Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:31, 9 April 2011

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.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 461, 462, 463, 464, 465

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

WebWombat, DVD Bits, DVD.net

I would like inquire about the reliability of three separate websites for the purpose of utilizing their reviews of DVDs. DVD Bits seems the most promising, as they appear to have a professional staff . WebWombat holds a possibility of being reliable, but I cannot find a place that lists their reviewers or explains the process (ie, if they are paid staff or user-submitted). Though I may just be missing the obvious. Lastly, DVD.net. I highly doubt their reliability, partially because they don't seem to mention anything beyond the staff's name and interests. But...They do have a staff, and the dated information may be due to the website having shut down a few years back . Thanks in advance, WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your query. It is indeed difficult to get a sense for whether these are reliable sources. On the face of it, there's nothing that shows clearly that these sites have a professional staff and editorial oversight. But I'm not familiar with the standards in this area of Misplaced Pages and the sorts of resources that are generally considered reliable. I was just looking at WP:FILM. Are you familiar with this wiki project? Maybe you could get some feedback on one of the Talk pages there regarding these sources, Or maybe you'll find guidance among the pages of this project. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. Perhaps heading over to WP:Film would be a good decision. I'm used to using their standards, but it becomes difficult when bits of information (paid jobs, positions, reliability, etc.) don't appear to be available. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you give an example of how one of these sources would be used? TimidGuy (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It'd be for reception purposes only. For example, if I took the review of Tron: Legacy; it'd be something along the line of "Richard Gray, a reviewer for DVD Bits, praised the film for its , though felt it suffered from ." And nothing more. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, take note that DVD Bits does have editorial oversight. In fact, they have several positions beyond reviewer, and Gray has been featured in some reputable sources. This is unlike the other two, who seem to lack such information. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

is there some issue with this site? Has it been challenged on a Talk page? Aren't there other reviews in major media that could be used? (I'm just trying to get a clear picture of the situation, partly because I'm unfamiliar with this area. Thanks for sticking with this discussion.) TimidGuy (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I more or less want to make sure that the sites are usable, in case I eventually bring particular articles to a peer review or they become a GAN. I'd like to avoid a potential conflict when that time comes. I definitely would prefer larger outlets, but some DVDs never garnered much attention (especially for anime), and small sites like the ones listed are most of what's available. At this point, I feel inclined to drop WebWombat and DVD.net. However, DVD Bits still seems like a potential candidate. (Thanks for keeping with the discussion as well, especially when it's not a territory you are used to!) WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps clarify the situation. It seems like it could be used. I posted at WP:Film Talk asking for some feedback. Let's see what they say, since this sort of question occasionally comes up at RSN. TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think these sites qualify as reliable sources. WebWombat appears to be a search engine and doesn't say where the reviews come from, while DVD Net certainly doesn't comes across as a professionaly run site, and DVD Bits is possibly an enthusiast run site run by volunteers (in the "About us" section some of the profiles mention "daytime" jobs). Secondly, even if they were reliable, notability needs to be established for critical opinion pieces i.e. have their reviews been referenced in other publications? Are they listed at Rotten Tomatoes? Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much, Betty. And thanks for pointing me toward Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Resources. That's a very useful page that we can refer to in these discussions of RS for film. TimidGuy (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Die Presse article on "King & King"

I was looking for non-U.S. controversy over the book King & King, and I found this story, which says that the book prompted Lithuania's Law for the Protection of Minors (a law which restricts information about homosexuality), among other things. (My German is not amazing, so I'm having trouble figuring out what the article says about Rimantas Dagys.) I know Die Presse would generally be considered a reliable source, but I can't find information on this anywhere else. Should it be considered reliable, and the information added? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks very reliable to me. The new law forbids "public dissemination to minors of provocative information about homosexuality". Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you know of anywhere else I could look to confirm this? It seems to me like if the book was influential in the passage of the law, I should be able to find Lithuanian news on it, but I can't. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not found anything further than Die Presse. Binksternet (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese. While Die Presse usually is a reliable source, it should be possible to verify this with Latvian sources (there's another article in one of Der Standard's online portals link). Maybe a member of WP:LITH could help to find Latvian sources for this? --Six words (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC) About your other question: the article doesn't say anything exciting about Rimantas Dagys, just that the book was read to children in playgroups which lead to protests from parents' associations and, subsequently, to Dagyns criticising those readings.

Hm, that's two separate sources (unless one got the story from the other), but still Austrian rather than Lithuanian. I'll post for help, thanks for the suggestion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Thames Discovery Programme's "FrogBlog"

I need a second (or third, or fourth) opinion: Would the The Thames Discovery Programme's "FrogBlog" (http://www.thamesdiscovery.org/about/) qualify as a RS under WP:NEWSBLOG? At first glance, I'd tend to say "yes" because it seems like a more-or-less official publication of this long-standing group. (They also write very well, not that that matters.) BUT, it doesn't really meet the letter of the criteria set out in the policy.

It was suggested (an Edit Semi-Protected request) that some prehistory of London be added from information gleaned from this site (http://www.thamesdiscovery.org/frog-blog/london-s-oldest-find-discovered-at-vauxhall) and from British Archeology's (http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba46/ba46news.html).

I'm inclined to grant the request but really wanted another pair of eyes to look it over. Anyone?

Thanks! — UncleBubba  21:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The FrogBlog page says "Every FROG member can contribute to the TDP website through blogs and photos of their activities through the FROG Blog." What are the qualifications to become a member, and what kind of editorial oversight is there on the blog? Jayjg 03:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am also wondering what it is about the blog that led to this request. This type of announcement should be possible to source from many sources, like the British Archaeology one mentioned above?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be good to know what particular information is being referenced. On the face of it, it seems like a better source could be found. (Not to derail the discussion, but ... since we're discussing archaeology blogs, I've often wondered whether one could use the blog by John Hawks, a leading paleoanthropologist. He will often examine recent research in detail, including citations, as in this post from a number of days ago.) TimidGuy (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Timidguy: WP:SPS permits the use of self published material by experts who have been previously published on a topic by reliable third party sources (just not on BLP's). Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, folks! I ran across this while processing Edit-SemiProtected requests. I wasn't going to re-write (or re-cite) the stuff for the requester; I was making sure the sourcing was up to standards before sticking it in. Then a family pet died and I was otherwise occupied. Sorry! — UncleBubba  01:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the Italian news magazine 'Oggi' a reliable source within Misplaced Pages rules?

Oggi is the largest selling news magazine in Italy with a circulation of 521,000 and an estimated audience reach of 3,460,000. It has existed for 60 years. Source: http://www.rcspubblicita.it/mezzien/index.jsp;jsessionid=6E82808E57976D0D9CC1BA50B4DB26F9?page=/mezzien/master/descrizione.jsp?id=88*doc=t

Is this a reliable source within Misplaced Pages's rules?

Most or all popular newspapers will be useful sources for at least some purposes, but not all purposes. So please explain what it would be used for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

An article in Oggi states that one of the witnesses in the Amanda Knox case has a history of mental illness and has spent time in mental hospital. The article also states she is almost deaf. This information is confirmed by investigator Paul Ciolino who interviewed the witness and two of her relatives. His statements to that effect are on video at the West Seattle Herald's website.

Obviously this information is highly relevant to the case since the witness claimed to have heard a scream followed by people running, neither of which were heard by anyone else at the time she claimed to hear them. I think it should be included in the article with the relevant attributions to allow readers to make up their own minds about the reliability of the witness and maintain NPOV. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oggi seems to be a reliable source for this information. TimidGuy (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems obvious but nice to have this opinion. PietroLegno (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• I dispute that this tabloid magazine is a reliable source for a WP:BLP issue. It seems to be on a par with Hello or the National Enquirer. It doesn't seem like the sort of source we need for such a serious claim. --John (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What makes it "seem" like the National Enquirer?LedRush (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe like People, according to this. Incidentally, it seems to have a very low profile for such a high circulation magazine. I wrote a stub, as we didn't have an article on it, which is also a telling data point. All in all, no evidence that this is a reliable source. --John (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it has a wide circulation, reports on news, and has an editorial process. It doesn't surprise me that it doesn't have an article on English WP seeing as it is an Italian-only magazine. If I could read Italian, I'd see what this says about it.LedRush (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

We do have an article on the publisher, RCS MediaGroup. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oggi is somewhat tabloid, rather akin to the mail in the UK, and although it does have a level of reliability I would like to see BLP stuff sourced to something firmer. Currently, having one tabloid source raising this as relevant is concerning; enough for me to reject the mental health stuff outright, and to leave me concerned over the rest. --Errant 17:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest if Oggi is akin to the Mail, it should not be considered reliable for extraordinary claims as mental illness. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Does that opinion remain if it is featured on other newspapers' websites (like the West Seattle Herald)?LedRush (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• To get this in perspective, The Times is a tabloid. As far as UK newspapers go, The Times is generally considered a reliable source. So condemning an Italian mainstream news magazine because it is published in tabloid format (like The Times) is based on prejudice, not reason. I think that the fair approach is to use the information from Oggi with have a disclaimer such as "It is claimed that.." and have a citation. It would be useful to put a quotation from Oggi in Italian with English translation in the footnote; that way people can judge for themselves.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No. The Times is (or was) printed in tabloid format, but even under Murdoch is not a Tabloid. The word has several meanings, with the actual size being one of the less relevant in general conversation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comment sounds just like Humpty Dumpty; words mean whatever you choose them to mean; neither more nor less. I do not agree with you.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, words mean whatever the participants in the communication choose them to mean. I think you fall for the Etymological fallacy. Do you eat an entree as the first course of a meal? Do you think someone who is antisemitic dislikes Arabs? "Tabloid" does denote a paper size, but it changed its meaning to now also, and more commonly, denote a kind of low-brow, sensationalistic newspaper, because many of them were originally printed in tabloid format. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in the US, people associate the term with the latter meaning. I don't think that there is any prejudice at hand, just frustration with the language barrier and not knowing the culture well enough to know where the publication stands in their rank & file. If it is treated as a serious source to them then I believe we should accept it as one as well. Does the Italian Wiki use this as a common source?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, yeh that is an problematic language barrier. To be clear by "Tabloid" I mean the tone/focus/content and not the format. The Times is currently printed in tabloid form, it was previously a broadsheet (hell, I remember when the switched :D). --Errant 13:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I google-translated the Italian WP article on Oggi above and it doesn't mention it being like a tabloid at all - it purports to be a news magazine. Of course, you can't trust WP for anything :)LedRush (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A Google Translate of the Italian Misplaced Pages article for Oggi says "Today was one of the most popular magazines weekly current affairs Italian , with a circulation of 681,000 copies (2006)." I translate this personally as saying that Oggi is one of the most popular weekly magazines for Italian current affairs with a circulation of 681,000 copies. That seems to show to me that it is a reputable news source for Italy. Silverseren 08:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am the original poster and I'm new to Misplaced Pages so thanks in advance for your patience with me, but I'm wondering what happens now? At what point can I say a decision has been reached about whether OGGI magazine is or is not a reliable source? I was expecting someone with some recognised authority to make a ruling on the issue which I and others would be able to refer to - unfortunately what i'm seeing here is a hodgepodge of differing opinions, personal sniping and and comments from highly involved partisan editors who are looking for any excuse to exclude the source. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nobody with the recognized authority to make such rulings on Misplaced Pages - we work (or amble along) by WP:CONSENSUS or the lack of same. Given the different opinions here, I would certainly not use OGGI as a source for statements about the mental health of a living person. Our policy on biographies of living people is particularly strict for potentially negative information. If the claim is notable and true, it should be possible to find a better source, like La Repubblica, La Stampa, the Corriere della Sera, or, if you look internationally, the BBC, the NYT, FAZ, or other high-quality news outlets. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, only one editor not involved with the article has suggested that this isn't a reliable source, and that opinion is conditioned on this article being like another tabloid (an unsubstantiated claim by an involved editor).

Stephan, regarding your opinion on the source, would your opinion change if the article is reporting on something less controversial, like that a person may be hard of hearing?LedRush (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really. WP:BLP still applies. I also wonder why you would advance that point - unless it is to suggest that the person would be an unreliable witness. If that's the aim, you certainly need a source making that specific statement - see WP:SYN. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

But this method of working just isn't acceptable, Stephan. You're telling me one thing, others are telling me the exact opposite. What authority do any of you have to answer my simple question? What is the purpose of this noticeboard? It seems to be entirely useless for what I took to be its intended purpose. I need a final decision from someone with the authority to make it. I don't care if it's yes or no. I do not want to sit interminably reading the waffling opinions of whichever random people decide to pontificate about my simple question. I'm sorry if i sound frustrated, but this is ludicrous! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. But that's the way it is. There is nobody to make this decision for you. You can try some of the steps of dispute resolution, e.g. a request for comments ("Should the following fact, sourced to be included in the article?"). If you believe in authority, I've been here for 7.5 years, an administrator for half this time, and in my personal opinion, which is not binding at all, it's a bad idea to use that source in such a suggestive manner. I hate to say is "love it or leave it", but Misplaced Pages is based on the consensus model, and if you cannot live with that, you will encounter difficulties when editing contentious topics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• I should note that anyone who has responded here that is involved in the dispute should not be considered toward consensus. The entire point of RSN is to get an outside opinion on the matter. Thus, while outside editors should consider the views of involved editors, the views of involved editors themselves should not factor into consensus. Silverseren 19:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • So... their opinions don't count? I only really became involved in this article because I commented that the source isn't reliable for this claim FWIW. I still don't think it is. The material is mentioned in a single brief/vague line in an article that is a tabloidy discussion of evidence at the appeal. It has not been brought up in any other sources that I have been able to find so far and we have no more detail than the 4 or 5 words in Oggi. Don't get me wrong; Oggi seems reasonably reliable for some things, akin to any source of this level, but for a specific (BLP) claim with minimal detail it is not very satisfactory. --Errant 19:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Errant: Considering that there are WP:BLP issues involved, can you post a diff that contains this person's name or e-mail it to me? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple questions:

• What does the Oggi article actually state? Does it state that this person has a history of mental illness? Or does it say that according to someone, this person has a history of mental illness? There's a world of difference between the two.
• Are there any corroborating reliable sources that also contain this information?

My following comment goes beyond the scope of this noticeboard, but I do want to point out that Misplaced Pages is not news and we have no deadlines. Considering that there are WP:BLP issues, I think the default should be to exclude this information from the article for now - at least until we're sure that this source is reliable for this type of content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It states that the witness has hearing difficulties and a history of mental illness. This is a rough translation byDempsey:The witnesses who... ...have problems of deafness, of physical and mental health serious enough to be hospitalized in a psychiatric ward.

No detail on where the information comes from is given. However the mental illness stuff probably comes from Paul Ciolino (video), an investigative journalist, who talked to relatives of the witness. The hard of hearing stuff isn't expanded on but probably is derived from the fact that the defence has asked for the witness to recieve an audio-metric test. A satisfactory source explaining this in detail has not been provided yet (I am still looking) --Errant 19:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The hard of hearing stuff is not derived from the request for audiometric tests. The request for the tests was because it was posited in court by the defence that even someone with good hearing could not have heard what she claimed to hear. So let's not jump to that conclusion. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, that's more progress than I made. How do you know this? If it is the case then we can pretty much reject it as a factual statement (certainly "near-deaf") for the moment, because repeating the claims of the defence is generally not a good idea (not while the appeal occurs anyway) --Errant 20:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Errant, I haven't got definite proof as such. I do know that when the audiometric tests were suggested, nobody made any specific claims that Nara was hard of hearing. That info is in the Massei Report. Wherever the claims about her hearing came from, it must be some kind of new source. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Errant: By "Dempsey", I assume that you're referring to this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. My girlfriend rechecked the translation and it has some errors (mostly of the "this is how different translators would read it" sort), but that is mainly correct. --Errant 20:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have another question. What's the proposed text? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question :) the piece that was in (and then removed) from the article said: On 3rd April 2011 Giangavino Sulas writing in OGGI magazine stated that <Name of Living Person> was near deaf and had been hospitalised for mental health issues. Candace Dempsey translated the article for English speakers (example diff). On the talk page not much was really suggested, although I did propose adding material about the audio-metric test (which is a hearing test asked for by the defence, sourced to the Judge's report on the trial). --Errant 21:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that I removed the name of a living person in the above post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone can say that my text there was unreasonable. That's exactly what the OGGI article said. I didn't endorse it or say I agreed with it. But the reader needs to be aware of the article's existence. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

While Oggi might - in general - be a reliable source, I consulted our policy on WP:BLP and I am reminded that we are supposed to be very firm about the use of high quality sources and that BLP material should be written conservatively and with regard for a person's privacy. Further, I am reminded that Misplaced Pages should not be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Given that English-language news sources have apparently not picked up this story, that would make Misplaced Pages a primary vehicle for spreading this claim in the English-speaking world. In my opinion, this source is not strong enough for this content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I assume your opinion is worth the same as the other individuals who have posted on this thread, or do you have special status on Misplaced Pages? I have already stated I am not interested in hearing from ordinary Misplaced Pages users such as yourself because you have no authority. Your statements are completely worthless and i wish you would not pollute the topic with your verbal diarrhea. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

CodyJoeBibby: Nobody has special status or authority to answer this question. Please focus your attention on the substance of each editor's comments', not on the editors themselves. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with A Quest For Knowledge and others. From what I can tell, Oggi (Today) seems to be the Italian equivalent more of National Enquirer than of Newsweek, and strict compliance with WP:BLP, as others have said, is of paramount importance in this situation. If there were fewer potential ramifications stemming from the inclusion of this content, and the article in question did not pertain quite so strongly to BLP, I doubt that there would be much reason to exclude the magazine. Elsewhere, comparisons have been made of Oggi and Gente (People). I recall reading from an issue of the latter on one occasion, and it certainly appeared to be on the same level as the UK tabloid magazines OK or Hello. If the proposed content is deemed significant enough in the wider press, no doubt some of the more authoritative English-language media will pick up on the story soon enough. SuperMarioMan 00:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if these facts are significant, they will be reported elsewhere, and we have a responsibility to protect the privacy of living persons. I think the suggestion that a person was hospitalized with a mental illness falls in the category of extraordinary claims, and this is not a extraordinary source. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the witness is already in the article. Now the question is whether it can be raised that Oggi has claimed she is hard of hearing, a claim repeated by an expert on the subject on her blog at SeattlePI, and perhaps on the West Seattle Herald on the video referenced above (I can't get a straight answer on that one). It seems, though, consensus is arising that we need to get some more sources even for mild claims like this.LedRush (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I would ask that you do not post on this request SuperMarioMan as I came here for a neutral opinion. You and various other posters on this noticeboard request are fully involved in the debate on this issue. You are the problem I am trying to deal with, not the solution. Surely this is a violation of the basic principle that one should not be judge in one's own cause. Is there someone I can raise a complaint with regarding this? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You can post any time at wp:ANI and get yourself blocked. Enjoy.TMCk (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Vojsava Tripalda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We need help regarding 27 sources presented at talk page.

Talk:Vojsava_Tripalda#Sources_on_Serbian_origin

Is there any of the sources there that really should not be used? Any advice will be highly appreciated. -WhiteWriter 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, many of them are old enough to be of questionable reliability, and we should not rely on tertiary sources such other encyclopedias for any controversial information, esp. if they do not give sources for the information. Works from modern historians are much preferred in general. Also, snippets mentioned in passing in reliable sources on unrelated topics are not the best sources to use. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you write to me which sources can be used, as we have 27 sources there. Only several are encyclopedias and etc. --WhiteWriter 16:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, WhiteWriter, but I have to say that I don't think that's really a reasonable request. I looked at your table, and I think it was helpful that you compiled it, but (as you know) we're all volunteers here, and if a person doesn't have a specific interest in an article already, it's not likely that he'd want to put in the tremendous amount of time you're requesting to research this. But if any two or three sources are especially under dispute at the article, I think it would be appropriate to ask here for opinions, especially if you base any arguments you make on our reliable sources policy and it's obvious that you've already researched the question thoroughly yourself. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: Well, except for Nuujinn, of course. Extraordinary generosity is one of his many super powers.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) (outdented for sane formatting) Please understand that I'm just another editor, so what I can give you is my personal opinion. I'm not a historian, nor am I trained as such. Also, please understand that I think these kinds of discussions regarding ethnicity are overdone. That being said, I would suggest that none of them are worth using.

• 2, 3, 4, 7, 16 are tertiary sources inappropriate for anything but a broad overview.

• 26 are apparently not written by historians, but rather journalists and the like, who well may not be trained in historical research.

• 6, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 26 I would not use because I believe they violate WP:SYNTH.

• 1 I am unsure about because the quotation is not in context.

• 5, 8, 22 because "being of X-ian descent" or "born of an X-ian" not necessarily mean the same as "being X-ian". I am largely of Scottish descent, but not a Scot.

• 9 is problematic, as the author is presenting Horvat's views, and I don't know how reliable Horvat would be. Also, the author is an "independent researcher", and the purported journal the "Western Balkans Security Observer". Looks to be of low quality to me.

• 10, 12 the link doesn't reveal anything that can be used as a source, the snippet views generally do not provide enough context to allow use, in my opinion, and the links I followed did not support the assertion attributed to them.

• 15 historical histories are generally not considered secondary sources, but rather primary. Use of such as sources directly, rather than through the eyes of a trained historian, is very ill advised.

• 18, the link is wrong.

• 24, the link is to a review of Schmitt's book--Schmitt appears at first blush to be a promising source, don't use the magazine, use his book as the source.

• 25, the remark is in passing, and it is unclear as to whether the author is making a statement or attributing the statement to others.

Now, the crux of the issue to me is that if these are the best sources we have for this person, can we justify the article as anything but a stub? Surely there are better sources than this if the subject is truly notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks up to the sky for this!! I needed something like this very, very much! Yes, we have big problem with this. See this version. Some editors want this version back, as sources from that are "ok". But i among the others disagreed. We dont even have the links, and sourcs are almost the same... What do you say, how we can find out origin or nationality of this person.... This is majority of sources that are available online... Are sources in this version ok, or also not? What would you do? --WhiteWriter 20:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing them Nuujinn, since they have all been refuted too many times but 3 users keep trying to add them in order to continue this ethnicity dispute. As for WW's disagreement the Noli biography is the most comprehensive biography in English of Gjergj Kastrioti and The standard modern biography in English of the Albanian national hero is Fan S. Noli, George Castrioti Scanderbeg, so the verdict is on that.--— ZjarriRrethues —  22:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Zjarri, stop with misinformations regarding sources. Once more, and really last time. Also, this is question about sources regarding Voisava, and not about Skanderbeg. Also, none of the links you presented here was included in article, while all of the authors presented was highly and openly pro-Albanian authors, including Fan Noli, who was 14th Prime minister of Albania. So, you may understand why i cannot really trust their neutrality. Nuujinn, tell me your opinion regarding the rest of sources, and your proposition for this. --WhiteWriter 23:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

He was also a Harvard graduate and he was a prime minister of a democratic government that overthrew the monarchy even if it lasted only six months. Even if you don't trust his neutrality his work still remains the comprehensive biography in English of Gjergj Kastrioti and The standard modern biography in English of the Albanian national hero is Fan S. Noli, George Castrioti Scanderbeg i.e WP:RS. Btw many of the sources that were refuted again, have been refuted in the past too(like source 9).--— ZjarriRrethues —  23:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

tfwiki.net as an external link

Not sure if this is the right place for an reliable "external links" question. There has been some talk in the Transformers Misplaced Pages project about having tfwiki.net as an external link for fictional character articles. I had beileved that as a fan wiki wasn't allowed as an external link, but others have argued it's stable and reliable (they point to links to wookiepedia as an example). I also noticed that many of the editors adding links to tfiki are the editors and moderators of the tfwiki.net, so that's another problem. Even if it is a legitimate external link, can the editors/mods of the tfwiki be adding links to their own work here? Mathewignash (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like WP:ELMAYBE section 4 might be relevant: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so are the collective user of this web site to be considered "knowledgeable" by[REDACTED] on this subject, and what about the second concern, of them adding links to their own works. Mathewignash (talk)

Seems like if there's consensus at the project, and given the section of EL cited above, this could be added. If the tfwiki editors are spamming Misplaced Pages with links in a number of articles, that's not allowed. But if it's just this instance, it doesn't seem to run afoul of WP:LINKSPAM. TimidGuy (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Seattlepi.com

There is some discussion over whether content written by Candace Dempsey on Seattle Pi Reader Blogs is reliable or not. On first glance this the website of a newspaper, and I know our usual agreement is that "blogs" belonging to newspapers have some degree of reliability.

However in this case I think there are two areas of concern that impact on reliability.

The first is that Dempsey's posts (example) carry the disclaimer:

Editor's note: This is a seattlepi.com reader blog. It is not written or edited by the P-I. The authors are solely responsible for content. E-mail us at newmedia@seattlepi.com if you consider a post inappropriate.

To me this indicates a lack of editorial ovversight, which makes means this should actually be treated as a normal blog rather than a "newspapers blog".

Dempsey does not appear to be an employee or freelancer of Seattle Pi, so is not subject to any editorial oversight etc. Her website suggests the blog has been featured in various reliable sources (which lends it a little weight) but then talks about it being "hosted" by Seattle Pi. Again, I think this means we have to treat it as a blog?

As a writer on this issue Dempsey may be "reliable", or at least significant to use her opinion (properly attributed), but can we consider her blog a reliable source or not? Or is a secondary source needed?

FWIW I don't feel it passes muster as a WP:RS for very much other than her opinions, and secondary sources would be prefferred --Errant 20:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own question. The quote shows that it is effectively a self-published source. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

-

That disclaimer, which is the first I have ever seen on a newspaper or major internet news source, pretty much separates those blogs from the "editorial control" standards which are required for blogs to pass muster for reliability. FWIW, the P-I itself, although no longer a printed newspaper, qualifies as a reliable source, but anything for which they preemptively deny responsibility, doesn't work. Horologium (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Dempsey does work for the SeatllePI and does regularly have articles featured there, if this changes anyone's opinion on the subject.LedRush (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Does she? I'm not sure this is correct. --FormerIP (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, she has written a book on this subject and is considered an expert on it.LedRush (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That would allow her SPS work to be used in a non-BLP article. But that's not the case here - WP:BLPSPS says no self-published sources unless published by the subject. How does this not fall afoul of that? Ravensfire (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

UN Women: Women do 66% of the World's Work

On the feminist movement page, an editor has written:

According to UN Women,"Women perform 66 percent of the world’s work, produce 50 percent of the food, but earn 10 percent of the income and own 1 percent of the property."

and provided the citation: "Facts & Figures on Women, Poverty & Economics, Report published by UN Women", which links to the webpage . See talk page .

While at first it may seem counterintuitive to say that UN Women is not a reliable source for this claim, please bear with me.

I have spent many hours (at least 10) looking for the original source/ research which shows that "women do 66% of the world's work". However, I could not find any such research. It appears to be an unverified claim. If anyone else can find it, please do tell.

Why I feel that UN Women is not a reliable source to make this statement that "women do 66% of the world's work":

-UN Women has not conducted any research which provides statistical evidence that this is true.

-It does not cite anyone else's research which shows that women do 66% of the world's work.

-It provides as a citation for its claim, a UNICEF webpage, which states that "While it is estimated that women perform two-thirds of the world’s work, they only earn one tenth of the income, and own less than one per cent of the world’s property."

-The UNICEF page UN Women links to does not provide any source at all for its claim.

-The UNICEF page says that "it is estimated that..." but it does not say by whom. (Is this not an example of "weasel words"?)

-While UNICEF says "it is estimated that..." the UN Women page does not say that, but states it as a fact.

-Note the subtle difference between 66% and "two thirds".

-There is no author of the webpage in question.

-As further evidence of UN Women's shoddy workmanship on this statement, the UNICEF webpage which it cites does not support the "50% of food" statement.

I should also mention that the citation on the Feminist Movement page says that this is a "report", but actually it is a webpage.

I do not deny that UN Women may be a reliable source for other issues and concerns related to gender. For example, if they were to state that "women do more work than men", that would be more reasonable (and in fact there is research which shows this). However, UN Women is not qualified to make the statement that "women do 66% of the world's work", because they have no expertise to make claims about women's work as a percentage of the whole, on a global scale.

The[REDACTED] policy states that: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I am arguing that in this context, UN Women is not a reliable source.

Further, there is a strong social reason not to include this statement, as it could lead to bias and prejudice against men. It could easily lead to attitudes that men are lazy, for example. It could lead to discrimination against men in employment decisions. I feel that unless this claim is verified by research, it should not be included in the[REDACTED] page on "the Feminist Movement".

This refs your showing use here are old enough that you should be able to find this in other places (meaning they should be widely published if reliable). If " other reliable published sources" do not include the information that has been found in only "ONE" location (web page, news paper, book etc - that information is—by definition—not reliable enough to include - as per (undue weight). That said the ref look well sourced and is by a well respected ogranization. I will be honest it sounds a bit off this numbers - but the UN does do well with there stats, so i think its going to be a hard one to dismiss.Moxy (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess one could argue that for facts like this that if there is no sign of a detailed study, then maybe that is a sign there is none, and that therefore WP should avoid reporting too much about it, however (a) I would question that if a Wikipedian can not find the sources after 10 hours that this means there is no such source and (b) not only is this a good strong source, but it is attributed, which reduces the controversy anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the unreliability claims. Which is more reliable from the Misplaced Pages perspective, the questioner's assertions about the reliability of "the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women" who cite figures from the UNICEF source or the United Nations sources themselves ? The UN are surely a reliable source for their own statements attributed to them in Misplaced Pages articles. Can someone demonstrate, using reliable sources, that the figures are contradicted by other reliable sources that could be added to the article or can the questioner suggest sources that are more reliable than the United Nations for this information ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The large problem is the definition of "work" as the UN defines a man working as only "productive work" (an unemployed man does zero work) while most women are credited with at least 12 hours of work a day including "housework." I recall the old parable which ends with "so all of the work is done just by me and thee, and lately it seems thee has not been doing thy fair share." It is similar to the statistic that a wife is worth $200,000 a year for the work she does (100 hours as doctor at $500/hr, etc.) ... while economists suggest that the value of a person's work is what another person would reasonably pay for the job done. In short - the statistic is a gemacht one entirely. Collect (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Our rule on use of statistical data says, " Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care....sound secondary sources will comment on the impact of the questioning strategy and the sample questioned and this should be referred to in the article." See also WP:REDFLAG; this is an assertion that "would significantly alter mainstream assumptions...", thus "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources". Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking this issue seriously as the editors on the Feminist Movement page just dismissed what I said and then refused to comment further. They further struck out my addition when I tried to add that "UN Women does not provide any primary/empirical evidence to support this statement." @ Moxy- it is true that this statistic has been recycled endlessly, but there have been cases in the past where false statistics have been widely printed, only later to have been revealed to be false. I was just reading about a statistic where a few women's groups were claiming that 150,000 women died per year from anorexia, but it was later revealed to be only 100 (I can provide a link if you are interested). @Andrew Lancaster, I agree that the fact that I cannot find it does not mean there is no empirical study, but usually when there is an empirical study to back up the claim, the original source usually comes up quite quickly. Further, I wrote to about 10 different organizations that had posted this information (including 2 UN agencies), but none of them ever replied. I do think that professionally, if an organization wants to make such claims which could so negatively impact one gender, they should be able to back up their claim when requested. @Sean Hoyland- actually the data are directly contradicted by the data in the UN HDR 04 study, which is the only data I could find that even comes close to addressing men and women's labor globally. I realize that by[REDACTED] standards I am not allowed to do even basic mathematical computations, but if you look at that source , on page 233, you will see data for minutes of men's and women's labor. Even in the worst countries (i.e. most unequal), women's labor accounts for only 54.5% of a total 100% (617 minutes/total 1132 minutes=54.5%). Also Catherine Hakim has conducted research showing that, in Europe at least, men and women work virtually identical amounts (I can provide a link if you wish.) Please note: 54.5% is a long way from 66%. "Can the user suggest data which is more reliable?" Yes. UNDP's HDR 04 report. @Jonathan Wallace- Can you please be more clear about which way you are arguing? Are you saying it is not a reliable source? Finally, I want to address that the UN is such a reliable source. This is a problem, that people put the UN on a pedestal, and think that it is this unassailable source, but I have worked for two different UN agencies, and I can assure you that they are not as great as you think. I know that you probably think that is irrelevant, but I think its important to check your assumptions about the UN. Finally, I know a few people who work at UN Women, so hopefully I can contact them and get a clear response from them (as opposed to just ignoring my e mails). I look forward to any more comments.64.25.27.130 (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@Sean Hoyland- the link you provided to UNICEF goes to a page that does not exist. What is your point in providing the link to UN Women's webpage? Are you trying to impress us with their webpage? Don't get me wrong- I have nothing against UN Women, but I don't think it is beyond a UN agency to put something on their website which is an unverified claim. 64.25.27.130 (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think its not reliable. Statistical pronouncements such as this one should not be used for their underlying truth, unless the speaker also discloses a source of the information which can be evaluated.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday, another editor suggested I get a user account. So here it is. I'm the same person who previously posted the reliable source request on this noticeboard. And by the way, this was not an April Fool's joke.Liberation3 (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I brought this discussion back from the archived page because I don't consider it to be solved. ANy more comments please? Or could anyone advice to a new user, how to proceed from here?Liberation3 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

news.medill.northwestern.edu

Medill at Northwestern University is a journalism school that also publishes reports by undergraduates. In one of those reports, the writer J. Freeman asserts that LarouchePAC might have copied the look of barackobama.com. Misplaced Pages reports that as: "A 2009 report says that the LPAC website, Larouchpac.com, appeared to have deliberately copied the look of the barackobama.com website, though the contents were entirely different." Is the website of Medill journalism school a RS? 81.210.206.223 (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The source in question is a publication of Medill School of Journalism. "About the Medill Washington Program"

The Washington Program's reporting has been recognized professionally by numerous awards, including prizes from the Society of Professional Journalists, the National Press Foundation and Investigative Reporters and Editors. Medill Washington students are fully credentialed working journalists getting real-world experience, a hallmark of the Medill School. ...the Washington experience has helped launch hundreds of successful careers in print, online and video journalism.

Here is the article in question: Amid protests from the right, seniors in Virginia try to be heard on health care. It is being used in Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement. The talk page discussion is at Talk:Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement#Length and other issues.   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue, in my mind, is not whether this student newspaper is a reliable source, but whether it is reliable for this particular information. Personally, I feel uncomfortable when a one-sentence, speculative, passing comment in a source is used in Misplaced Pages. If the writer were an expert, and if this speculation were based on an extended analysis, and if it was a crucial issue, then I'd say yes. But in this case, I'd vote no. TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's actually part of a multi-paragraph analysis of the website, so it does seem like an extended analysis and not like a passing comment. Whether it's a crucial issue or not doesn't seem relevant to the source's reliability. Nor does it require special expertise to observe that one website has the same "layout, design and color scheme" as another.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"Catholic Answers" and "Facts of Life"

*sigh* I honestly can't believe I'm doing this again.

In Christianity and abortion, a user is repeatedly adding (against 1RR) the phrase "The Church has consistently taught that life begins at conception," cited to websites published by Catholic Answers and Human Life International. Now these sources, I point out, are unreliable on their face - they are not published by scholars of church history, but rather by people with an explicit political agenda which is served by their trying to make people believe that the Roman Catholic Church has always held the same position. However, the statement has another black mark against it, which is that it's exactly the opposite of what better sources say (see Ensoulment for detail).

The user who wishes to add "Catholic Answers" as a source says that it is reliable because 1) it cites primary sources and 2) it has been given a "nihil obstat." However, merely citing primary sources does not make a source reliable (how do we know they are being quoted correctly and in context?) and the nihil obstat indicates freedom from doctrinal error, not from historical error. (Indeed, one might suggest that the nihil obstat makes the source less reliable.) No rationale was given for including "Facts of Life," the HLI document.

(Note: I've taken "Facts of Life" here twice already. Both times, it was rejected.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roscelese (talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

nihil obstat..so it contains nothing contrary to faith or morals...that settles it then. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted back to your last version and posted a reminder/invitation on his Talk page to discuss it here rather than trying to reinsert the material into the article. I didn't see the one revert notice; shouldn't it be at the top of the Talk page?? Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to do a template one, so I just informed him in my own words and linked to the general sanctions in the topic area. Is one supposed to give these specific sorts of notifications at the top? I put it at the bottom. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't know. The only page I have touched which has a 1RR restriction is this one, where the rules are clearly spelled out in a box at the top. Per WP:1RR I thought a one revert rule could only be imposed by an admin, ARBCOM, or by consensus on the talk page, so I am not sure of the nature and origins of such a restriction at Christianity and abortion. Anyway, I will keep an eye on the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean - I thought you meant my notice to the IP. Not all the abortion-related articles have editnotices, presumably because it would be tedious to add them all and because the sanctions are broadly construed. They were imposed by community consensus a little while back. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The 1RR on all abortion-related articles, broadly-contrued, was imposed here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Christianity and abortion page)Catholic Answers is not "anti-abortion advocates" (or "people with an explicit political agenda" as she says here) any more then any Catholic organization that follows the teachings of the church. Their mission statement has nothing to do with abortion. They are an organization thats primary mission is present authentic Catholic teaching to the people. People associated with Catholic Answers have written several books both under their own names and under the banner of Catholic Answers. Every source has to be evaluated on their own merits. Calling "Catholic Answers" anti-abortion advocates is just name calling. Also the discussion of ensoulment and when life begins are two different items and is confusing the issue. If you read the article it specifically says "Even when the prevailing scientific theory consider that early abortion was the killing of what was not yet a human being, the Church condemned all procuring of abortion." The discussion of when life begins is independent of when ensoulment occurs.Marauder40 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As I replied there, 1) you're incorrect in claiming that CA is not an anti-abortion advocate (read their article!) and 2) you need real sources that make a distinction between "it has no human soul" and "it's not a human life," not just your personal opinion that that's what the historical church meant. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, "the RCC has always taught that life begins at fertilization" is a questionable interpretation of the source anyway. Just one more reason... Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You still haven't proven they are an "anti-abortion advocate". Catholic Answers is an organization with many writers. The goal of Cathlic Answers is to promote Catholic teaching. If you have to disqualify them just because they promote Catholic teaching you would have to disqualify ANYTHING said by the church or anyone that agrees with the church. Like any source, each source needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, author by author, cite by cite. It isn't my personal opinion about the distintion between human soul and human life. All you have to do is read the Ensoulment article. There are plenty of sources already in that article that say it including directly from the Vatican. Marauder40 (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"The goal of Cathlic Answers is to promote Catholic teaching" - rather than to provide an accurate version of history. Yup. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You mis-interprete what I am stating. Some of the people that work for or are consulted by Catholic Answers are historians, apologists, theologians, etc. Calling "Catholic Answers" as a whole and any source from them non-RS based on your opinion of one article is POV pushing pure and simple. Just because YOU may not agree with the content of this one article doesn't make every editor, writter, etc. that works with Catholic Answers an "anti-abortion advocate" or anything else. This is like saying every person that works for or supports Planned Parenthood loves abortion or every Republican is x or every Democrate is Y.Marauder40 (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you that organizations with an explicitly anti-abortion agenda are less likely to be reliable sources on abortion. If you believe that the CA piece was written by a reliable author, tell me who wrote it. You can't claim blanket reliability of an anonymous piece because the publisher asked a historian about another thing once. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

So by the same logic any organization with a pro-abortion agenda doesn't make a reliable source either. Of course Catholic Answers goal isn't explicitly anti-abortion. They promote Catholic teaching there is a major difference. By your logic you would disqualfiy anything from any organization even remotely associated with the Catholic church. Your comments about publisher asking a historian once about a piece are entirely combative. I have read entire articles in This Rock magazine written by respected historians. This honestly sounds like your bias is getting in the way of your objectivity. As I said before every source needs to be taken on a case by case basis, author by author, etc. Just like you would with any publisher. You don't throw out all the books by Random House, just because you don't agree with one of their books. Marauder40 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If we were using a source from a "pro-abortion" organization, we could take that to RSN too. (However, I don't think we are. I don't think any "pro-abortion" organizations exist, besides presumably the Chinese government, so how could we be citing a source from one?) I also don't know how you can claim in the same comment that CA isn't anti-abortion and that they promote Catholic teaching, which is anti-abortion. (Random House doesn't exactly have a political agenda.) I'm still waiting for you to identify the respected historian that supposedly wrote this piece. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said I knew who wrote the article. Only Catholic Answers knows that. Nobody ever said that you have to know the author of an article. I was just saying that you seem to be trying to throw out EVERYTHING that Catholic Answers ever wrote because they are an "anti-abortion advocate". Yet they have lots of different experts in lots of different fields both on staff and as consultants. You seem to be claiming a political agenda but not providing any proof.Marauder40 (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources are non-RS by default. Is there evidence that "Catholic Answers" is an RS per Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see anything that disqualfies them as a reliable source. Peer review is required for RS and the nihil obstat and imprimateur show that it has been reviewed for doctrinal matters. Sites that review Catholic Answers as a whole from a Catholic perspective say things like "Fidely: Excellent, Resources: Excellent..." people that have written for or spoken on their shows tend to be Bishops, Cardinals, and many different walks of life, from average everyday people to respected theologians, clinical psychologists, etc.. They operate within the Diocese of San Diego with official permission and are listed in the Official Catholic Directory as an approved Catholic organization. They have a priest on staff. Staff members have produced many critically acclaimed books. This organization qualifies as someone who can speak on Catholic matters. Of course like any source, every book, quote, etc. has to be judged on its own merit, author, etc. Nothing has been shown to disqualify them as a reliable source other then one editors perception that they are an "anti-abortion advocate" and based on their definition of such you would have to disqualify EVERY source written by a Catholic.Marauder40 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Being a reliable source on doctrinal matters is entirely different from being a reliable source on the history of the church. For historical matters, especially in such a controversial article, it would really help to know the identity and credentials of the author and something about the fact checking or peer review process. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution