WP:RSMED that applies only to sourcing for normative documents/standards. I would prefer not pursue that, rather that discussion here results in a clear approach within existing guidelines.

Notes: I am aware that my opinion of the importance/non-existence of quality sources/etc are not substantiated and as such should be assumed to be incorrect. I base this opinion on observations and personal experience researching not omniscient powers ;)

Thanks in advance for your time/thought on this. Please place comments below. Cheers JMJimmy (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

We are allowed to cite primary sources (we just have to do so with care). An article about a specific standards document would be a case where it would be appropriate to mention the key provisions contained within that document (quoting or closely paraphrasing it)... and for such statements it would be appropriate to cite the document itself (a document is the most reliable source possible for a statement as to the contents of the document). We would then turn to secondary sources for analysis and discussion of how that standard is interpreted.

In a more generalized article (say the article on Widgets), it might be appropriate to quote and cite a specific standards document... and compare it to other specific standards documents. When doing so it is best to attribute (saying something like... "According to the International Widgets Standards, published by the International Widget Makers Assoc., widgets should be painted red <cite XYZ>. ) Then this can be compared to any contrasting documents. (saying: "However, according to Standards and Practices of Widgets, published by the Widget Manufacturers of North America, widgets should be painted green.") Again, a primary document can be mentioned and cited for a statement as to the specific contents of that doucment... however, once you shift to analysis or interpretation of the document, you need a secondary source.

Finally... it helps to look deeper into why the secondary sources disagree... and that is where looking at the primary documents can help. One reason for the disagreement in secondary sources might be the fact that there are actually competing standards... However, another might be that the standards have changed over time (perhaps widget standards said "red" from 1947 to 1962... changed in 1962 to "green"... and in 2013 changed again to "blue" (which might explain why there are so few secondary sources that say "blue"... there hasn't been time for the secondary sources to catch up with reality. Blueboar (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I responded to the bulk of your comment below, I just wanted to address time specifically because it's very true that it takes a long time to catch up to reality. A scenario I've encountered was a standard that was in place for 22 years and stated what it applied without doubt. In 2 revisions the standard removed the explicit declaration and expanded the standard to be more inclusive. 10-14 years after those changes the overwhelming majority of secondary sources have not caught up with the changes. Those few that have are personal websites with no value as wiki sources despite their extremely high quality content. Even assuming I was wrong, there were direct conflicts that require no interpretation and made said bulk unreliable (or they were members of the issuing organization). JMJimmy (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of this would fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I think standards and manuals and such are undeniably useful and important to the wider world, but we don't necessarily need that material repeated verbatim and wholesale in the encyclopaedia, sourced to the primary material alone. And the OP is correct that an editor summarizing multiple ISO standards with their own analysis and ad hoc personal comparisons of dissimilar standards would be OR. But secondary sources are not "out". Your paradox only comes from a misunderstanding of "verifiability". We don't demand that a secondary source verify or prove its claims are truth. It just has to be clearly verifiable that a better reliable source said it, and we report that. Verifying a claim is ultimately true is often impossible, verifying the source said that claim is commonly possible. As far as your "red, green, blue" scenario, if sources make different claims in the exact way you suggested, then an article should just mention all three claims and not summarise it as if only one happened. If there's disagreement among equally reliable sources or nuance, then the summary should reflect that disagreement and nuance. In fact, if you read your own description, you were able to summarize the views and positions of the various reliable sources and widget makers quite handily yourself within two paragraphs, in your own comment! That's what an article should do.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I was very careful to use verifiable and accuracy as not to bring issues of truth into the discussion. Verifiable I use mean that a source directly supports the statement being made (not states word for word but does not require interpretation). Accuracy I use to mean to be reasonably faithful to the spirit of the document and not obviously contrary to it, as not promote misleading/incomplete/bad information (Jimbo's "no information is better than bad information"). To that end the desire is to create quality encyclopedic content, not every minutia of every standard. The "disagreement and nuance" could be subject to dozens or even hundreds of accurate perspectives. This is EXACTLY the problem: "you were able to summarize the views and positions of the various reliable sources and widget makers quite handily yourself". I did not summarize it at all, without using the primary source and the OR required to read it, I have no source which tells me that there are an additional 13 colours or that there are patterns at all. Any attempt to claim the 64 different possibilities (16*4) would require 64 articles of that nature each describing a different colour/pattern combination, or one which directly supports the full claim (which would have to be academic or an industry specific publication which would be unreliable for the reasons mentioned in the OP). This brings in Blueboar's comments... looking at why the sources disagree is that they will always disagree if they at all different in their application of the standard (meaning compliant with, but not subject to all parts). A simple fictional example of this is

• Part 1: General (IX75)
• Part 2.1: Plasma Displays
• Part 2.2: Monitors
• Part 2.3: LCD Displays

If you have a reliable source stating "IX75 compliant LCD displays are commonly Class 2" and another stating "IX75 compliant displays are commonly Class 1" and another stating "IX75 compliant LCDs are Class 0". All of them are accurate to the IX75 standard, verifiable and no other secondary source exists relevant to this part of the standard. What can you summarize about the standard? At most: IX75 standard specifies a Class for LCDs, displays, and LCD displays. This is bad information (summary makes no sense). What the standard actually says in this scenario is:

• Part 1: General (IX75) - All displays in this standard are class 1 and exempt from IX007 unless otherwise specified
• Part 2.1: Plasma Displays - Commonly "Plasma TVs" that are not monitors (2.2) shall be a minimum of 23 inches
• Part 2.2: Monitors - Plasma monitors and LCD monitors are less than 23 inches. LCD monitors shall be Class 0
• Part 2.3: LCD Displays - Commonly "LCD TVs" that are not monitors (2.2) shall be Class 2 when IX007 applies

A quality summary might be: "IX75 is an International Display Consortium standard for the minimum quality of monitors and displays that use Plasma, LCD, or similar technologies. The quality requirements are based on the Class standard. All displays under 23 inches are considered to be monitors while larger displays are considered to be TVs. In general, the standard requires displays be Class 1 quality, though LCDs monitors are held to a higher standard. LCD TVs that contain 007 chips are only required to be Class 2 as a result of the higher power requirements" - This, imo, is a good summary without coming across as a manual or indiscriminate information. It would require 3 primary sources and synthesis (interpretation document to tell you part 1 applies to subsequent parts, the IX75 standard, and the IX007 standard for the claims about power). Getting any set of reliable sources that could allow you to make that kind of quality summary would be near impossible. You'd have to source a minimum of 11 different claims, none of which are in the 3 sources. This is a *simple* example on a common subject but a more typical example on typically more abstract concepts like "Information processing - 7-bit coded charters for information interchange" would be all but impossible to source. JMJimmy (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't eliminate the use of secondary sources when you have that many primary sources at that level of technical detail. If you're at a level of detail where absolutely no secondary source exists that covers the material? At that point you are in the forest counting individual trees per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If you have thirty-two automobile manuals that all give a separate answer for the width of a certain brand of tire, and no secondary reliable source has ever cared to take up the issue ever, then generally it's probably some version of WP:ISNOT, possibly but not limited to WP:NOTMANUAL. On a case-by-case basis you can find a balance based on WP:WEIGHT. We aren't trying to exactly replicate the accuracy or degree of precision of any particular group of primary sources; if you can't summarize a level of detail, you should only point to where the reader can find the originals in their original context, or (where available) to a source that is better at summarizing them.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And we've come full circle, hence the paradox. WP:IINFO is actually where I think standards get their best support from: "Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." So not only should it be included, but it should be more detailed - without becoming a "how to" manual. I don't think WP:NOTAMANUAL applies simply because the articles are intended to be encyclopedic and they are not a "how to comply with standard XXXX" but do include general information on the contents. Regardless, consensus has already decided such documents are desired, the point of all this is what can be considered a reliable source?

• Conflict of interest. With extensive relationships, 100,000+ membership, 163 countries, and millions of individuals/companies who have implemented or have a vested interest in the standards it would be very difficult to determine what is reliable for the ISO, let alone any other standards organization (as many are interconnected)
• Long term reliability - Any revision can change in a document or any of the supporting documents can change the implication rendering all prior citations unreliable until they are updated. As mentioned before, a long term standard that once said one thing and now says another is largely not addressed in reliable sources 10-14 years later, even if its actively implemented.
• Source errors - How can one tell Patent nonsense from a quality source without a reading of the primary material? Since quality sources often cite previous sources the long term reliability issue becomes doubly problematic. Current policy would favour the bulk of material already in existence. As such, it could take a decade or more before sufficient sources to go from "fringe theory" to worthy of inclusion let alone replacing the old standard. Many are updated every 4-6 years now so wiki would be serving info at least 1-3 versions out of date.

Is there any other way of sourcing that is unaffected by these issues? JMJimmy (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone have any ideas on how to get reliable sources? JMJimmy (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

whowhatwhy.com

1. Source. Russ Baker of WhoWhatWhy, specifically http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/12/05/jfk-umbrella-man%E2%80%94more-doubts/

2. Article. Umbrella Man (JFK assassination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3. Content. Some researchers have noted a number of inconsistencies with Witt's story, however, and do not believe him to be the true "Umbrella Man."

While I have not been involved in editing the above content, I have noticed that this passage has gone in and out of the article a few times this year. Most recent removal here; most recent addition here. I am wondering how this source may be used (e.g. for statement of opinion from self or statement of fact for what another "researcher" may believe), if at all. Thanks! Location (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Edited 18:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

whowhatwhy.com is no way a reliable source for anything non-trivial (and even then ...). Alexbrn 17:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Whowhatwhy.com is not a reliable or objective source. We'd need a WP:FRIND source to report what a fringe source claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd consider this a self-published source run by an expert, former investigative journalist Russ Baker. Remove the words "some researchers" and attribute the content directly to him. (Also, you don't need to put "Umbrella Man" in quotes like that.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources can't be used for claims about living people, even if they are thought to be experts.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Per Anders Rudling

Time for Per Anders Rudling to be taken to the WP:RSN believes User:Iryna Harpy.

1. The article Per Anders Rudling has been described as multiple issues: POV and too few opinions.
2. A revert has been made

Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

See both the Per Anders Rudling article and discussion on the Per Anders Rudling talk page as to how a relevant historian is being used as a WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But what about Volhynia? Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for this. I just made a few touch-ups here and there because that's how Misplaced Pages works. See my comment at Talk:Per Anders Rudling. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• This conversation provides an overview of Rudling's "objectivity": . He's a credentialed historian but has a POV and has been caught with inaccuracies and perhaps dishonesty. He should be avoided when he makes controversial statements or claims. There are some pro-Ukrainian nationalist historians who should be treated equally carefully.Faustian (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: Yes, I appreciate that you've modified his bio a little, but I am still concerned with the use of Defending history com as a reliable source. It certainly presents as being an interest group WP:INDY. See authors, about us and even their indictment Misplaced Pages's article about them from when it was purely sourced from their own site information to being reworked with other sources. Their indictment of Timothy Snyder is a thinly veiled attack on his works and him, as a person.

In other words, while you've toned down the language to an extent on the Per Anders Rudling article, considering that the "Treatment of Ukrainian nationalism" section is based on information paraphrased from the Defending history page, I don't even see the section name as actually being relevant to the information it carries. Members of Canadian-Ukrainian community groups objecting to Rudling's public announcement infers (very, very strongly) that they are automatically "Nationalists" per Defending history's hysterical definition of 'nationalism', reflecting in that section as WP:LABEL. If Defending history org can be considered to be a WP:RS (which I don't believe to be the case), it should only be used with "according to" prefacing the opinion in the body of the article, not hidden in a footnote as has been done. Anything less can only be understood as being extremely misleading. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume that at least one community group isn't nationalistic, which one?Xx236 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Poeticbent has already addressed that issue in modifications to the article. The remaining issue is that of Defending history com (represented by the The Seventy Years Declaration article in Misplaced Pages) as a reliable source from which to base the major portion of an article (being the Per Anders Rudling biography) without questions of neutrality or a highly problematic imbalance in the content being raised. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I see how Rudling is Swedish, but how is he "Swedish-American"? --Hegvald (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea as to where that came from, nor can I see any sources for it. I can see that he's was educated predominantly in Sweden and has credentials from Canada and the US (although that doesn't actually even mean that he's had to spend any time there as primary postgrad supervisors aren't even necessarily in the same country as the candidate). Being published by the University of Pittsburgh means nothing as it's simply a matter of having an honorary position for the research quantum - a byline. Cheers for pointing that out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

" has been caught with inaccuracies" by whom? I think he should be criticized by historians, not only Misplaced Pages editors with special POV And article mentions "response to the Canadian-Ukrainian complaint about Rudling, an open letter was published in his support, signed by 38 scholars of the Holocaust and professors of leading universities supporting him, including Omer Bartov, Kristian Gerner, John-Paul Himka, Dovid Katz, Alexey Miller, Ruth Wodak, and Efraim Zuroff." So, you have to deal with all these researchers to prove Rudling POV. Cathry (talk)01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

His own words are contradictory:

Here: , an exchange in the Globe and Mail between Rudling and professor Lubomyr Luciuk in which Rudling largely smears most of the Ukrainian-Canadian community. Rudling quotes:

"Ukrainian Waffen-SS Division Galizien, a deeply anti-Semitic organization under the command of Heinrich Himmler, whose officers were trained in the Dachau concentration camp..."

• The claim that the officers were trained "in the Dachau concentration camp" is simply a lie which Rudling himself contradicts elsewhere. Rudling himself here in an interview states "Officers and NCO’s of the Waffen-SS Galizien were trained in Dachau, in the vicinity of the concentration camp." The city of Dachau, near Munich, contained the camp as well as training facilities. By lying that the officers trained in the camp, Rudling is falsely accusing military people of participating in the Holocaust.

• The Division like the entire Waffen SS was under Himmler's command. Himmler's involvement with the Division was almost nil. He approved it being formed, and reviewed it a couple of times during the war. Bringing him up is simply inflammatory.

Rudling: "In 1943-44, the UPA murdered around 100,000 Polish nationals and thousands of Jews in Volhynia and Galicia."

• This is the maximum estimate in the range. Consensus among sources is 40,000-60,000 in Volhynia and 25,000-40,000 in Galicia (this is covored extensively in Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia). If an apologist for UPA stated that it killed "about 65,000 Poles" (the lowest estimate) he would rightly be accused of bias. Rudling just gives the ceiling figure, demonstrating that he is biased.Faustian (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have read this, but you tell your own conclusions, do you find same in academical works? Cathry (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Cathry, have you actually bothered to read the entire discussion so far, or have you just not understood it? You've just re-quoted an article from a site being discussed as being unreliable. "response to the Canadian-Ukrainian complaint about Rudling, an open letter was published in his support, signed by 38 scholars of the Holocaust and professors of leading universities supporting him, including Omer Bartov, Kristian Gerner, John-Paul Himka, Dovid Katz, Alexey Miller, Ruth Wodak, and Efraim Zuroff." is from that very site: Defending history com. In other words, you are presenting Rudling as being 'right' according to the interpretation of a spurious site. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is it "spurious"? Well. this is ok site? http://hnn.us/article/155618 And here (http://www.academia.edu/2763263/_The_Honor_They_So_Clearly_Deserve_Legitimizing_the_Waffen-SS_Galizien_The_Journal_of_Slavic_Military_Studies_26_1_2013_114-137) Rudling also mentions Tarik Cyril Amar, John-Paul Himka, Dovid Katz, JaredMcBride, Andreas Umland, who co-work with him. Cathry (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Unpublished (but circulated) manuscripts

I have obtained a copy of an unpublished biography of former Congressman Rousseau Owen Crump and mayor from the public library in Bay City, MI (where Crump lived). It was written by his son-in-law, Victor Killick (a statistician by profession, not an historian or biographer) about 60 years after Crump's death. Although unpublished, copies of the manuscript has been circulated (the original is in the State Archives).

Since this is the only lengthy biography of Crump, it's a notable source. It passes WP:V. But would it be a reliable source in any shape or form? Guettarda (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it's unpublished it's not going to be useful as a means to verify any claims in an article. If it were published it could (at least) be a reliable source as to what the author thought of the former Congressman. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:V says that Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form", with a footnote that says "This includes material such as documents in publicly-accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see." So it certainly meets the minimum definition of a published source. Guettarda (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Next question: How did you obtain a copy, and in what way was it made available to the public? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Bay City public library has a copy that's available in their reading room, but which does not circulate. I have a photocopy of their copy, which was either made by library staff or by my father-in-law himself (I didn't ask who actually made the photocopy). Technically, I suppose I obtained the document by picking it up from a side table in my father-in-law's house where it sat alongside a collection of Crump-related memorabilia. Guettarda (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

At best, it's WP:SPS, which means the main problems are probably arguing that there's due weight for any original material found in it. The fact that it's in an archive helps verify authorship, in the same way as a person-of-note's papers, or accounts recorded in a family bible. That article, Rousseau Owen Crump, already looks fairly well-sourced already. What material is the source being proposed as the citation for?__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was about my take on it as a source, but I wanted to see what other people, who think about this kind of thing more than me, had to think. I don't actually have a lot of specific information I wanted to source from the manuscript at this point in time - it's more a matter of trying to figure out what I have to work with. To begin with, I want to work through the article and add inline sources. Since Killick's manuscript is among the sources currently listed I figured I should sort out whether it was an appropriate source or not before I added inline attribution. Guettarda (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The book itself—the actual copy in the library—is pretty cleanly along the border of "available to the public." If, as I'm assuming, the photocopy includes the title and page numbers etc. so that you can see that it really does come from this book (which would address the possibility that your father-in-law got his Bay City book photocopies mixed up with others), I'd say we can be reasonably confident that it is what it seems to be. I'd call it reliable for most non-extreme claims. When in doubt, attribute. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest caution to the idea you would add it to as a sole in-line citation for that existing material. It might make the material presumably taken from more reliable sources look like it was only taken from the family biography, Citations should give people greater confidence in the material, not less. If the article started looking like it was mostly backed up by the SPS, then I could see material being challenged or removed on that basis, which is the opposite of what you're intending.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically, if the existing article material came from non-self-published reliable sources, be careful not to add a mass of citations that might confuse readers about whether it was only found in that family-written self-published source.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I'm sorry if I was unclear. My goal is to cite material to the best source available (which obviously isn't Killick, unless there's nothing better). And if I end up citing Killick, I will make sure that it's obvious that it's "according to Killick" (in some shape or form). Guettarda (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Long River Press

What kind of "publisher" is this? Is this just some place where anyone can get their stuff published? Print on demand?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been unable to find much useful information on Long River Press, beyond what is clearly promotional material: "Founded in 2002, Long River Press is an independent small press publishing fiction and nonfiction on all aspects of Chinese history, culture, and society. With editorial offices located in the San Francisco Bay Area and production facilities located in China, Long River Press draws upon the best editorial and technical resources of American and Chinese publishers to produce books of enduring quality for the publishing trade, museum stores, and both a general and academic readership. With an emphasis on fiction, history, art, philosophy, and language, the goal of Long River Press is to broaden its ever-widening audience of individuals developing or cultivating an interest in China." As to whether material published by them is RS, we'd need more specific information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Long River Press is an established publisher and part of the Perseus Books group, specifically their academic division. They're almost certainly a reliable source where used. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Perseus Academic distributes some Long River Press books, specifically academic books about China. Consortium Book Sales & Distribution, which is a division of Perseus, also distributes their books. So I think the reliability of their books should be the same as whichever division of Perseus distributes them. TFD (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Nepalese American

I am writing about two sources presently used at the Nepalese American article, these are the Bhutan News Service and the website Bhutan Refugees that presently appears to be a dead link. Significant amount of the section "Bhutanese American (group of people of Nepali origin)" appears to be uncited using footnotes, and before removing per WP:BURDEN, I want to see what others think about the content and presently used sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I would be cautious about removal, even though the two Bhutan sources look weak. One issue is that a big chunk of that material seems to be primarily supported by CNN rather than the sources you're questioning. It could probably be reworked to more directly reflect the claims made in the CNN source, rather than outright removal, which would probably be seen as contentious. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! While we've got fresh eyes on the page is everyculture.com a reliable source? They are published by Advameg, and their articles have bibliographies, but I am not seeing any footnotes stating what content is verified by what source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own author's film review?

On the page for America: Imagine the World Without Her (Dinesh D'Souza's political documentary), there is a talk page agreement to add a positive review to the otherwise negative (and liberal) "Critical response" section, but the review of the most prominent full time professional critic to positively review the film, Breitbart's Christian Toto, is being rejected by an editor on the grounds that the source is supposedly questionable (not because of the quote's content). Breitbart is a news/opinion site employing reporters and a large editorial team that currently ranks #41 on Alexa's ranking of global news sites, but this isn't about its fitness as a news source. This is a section dedicated to attributed subjective opinions. The other sources currently used in the section include The A.V. Club (which is operated by The Onion, a satirical site), rogerebert.com (film opinion blog), and two quotes from Huffington Post columnists (the liberal equivalent of Breitbart).

Breitbart routinely publishes film reviews, often by its feature entertainment writer Christian Toto. Toto is a professional film critic who is frequently quoted by Rotten Tomatoes and included in RT aggregations (complete with links to his Breitbart reviews). He wrote for the Washington Times for years, and was hired by Breitbart a couple of years ago as a columnist, associate entertainment editor, and feature reviewer. He's a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association and other professional organizations. This particular review was cited in newspaper coverage.

It seems to me that Breitbart is clearly a reliable source in this context, and there's no basis for excluding it or Toto on pure sourcing grounds. Thoughts? VictorD7 (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Be bold! Include it and attribute it clearly. Also for balance since there are two from the HuffPo, find another non-liberal source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Opinions properly sourced and cited as opinions are not related to "bad news source" or "good news source" - they stand on their own. Collect (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Government Sources

This question was originally posted at Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources. I am reposting here as it seems like the more appropriate place to ask.

Hi. I have a question about the reliability of government sources. I've noticed several government sources in articles (e.g. NASA in astronomy-related articles; HMIe reports in UK education-related articles; RCAHMS in articles on Scottish monuments; etc.). My question is, are all sources produced by a government considered to be reliable? For example, I consider the information produced by my government to be reliable, but wouldn't place the same trust in the government of North Korea - that's not to say Misplaced Pages feels the same. Conversely, it's possible Misplaced Pages doesn't consider any government sources to be reliable. Thank you in advance for your help. --Adam Black 18:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No, not all government sources are per se reliable or unreliable. It depends on the concrete context, that is which (type of) government, which source and about what. Even for the same government the reliability of a source can vary greatly. For instance using Nasa to source various astronomical or geographical stuff is fine, various EPA publications on pollution might be become slightly iffy already and a US government source for people killed during the Iraq war is already rather questionable. However it also depends whether you want to describe something like (undisputed) fact or attribute it as opinion or partisan source. In Nasa case you probably use it for (undisputed) factual description, in the EPA case an explicit attribution (according to EPA) might be required already and for US government source on the deaths in Iraq it certainly is.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

In general, most government sources are good for straight facts. The U.S. State Department's web site is often cited on Misplaced Pages. But yes, if there's information in which any of these governments would have incentive to lie or fudge the numbers, like Kmhkmh's example of the U.S. government and Iraqi casualties, then yes, question it. I'd include something like that in an article as, "According to the U.S. government there were X casualties but according to Other Source, there were Y" or in some other form that acknowledges the possibility that the content is inaccurate, treating it almost like an SPS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That really helps. I notice though that Kmhkmh said that it also depends on the type of government. Personally, I would consider something published by a dictatorship or an absolute monarchy to be unreliable and something published by a democratic state to generally be reliable dependent on the context - is that what you mean? Also, my local library has a lot of reports published by South Lanarkshire Council, Clydesdale District Council, Strathclyde Regional Council and the County of Lanark. They mostly cover things like public spending, education and election results but there's also a lot of interesting information about listed buildings, public figures and local customs that could be used to flesh out several[REDACTED] articles. Would those reports be considered reliable? --Adam Black 20:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Depending on the material you want to add, they could be perfectly reliable. Depends on the actual article material. They are generally considered primary sources, so an article shouldn't rely too heavily on them, for WP:DUEWEIGHT reasons. They also generally shouldn't be used by themselves for claims about living people.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Blogspot: duggarsblog

Source: http://duggarsblog.blogspot.com, specifically birthday page and this article.
Article: 19 Kids and Counting
Content: Birthday page is being used to source the majority of table, specifically the middle names and birthdays. The article is being argued as a source for the home births of Jinger and Joseph (unsourced in this diff).

Scope: The scope of this posting is only to discuss if this blog is considered a reliable source. Other disagreement between IP-65 and myself has spanned multiple pages, including: article, talk page, user pages, SPI, AN3, and DRN. I bring discussion to this page only to conclude if blog can be used as a source, not for any other issues.

Details/Discussion:

On 23 June 2014, I noticed blog is being used as the primary source for the table of names and birthdays. After a little bit of research, I found that the blogspot page is ran by two fans who list no journalism experience and have no editorial team (see Contact Us page). Another words, the two fans were self-publishing their blog. Furthmore, this issue falls under WP:BLP because source is being used to give information on 19 living people. Per WP:SPS: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people" (emphasis from page). I easily found the given names and birthdays on other websites, but didn't have that luck with the middle names. However, instead of removal, I decided to use the {{Better source}} tag (diff), hoping someone would be able to locate a better source.

Nothing further happened regarding this source for almost two months until 20 August. IP-72 removed the tag, claiming in the edit summary "If it's the Duggar's own blog (and thus coming straight from the horse's mouth) I don't think you can get a better source than that." I reconfirmed my previous research showing that blog was not run by the family. I then reverted the change with edit summary "... no- it's not the family's blog - it's an unofficial blog ran by two Canadian women unrelated to the family". As of right now, IP-72 has not come back to this article.

However, IP-65, who's disagreed with me multiple times, decided to challenge my edit. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4 – each time inserting the note: "<!--- This blog is sanctioned by Duggar Family. They have given exclusive interviews to owners Lily/Ellie. L/E were both invited to and attended Jill's wedding. See this http://duggarsblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/on-our-way-to-arkansas.html and http://duggarsblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/exclusive-duggar-wedding-details-part-1.html --->".
Various justifications in the edit summaries included: 1) "'duggarsblog' is sanctioned by family. they give it interviews. they were invited to jill's wedding." 2) "... i put the note in to let public know. the site does have exclusives and affiliation w duggars. ..." 3) "... leave the notation. ididnot delte the 'better source ' tag you added. thisnote lets it be known that this is not just a random fansite."
I considered IP-65's justifications a bit odd since the 'public' would not see this note because "<!--- --->" makes it only visible to editors. In fact the note look like it's something that may belong on a talk page and not in the actual article. In subsequent revert, I stated: "if you want to discuss, do so on the talk pages - not invisible comments on the article". IP-65 and I are still in disagreement on this.

The second page from the blog came up on DRN when Kkj11210 requested IP-65 to provide sources for various additions. The source IP-65 provided for the home births of Jinger and Joseph was the blog article (there might be other sources, but for this page, question is only about the blog). I stated the blog can't be used. IP-65 has given the following justifications: 01:44, 23 August – "duggarsblog is sanctioned by the duggar family. They have given multiple interviews to teh blog owners ellie/lily and invited ellie/lily to jill's wedding." 03:33, 23 August – "From the books and the tv show is where ellie/lily got the information that jinger/joseph were homebirths. In addition Michelle was interviewed by ellie/lily and tolf them this. Duggarsblog is sanctioned by the Duggar Family that is why I feel it is beyond WPSPS. They Duggar Family gives interviews and pictures to the owners ellie/lily ." 00:40, 24 August – "The blog is sanctioned by the family and the family gives it exclusives, pictures, and interviews. The blog needs to be used."

To me it seems like a simple case of self-published blog regarding WP:BLP is not allowed. But IP-65 disagrees and has stated "The blog needs to be used." So thus, posting here to hopefully decide, once and for all, if the blog is a reliable source or not.

Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Are Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity sources independent of the Lucy Burns Institute?

1. Source. Palmer, Kevin (2-1-2013). "Local Ballot Initiatives: Learn How To Promote Democracy In Your Community". Watchdog Wire. Retrieved 11 August 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Article. Lucy Burns Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3. Content. "LBI published a guide called Local Ballot Initiatives: How Citizens Change Laws with Clipboards, Conversations, and Campaigns, in November 2012. The booklet provides an overview of how individual citizens can use the initiative process at the local level."

The talk page debate was about whether the source has a conflict of interest and should therefore be treated as questionable. To aid in this discussion, consider the following evidence gathered at the article talk page. It is also worth mentioning that the source uses strongly promotional language. Just read the last 2-3 paragraphs. IMO this source is more or less a press release masquerading as legitimate journalism. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Evidence that Watchdog.org is closely affiliated with LBI

• Watchdog.org and LBI were launched by a husband-wife team

• Watchdog.org is a project of the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity
• The Franklin Center was launched with seed money from the Sam Adams Alliance
• Sam Adams' chairman and CEO was Eric O'Keefe
• LBI's president and founder is Leslie Graves
• Graves and O'Keefe are married

• Watchdog.org and LBI have shared key personnel

• Control of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia switched from husband's Sam Adams to wife's LBI in 2009
• Before the change in control Jason Stverak was the Regional Field Director of the Sam Adams Alliance
• Also in 2009 Stverak became president of the Franklin Center (which runs Watchdog.org)
• Stverak is also the president of Watchdog.org

• Watchdog.org and LBI have shared common funding

• Control of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia switched from husband's Sam Adams to wife's LBI in 2009
• The Franklin Center was launched with seed money from husband's Sam Adams in 2009
• Also in 2009, the Franklin Center paid LBI $43,413
• Watchdog.org is a project of the Franklin Center
• Husband's Sam Adams also funded wife's LBI

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Peters, Justin. "'Serious, point-of-view journalism'?". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
2. ^ "About". Watchdog.org.
3. ^ Kosterlitz, Julie (December 12, 2009). "Conservative Watchdogs Awake". National Journal.
4. "The Sam Adams Project". New York Times. July 19, 2008. Retrieved March 27, 2012.
5. "Our Staff". Lucy Burns Institute.
6. ^ Graves, Leslie. "About".
7. Murphy, Bruce (June 12, 2014). "The mystery of Eric O'Keefe". Isthmus.
8. ^ "Lucy Burns Institute is the new sponsor of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia". Lucy Burns Institute. July 1, 2009.
9. "Jason Stverak". Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity.
10. "Jason Stverak". LinkedIn.
11. Schoffstall, Joe (April 12, 2013). "Watchdog Group Sued For $85 Million by Terry McAullife's Green Car Company in Libel Claim". CNS News.
12. Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity, Form 990 (PDF), p. 22
13. Sam Adams Alliance, Form 990 (PDF), p. 30

Discussion

If you wish to make specific claims in articles, find sources making those precise claims, and seek consensus on the appropriate article talk pages for inclusion of such claims. This board is not the place to set forth an extended argument about any topic. Individual articles already include appropriate (apparently) information about any connections with other organizations. From here, it is clear that the publications of each group are independent, and that your apparent cavil would require specific agreement on article talk pages and not here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I do not "wish to make specific claims in articles" as you suggest. Rather, I'm seeking to establish the unreliability of a specific source listed at the top of my original post. This issue has been discussed at length on the article talk page and no consensus has been reached. RSN would therefore be the appropriate place to go to resolve the dispute, no? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And you will not find this board issuing an "unreliable" label for any organization - especially one routinely cited in major media. states the employment of statehouse journalists by the center. It is regularly cited in the Opinion pages of the NYT. More to the point, this is the first time anyone has questioned it as RS here.

I see no reason to deem LBI as less than RS for material written by identified authors. The theory of "conflict of interest" is interesting but invalid here.

Watchdog Wire is much like "Media Matters for America" - better as a source for its own opinion than for matters of contentious fact. Saying someone published a pamphlet is not exactly a "contentious claim" IMHO.

"Ballotpedia" is a different matter. It is used in many places, but due to its intrinsic nature, I would not use it as a source for any contentious facts about a living person. It is a wiki, and no wikis are "reliable sources."

WP:RS states among non-RS groups: This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.

So the reliability has naught to do with anything about parentage of a site, but the nature of the site. Material which is generated by outside users fails, material which is provided by staff of a site may well be RS. All the stuff about sites being connected in some way is actually irrelevant on this noticeboard with regard to deeming a site RS or not RS for a particular claim. Is this expansion clearer?

Checking online sources, I would wager a great deal that the pamphlet exists and was, indeed, published by the LBI. If you consider that particular claim "contentious" I fear I would demur. Collect (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you read WP:QS? The conflict of interest issue isn't my "theory," it's actually WP policy. (Even the most otherwise reliable sources have conflicts of interest.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Um -- are you asserting that the claim that the organization published a pamphlet is "contentious"? If not, then WP:QS simply does not apply. Are you asserting that the claim is "extremist" in some way? If not, then your cavil fails. Are you positing that the source is "gossip or rumour"? What "conflict of interest" is there in a statement of fact that an organization published a pamphlet? None. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

How is any of this relevant? Per WP:V, questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, and WP:3PARTY#Conflicts of interest suggests that the conflict should be disclosed in our article. Regardless, if the content is both non-contentious and noteworthy then there should be independent sources supporting it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The source is Reliable for the (unimaginably bland) factual content presented above. The supposed conflict of interest, isn't. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't what? A conflict of interest? Why not?--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No conflict of interest has been established with the supposed evidence above. The theory of COI proposed does not, in fact, match WP policy even if broadly stretched past its ordinary understanding. The evidence of "shared staff" failed verification. The conflict of interest isn't. The evidence seems to show more of assumption about a woman's role or OR conspiracy theory than responsible discussion of Reliable Sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Most importantly the source is certainly and painfully obviously RS for the specific content under discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sourcers and scholarship from the 19th century and older in Misplaced Pages articles

There is discussion regarding the use old sources, when it is appropriate to use and when they should be avoided. I know the topic has been discussed here and/or at WP:RS on other occasions, so maybe editors here are interested to weigh in on the discussion. Originally the issue was triggered by an edit conflict, which by now however has become a sideshow and it has turned into a general discussion on what sources should be used. Currently I would describe the opposing views as:

• WP articles should (ideally) always be based on the most recent scholarly publications

versus

• Whether a source is old or not does not matter, there is no reason to prefer newer sources to older ones unless the newer source explicitly corrects an error in the older one

"Old" sources here stands for (usually copyright free and online available) source from the 19th century and before. The discussion can be found here:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome#Diana_Veteranorum

--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the second position named here. Evaluate each source on its own merits. Many older sources are unreliable (especially in anthropology) but not all of them. If the two sources conflict with each other, then figure out which is better and use that one. If the two sources do not conflict with each other, then make two reference tags and cite both.

There is also the issue that older sources may address subjects that do not come up at all in newer sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A source requires a modern-day and current reputation for accuracy, but the source itself can be from any time. If a source has a good contemporary reputation for accuracy it can probably still be used. As far as scholarly publications, a currently-well-respected article from twenty-years ago is usually more reliable a source than a paper that came out a year ago that no one subsequently cited. So "newest" doesn't necessarily indicate "reliability", although extremely old sources are much less likely to enjoy currency of respect. Sometimes they do, though. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree to that and it is partially the underlying argument for my (simplified) position above. My concern here that WP editors compile content based on 19th century sources because they free/available online without having consulted more recent literature or the current reputation (via recent review articles).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it would be great if they did consult the new stuff, but access to specialist or paywall sources is not a prerequisite for editing Misplaced Pages. Again, it's only an issue if the new sources contradict the old ones. This is one of the good things about expert editors. Not only do they know what they're talking about but they tend to have access to professional content before everyone else. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a systemic problem with free online sources often getting more weight than harder-to-access sources. But that can also work against older sources (somebody wanting to cite yesterday's Twitter comment because it is newer and more available than what is found in a more reliable offline text). The age issue seems like a complete red herring. But the particular material in this case shouldn't be included, as it seems to be coming from a source of no reputation. I don't think it's a reliable source, but it has nothing to do with it's availability or age. It just looks undue as unique material never mentioned anywhere else, with an author who doesn't appear to have any reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Being old or new doesn't confer reliability either way.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.info-buddhism.com/Dorje_Shugden_Conflict_Dalai_Lama_protests_Thierry_Dodin.html

This is being used at Dorje Shugden Controversy

The quote is

Dodin also states that The NKT can be described typologically as a cult on the basis of its organisational form, its excessive group pressure and blind obedience to its founder. The organisation’s extreme fanaticism and aggressive missionary drive are typical cult features too

The question is about Dodin in general, the assertion, and the website in particular. Any help? Prasangika37 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thierry Dodin is a Tibetologist. Certainly is reliable. And he was just speaking recently at an academic conference. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson is involved in a dispute regarding this question elsewhere. Would much appreciate any other people's inputs, like those not involved in the discussion. VictoriaGrayson, I'd appreciate if you let others give their input without getting involved. Thank you! Particularly about the website info-buddhism.com and the usage of an interview with Dodin there. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I just wanted to point out that Thierry Dodin is a respected Tibetologist.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two issues here: is the source reliable for the assertion that Dodin said what is claimed, and is Dodin's opinion on the matter significant? Only the first question is really in the remit of this noticeboard. Can someone clarify whether the issue is if the website is a reliable source for Dodin's words? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I don't think anyone ever questioned the website contains Dodin's own words.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case, then given that it is made clear that this is Dodin's opinion rather than a statement of an undisputed fact, it isn't really a sourcing problem - instead the question is whether Dodin's opinion is significant, which is outside the scope of this noticeboard. Whether Dodin's opinion should be included in the article is essentially a NPOV/WEIGHT issue - i.e. does he have relevant expertise in the subject, and is his opinion shared by others? He seems to have some academic credibility, at least, and it should be noted that he doesn't just use the term 'cult', but explains why he thinks it applies - though it should be noted that there is a perspective amongst some academics that the term 'cult' is best avoided, in that it is arguably inherently subjective, and with inherent negative connotations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I see that you don't make a judgement on credibility here (like if an individual is reliable in making a judgement on an issue). I'll take the issue over to NPOV. Sorry about the confusion on my part. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the journal New Male Studies a RS?

Thanks, in advance, for the review of this issue. Info below. Memills (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Source: An Angry Non-white Man? Research and Rhetoric in Michael's Kimmel's Angry White Men.

Article: Michael Kimmel

Content: Here is the diff in question:

Miles Groth, a professor of psychology at Wagner College, criticized Kimmel's book Angry White Men in an article in New Male Studies: An International Journal. Groth presented evidence that some of Kimmel's claims were unsupported and he suggested that they raised questions about the quality of Kimmel's research, the conclusions offered, and whether the "claims made can be taken seriously as scientific research or whether the appearance of a scholarly study hides other agenda..."

References

1. Groth, M. (2014). An Angry Non-white Man? Research and Rhetoric in Michael's Kimmel's Angry White Men. New Male Studies: An International Journal, 3, (2), 2014, 99-122. ISSN 1839

Here is the relevant discussion on the Michael Kimmel Talk page:

:I removed the opinion piece in the MRM journal per WP:BLP. The reliability of the source was questionable and the opinion was given undue weight. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Time to revisit this issue. First, the article in question is not an "opinion piece in the MRM journal." The journal is a scholarly, academic journal about men's studies (per it's title "New Male Studies" and its stated mission as an academic "interdisciplinary forum for research and discussion of issues facing boys and men worldwide."). As a peer reviewed, scholarly journal, it meets the criteria as a RS. However, if there is disagreement about this here, perhaps the issue can be reviewed at the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN.

Also, the article is a scholarly review of an academic book written by Michael Kimmel. Reviews are a normal part of the process of academic scholarship, they do not violate WP:BLP and do not meet the criteria of undue weight. Memills (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the para re Groth's review of one of Kimmel's books under the "Scholarship" subsection. Again, if there is disagreement about this, perhaps the issue can be reviewed at the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN.Memills (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I will remove the paragraph again for the reasons stated above. There is no consensus for including an opinion piece in an obscure men's rights journal to discredit a academic. Let me also remind you that this article is subject to the article probation explained here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

See my comment above -- this is not just an "opinion piece. " It is a scholarly review written by a professor of an academic book written by Michael Kimmel. Book reviews are a normal part of the process of academic scholarship, and, the journal is a RS (see the journal's editorial board). However, since I don't think this will convince you, time to get a 3rd party review.

I have requested a review of this issue here at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Memills (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Is New Male Studies a questionable source or not?... I would say no. It may have a bias, but it certainly should not be dismissed as a "Fringe Journal". Looking at the About US page, it has quite an impressive number of PhDs, from highly respected universities on its board. I would deem it RS. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, this journal cannot be used in this particular case because the article's author is also the head editor and member of the advisory board for the journal it's published in, thus making its peer review questionable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That is often the case for many academic journals -- and doesn't not disqualify it as a RS. Memills (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Unlike journals such as Men and Masculinities, "New Male Studies" isn't listed in any relevant citation indices (e.g., Social Sciences Citation Index) and is very much a fringe journal. As for the specific opinion piece in question, it is obviously not peer-reviewed. The men's rights journal states on its website that book reviews aren't peer-reviewed. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The journal is less that three years old, it may take time to get listed in various citation indexes. Further, that is not a requirement for a RS. The editorial board is composed of many highly respected professors such asRoy Baumeister, David Benatar, Lionel Tiger to name a few. Memills (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

From WP:SCHOLARSHIP:

• Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
• One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.
• 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.

The journal has not yet (1) established itself as "reputable" or "well-regarded" yet, (2) not in a citation index, and (3) parts of it are not peer reviewed. The journal itself fails the first two points and is not RS. The citation intended for use on for Michael Kimmel's BLP article absolutely cannot be used as it fails all three points. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This looks very much like a fringe journal and should be treated with caution. The journal is clearly obscure (what's its citation history?) and the auspices under which it is published appear murky ("Australian Institute of Male Health and Studies", although what that is exactly is not clear even from its own website). It appears to be connected to a failed attempt to set up an anti-feminist course at the University of South Australia . Formerip (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I share the concerns of Formerip. As Groth is the editor of the journal, he has control over what content the journal publishes. In this instance, WP:ABOUTSELF #2 is applicable and likely outweighs WP:RSOPINION. This may have been what EvergreenFir was alluding to above. Location (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm also concerned. Looking at Google Scholar, it seems as if articles published by the journal have, so far, been cited a total of 9 (nine) times, with the most cited article having 4 of these citations. This certainly means that the journal has, at best, marginal impact so far. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Westeros.org. Again.

Does Westeros.Org, a self-declared fansite without editorial oversight constitute a reliable source for the Game of Thrones tv series based upon the fact that two of the fansite's owners unofficially and intermittently act as a continuity source for some of the members of the writing staff? If sot, under what conditions could they be utilized as a source? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution