Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:03, 27 July 2012

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

Assam#Etymology

This is with regards to a claim and reference used in the Assam#Etymology section. The claim and reference are given here:

The academic consensus is that current name "Assam" is based on the English word Assam

The reference given is

S. C. Bhatt, Gopal Bhargava, Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories, Gyan Publishing House, 2005, p. 147. "The word Assamese is an English one, built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese, etc. It is based on the English word Assam."

This issue has previously been discussed on the talk page (Talk:Assam#Etymology_of_Assam), submitted to Misplaced Pages:Third Opinion, and lastly to Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_33#Assam.23Etymology. When the discussion at the last instance failed, it was suggested that the issue be submitted here.

The issue

The phrase in the above claim---Assam is based on the English word Assam---is nonsensical. The quote the editor has provided from the cited source is making a statement on the Assamese language, not the name Assam. The editor has used the phrase "English word Assam" to claim that the name Assam originated with the English.

The quoted sentence should actually read somewhat like:

The academic consensus is that current English name "Assam" is an anglicized version of a native name.

This is because the cited reference quotes directly from the seminal work: Banikanta Kakati (1941) "Assamese: Its Formation and Development" p1 . Banikanta Kakati has himself clarified the above statement in a later work, where he writes, with less ambiguity: "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century." (Kakati, Banikanta, Aspects of Early Assamese Literature (Gauhati University Press, 1953) p1 ).

The editor makes a narrow and literal reading from a phrase in the cited source, and choose to ignore the rest of the scholarly literature available on the subject. As a result the editor has produced a nonsensical statement. Past attempts to correct this have failed because the editor has been resisting changes to the above text.

Chaipau (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Kakati 1953 is a reliable academic source. Only include conflicting views if they are backed by a source of equivalent quality. Reflect sources properly, don't cherry-pick small phrases out of context. Using Kakati you are on safe ground to say "Assam" is an anglicised form of "Asam"... You don't necessarily have to say anything about academic consensus. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes actually saying that something is an academic consensus requires very good sourcing which actually says this or demonstrates it in an obvious way, but it is rarely necessary to use such language.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your inputs. In lieu of the current unwieldy and confusing section, this was a suggested alternative alternative. Your comments on this alternative text would be very valuable. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Much better. Getting there but some tweaks may still be needed. Try to avoid using Gait directly as it is so old. Your other sources are all good, I think. There is an art in writing them up. Avoid using terms like "accepted", "consensus". Just follow the straightforward Fact - source model. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased the text and removed all use of "accepted" and "consensus". I could not avoid Gait for two reasons. One, he's is still a standard work; and two, because states clearly that the British used a name other than "Assam" and that a similar name was used by the Mughals earlier. I haven't seen any other reference that does this pointedly. Chaipau (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Better still. Now, this would be nitpicking were it not that the text has been challenged, and also we are on RSN and the archives may be used for reference. You don't need Gait because you have Kakati, you don't need to attribute. British Raj sources are a perennial headache on India articles, full of ethnocentric assumptions and haphazard methodology. Perhaps Gait is better than the others, but post WW2 is a useful rule of thumb on history articles. Fact, footnoted reference to Kakati, done and dusted. The only other tweak, not a sourcing thing, is that I would take out the "the" before "medieval". Then good to go. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. As a post-war scholar Kakati can critically read Raj texts, and make scholarly claims. As an encyclopaedia we are not a post-war scholar like Kakati—we should most certainly avoid using Raj texts due to their manifest deficiencies and their general rejection as appropriate scholarship by the post-war scholarly community. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have now removed Gait and the "the", here. I shall make more changes, if necessary. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Haven't been involved before but I sometimes work on etymologies. Your latest text is fine I think.

My impression (could be quite wrong!) is that this long dispute has been caused partly by the desire to place on Misplaced Pages a justification for the Assam government's proposal to change the name. Unfortunately the misleading statement that "Assam is an English word" became a sticking point. It isn't an English word, it's an English spelling ... but there may still be good reasons for changing it. Andrew Dalby 12:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This and a similar dispute some time ago on Misplaced Pages seemed more personal, pushing a POV.

After the disputing editor acknowledged a note I left on his talk page about the discussion here by blanking it, I went ahead and replaced the text in the section. He has now reverted the change, claiming the decision here is not binding. Where should this go now?

Chaipau (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As subject is controversial in nature, we may put POV's of some scholars and specialists as per Misplaced Pages's policy.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

After the disputing editor acknowledged a note I left on his talk page about the discussion here by blanking it, I went ahead and replaced the text in the section. He has now reverted the change, claiming the decision here is not binding. Where should this go now? When i reverted the change my actual words are like this Additions should be made without removing scholarly POV's and existing important data. Discussion is on going on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard though not binding in nature by which i refered to removal of large amount of important data by that change and advised to add without removing any existing data alongside mentioned about Misplaced Pages's policy of differences between order and recommendations.

I like to add here that i claimed "Assam is an English word used by British to refer Brahmaputra Valley and adjoining areas without refering to any inspiring word which may be matter of another discussion. And i said that same word was used by British to refer to a piece of land not any tribe adding that same word was never used natively before arrival of British". Due to this fact, present scholars of state recommended the change of name, which is accepted by state government. So i recommended that we may put in POV's of scholars due to controversial nature of subject, which already in place. And what last change by disputing user has done is removal of such POV's of specialists.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• It has been accepted here, and the references in Alternate Text 4 aver, that "Assam" is not an English word, but an English spelling
• The section is about the etymology of "Assam", and the changing forms and meanings of the word/name are all within its ambit.
• The proposal to change the name to "Asom" has stalled, mainly because it was based on false premises. A later proposal to change the name "Orissa" has completed the process and it is now "Odisha". The appropriate place to discuss the proposal and the controversies in probably the main article Etymology of Assam.

Chaipau (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting comparison. The situation seems to me very similar. "Orissa" was not an English word, but an English spelling/rendering of the name, and it was perfectly reasonable to say that it is inaccurate, reminiscent of a former colonial regime, and should no longer be official. Misplaced Pages can be quite neutral on such matters.

The difference is merely, I guess, that someone in Assam has claimed that "Assam is an English word". If so, we can surely say that in explaining the proposed name change -- "it has been claimed that Assam is an English word" -- and we can cite a politician who said it. It seems to me not likely that a linguist or scholar would have said it, but, if any have, we can obviously cite them too. If the assertion is notable, as it evidently is, there need be no difficulty about any of this. As you say, the best place for such an explanation is the full article Etymology of Assam; once it's set out fully there, it'll be even easier to decide what should be said in summary at Assam. Andrew Dalby 09:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Any official statement of the Assam government is notable enough to be included. We should avoid the word "claim". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the Etymology of Assam (User:Bhaskarbhagawati has challenged it on various grounds) Your help in checking out the sources would be very helpful. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The is that "Assam is an English spelling" is itself in doubt. Evidence has surfaced that the spelling "Assam" was initially used by the Dutch, not the English. A person in the Netherlands have produced a map from late 17th century that shows the modern spelling "Assam". Around the same time an Englishman used the spelling "Acham".(Bowrey, Thomas, A Geographical Account of Countries around Bay of Bengal, ed Temple, R. C., Hakluyt Society's Publications,, p143) He presented this and other at a meeting where local scholars were present, and this is his account of the meeting. In the published account, he mentions that the Director of the Historical and Antiquarian Studies (an Assam government department) was taken aback by the new evidence. It is not clear to me how this can be presented as reliable sources. I did refer to the map in the section as it currently exists, which User:Bhaskarbhagawati has marked as "not in citation given". I would agree that a weblink is not a very reliable source, but in this case it seems to have credence. This map was submitted as evidence in a petition to the Chief Minister of Assam. This petition and the meeting with the scholars were probably instrumental in stalling the name change effort by the government.

The other problem is the proposed new spelling "Asom". It does not represent the way the natives call the state, which would be "Oxom", where the "x" is a velar fricative as "ch" in "Loch Ness". This would confuse the issue further. An alternative would be "Osom", which would be no better than "Asam". In fact in the linguistic literature, we have seen the name of the language spelled not as "Assamese" but as "Asamiya".( George Cardona ed. (2003) "The Indo-Aryan Languages", Psychology Press) Taking this lead, the proposed name should indeed have been "Asam", which differs from the current spelling in just one redundant letter 's'.

Chaipau (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

As I've said below, I don't think we can help you further at RSN. We will not comment on what "proposed spellings should have been": that has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. The statement "Assam is an English spelling" is not controversial and is not affected by whether the same spelling was used in Dutch. Andrew Dalby 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that. The disputed statement is not "Assam is an English spelling" but "Assam is based on the English word Assam". Could you recommend where I may go next to resolve this? On your recommendation I spruced up the main article Etymology of Assam, so you may draw the right conclusion. If Misplaced Pages cannot resolve this, it would be remarkable. I have tried the third opinion, the dispute resolution and now this. As a result of this dispute, the Etymology section of Assam is now unreadable and makes no sense. Chaipau (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be unhelpful, but you can see yourself that by taking you round in circles over what exactly is in dispute, the account "Bhaskarbhagawati" is wasting your time and is persuading you to waste ours. The point you now raise is the same one you came on here with, two weeks ago, and we resolved it.

If "Bhaskarbhagawati" were doing this on the Latin Vicipaedia, I or any other admin over there would have blocked the account for timewasting, long ago. I'm not an admin here (thank heaven) so someone else will have to advise you where to go next :( Andrew Dalby 09:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall follow the comments made on the statement presented initially and go forward. I thank all for the comments made on Alternate Text 4 and shall not press the issue. I do appreciate the time and effort the people put here. Chaipau (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be unhelpful, but you can see yourself that by taking you round in circles over what exactly is in dispute, the account "Bhaskarbhagawati" is wasting your time and is persuading you to waste ours. If you gone through previous discussions here and in others, you can find that consistency is there what i said based on sources, it is another matter that disputing user tried to misguide here to gain advantage. As matter is controversial, i suggested the disputing user to put POV's of scholars, which is not acceptable to disputing user maybe due to against his interest. The point you now raise is the same one you came on here with, two weeks ago, and we resolved it. The solution cannot be said article because same was entirely developed by disputing user and reverted all of my contribution attempts. Concerns are put in talk page. If "Bhaskarbhagawati" were doing this on the Latin Vicipaedia, I or any other admin over there would have blocked the account for timewasting, long ago. It is disputing user who seems to waste others time as it is not a matter of reliable sources and should not be posted here.

bbhagawati (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been accepted here, and the references in Alternate Text 4 aver, that "Assam" is not an English word, but an English spelling Please refer to discussion at Talk:Assam and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The section is about the etymology of "Assam", and the changing forms and meanings of the word/name are all within its ambit. Separate article is there for it to discuss in depth. The proposal to change the name to "Asom" has stalled, mainly because it was based on false premises. A later proposal to change the name "Orissa" has completed the process and it is now "Odisha". It is pending due to opposition by an particular tribe, but what is important is proposition by scholars and acceptance by government both of whom are generally wiser than layman's. The appropriate place to discuss the proposal and the controversies in probably the main article Etymology of Assam. So what i am saying keep only mutually accepted facts and scholars POV's and keep the rest for main article.

The is that "Assam is an English spelling" is itself in doubt. Evidence has surfaced that the spelling "Assam" was initially used by the Dutch, not the English. A person in the Netherlands have produced a map from late 17th century that shows the modern spelling "Assam". Around the same time an Englishman used the spelling "Acham".(Bowrey, Thomas, A Geographical Account of Countries around Bay of Bengal, ed Temple, R. C., Hakluyt Society's Publications,, p143) He presented this and other at a meeting where local scholars were present, and this is his account of the meeting. In the published account, he mentions that the Director of the Historical and Antiquarian Studies (an Assam government department) was taken aback by the new evidence. It is not clear to me how this can be presented as reliable sources. I did refer to the map in the section as it currently exists, which User:Bhaskarbhagawati has marked as "not in citation given". I would agree that a weblink is not a very reliable source, but in this case it seems to have credence. This map was submitted as evidence in a petition to the Chief Minister of Assam. This petition and the meeting with the scholars were probably instrumental in stalling the name change effort by the government. Please refer to discussion at Talk:Assam and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The other problem is the proposed new spelling "Asom". It does not represent the way the natives call the state, which would be "Oxom", where the "x" is a velar fricative as "ch" in "Loch Ness". This would confuse the issue further. An alternative would be "Osom", which would be no better than "Asam". In fact in the linguistic literature, we have seen the name of the language spelled not as "Assamese" but as "Asamiya".( George Cardona ed. (2003) "The Indo-Aryan Languages", Psychology Press) Taking this lead, the proposed name should indeed have been "Asam", which differs from the current spelling in just one redundant letter 's'. It is because only one or two languistic groups in world used that X pronounciation that includes Eastern Assamese (included maybe due to corruption of S) which is exposed on others in state. S should be S not X and Asamiya is not from Asam but Sanskrit Asama.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati makes some tendentious remarks, but relevant nevertheless.

• His contention, that "Assam" is based on Sanskrit "Asama" has been rejected by Kakati and others (referred to in Alternate Text 4)
• The use of the velar fricative is common through out Assamese, not just in eastern Assamese. ("xaneri" Kamrupi; "xonari" St Assamese in Upendranath Goswami (1970) "A Study on Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese", Department of Historical and Antiquarian studies, p19). This book, based on a PhD thesis, is replete with the use of "x" in Kamrupi words.
• The petition against the change in name was signed by a cross-section of people that included not just people from a particular tribe. The list includes novelists such as Mamoni Raisom Goswami, who belonged to western Assam, and who has pioneered the use of the south Kamrupi dialect in standard works.() "The Assam Tribune" newspaper that had adopted "Asom" soon after the government proposal, has since reverted to "Assam".
• It seems to me that User:Bhaskarbhagawati's objections are primarily with associating the name "Assam" with this "tribe" (called shan invaders in Alternate Text 4). If so, his objections are nothing but POV pushing.

Chaipau (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Remember, we are only advising about sources here. It's not up to Misplaced Pages either to justify the Assam government's decision or to criticise it. Articles in the Assam Tribune may be reliable for the article, it depends. It seems to me that the article you link to (What's in a name? by Wahid Saleh) could support a short statement something like "an article in the Assam Tribune reported the finding of a Dutch map of the 17th century bearing a label 'Assam'." But it may not be necessary, and other editors may take a different view of this. The petition itself is a primary source, but a newspaper report about the petition would probably be reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks,Itsmejudith. I have accepted a previous suggestion that the main page Etymology of Assam should be fleshed out first so a synopsis could be better written. I started work on it, but it has turned out to be more work than I thought. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

His contention, that "Assam" is based on Sanskrit "Asama" has been rejected by Kakati and others (referred to in Alternate Text 4) I said Asamiya is from Sanskrit Asama like Assamese is from English Assam not Assam is from Asama.

The use of the velar fricative is common through out Assamese, not just in eastern Assamese. ("xaneri" Kamrupi; "xonari" St Assamese in Upendranath Goswami (1970) "A Study on Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese", Department of Historical and Antiquarian studies, p19). This book, based on a PhD thesis, is replete with the use of "x" in Kamrupi words. I already mentioned about imposition of X pronounciation.

The petition against the change in name was signed by a cross-section of people that included not just people from a particular tribe. The list includes novelists such as Mamoni Raisom Goswami, who belonged to western Assam, and who has pioneered the use of the south Kamrupi dialect in standard works.() "The Assam Tribune" newspaper that had adopted "Asom" soon after the government proposal, has since reverted to "Assam". Noted persons signs as sign of goodwill when approached. What matters is that majority involved is particular tribe. Newspaper done so because decision remain pending due to objection.

It seems to me that User:Bhaskarbhagawati's objections are primarily with associating the name "Assam" with this "tribe" (called shan invaders in Alternate Text 4). If so, his objections are nothing but POV pushing. No, my objection is regarding wrong glorification of something on false grounds which defeats neutrality policy.

It's not up to Misplaced Pages either to justify the Assam government's decision or to criticise it. But decisions of governments on the advice of scholars are considered as valid sources.

Articles in the Assam Tribune may be reliable for the article, it depends. It seems to me that the article you link to (What's in a name? by Wahid Saleh) could support a short statement something like "an article in the Assam Tribune reported the finding of a Dutch map of the 17th century bearing a label 'Assam'." But it may not be necessary, and other editors may take a different view of this. The petition itself is a primary source, but a newspaper report about the petition would probably be reliable.

Newspapers as source are conditional. An event reported by newspaper can a valid source but if newspapers reports that somebody objected on something does not mean this objection is correct.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This thread is repetitive, circular, and no longer a reliable sources matter. I hope some editor who hasn't previously commented will close it. Andrew Dalby 12:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This issue is wrongly brought here as it is not case for recommendations for reliable sources. It maybe closed now.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It was correctly brought here, Bhaskarbhagawati, and we resolved the issue for you. You are quite right to admit, above, that by continuing to be a "disputing user" you "waste others time". I am glad you now understand that. I hope you will learn from this experience that, in addition to wasting others' time, you also waste a lot of your own time in such pointless argument. You really can improve Misplaced Pages, you know! But you have to add information that is supported by reliable sources, cite the sources accurately, and, if a discussion arises, try to find agreement by consensus. Andrew Dalby 08:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding reliable sources i like to forward some views of greatest Scholars State has ever produced:

Banikanta Kakati says -

The word Assamese is an English one,built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam.

Satyendranath Sarma says:-

Assamese is the easternmost Indo-Aryan language of India, spoken by nearly eight millions of people inhabiting mostly the Brahmaputra valley of Assam. The word Assamese is an English formation built on the same principle as Simhalese or Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam by which the British rulers referred to the tract covered by the Brahmaputra valley and its adjoining areas. But the people call their country Asama and their language Asamiya.

Due to fact that State government propose to parliament of the country for name change of State for its foreign links. Experts from State government also includes the Ex president of highest literacy body of State. Links are provided above in my previous posts. So i like to remind again that my claim is that current name "Assam" is an "English" word used by British to refer to a piece of land in "North East India" not a tribe. And this dispute is about current name not about any other names.

Here are links, this Link is already there in main article for some time referring to said developments and this i like add few more: Link, Link, Link, Link

As for English spelling I like to say, (i) "Aryan" which is now an English word having its sources in "Arya" an Sanskrit word. Arya was used as self designation by Indo-Aryans but when it acquired English spelling by adding an extra 'N' it becomes an English word mentioned in all English dictionaries which means larger picture than traditional word by referring to Indo-Iranians and sometimes entire Indo-European people unlike the Arya.

(ii) The name "America" is taken from "Amerigo Vespucci", but word America does not refer to said person but only the source word "Amerigo". This example is directly not applicable here because unlike America the inspiring word of English word "Assam" is not yet ascertained is matter of another discussion.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course "Assamese" is an English word. Grierson's full text, written about 100 years ago, can be read here, thanks to archive.org. In the course of his explanation, yes, Grierson says "Assam is an English word", and goes on to state that it's a "corruption of Āsām", the Bengali name for the region." His terminology is dated -- linguists nowadays leave corruption to others -- but he's spot-on as regards the history of the name. He goes on to discuss its ultimate origin -- the Sanksrit theory, which he rejects, and the connection with the name of the Ahom, which he accepts. He's writing about the language , and his aim is to explain why he uses the term "Assamese", spelt with a double 's', although that spelling has no local justification. His argument is that it makes sense to continue this way until such time as the name of the state gets a new spelling. Fascinating stuff. And I guess it must have made sense to write, in Simla, in about 1910, when the only ruling language of India was English, "Assam is an English word".

Although it's quite legitimate to quote Grierson's full explanation, it doesn't support any modern argument except the obvious one. Grierson confidently traces the history further back from that so-called "English word" to the Bengali name of the region, and beyond that to the Bengali name of the Ahom. It's useless to quote that one assertion and say that all the rest "is matter of another discussion". It all goes together.

OK, so, quote me in what context Banikanta Kakati makes the statement. A great scholar, certainly, but it appears from your brief citation above that on this particular point he is merely quoting Grierson. That's natural enough; but we have no need to cite Banikanta Kakati on this issue unless he is saying something new.

One added point: if what you really want to say is that Assam was the British name for the region, not for a people or tribe, you're quite right, of course. Āsām was the Bengali name for it, and "Assam" was the British name for it. That's not controversial, surely. Andrew Dalby 12:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the Anchor Bible Dictionary a reliable source for archaeological claims?

I have a few concerns concerning the sourcing for Nazareth, (see article talk page for details), but I would like an opinion about one source in particular. The article says:

"James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.” Strange originally speculated that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people", but later, in a subsequent publication, at “a maximum of about 480.”"

with the citations being:

Article "Nazareth" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

E. Meyers & J. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity Nashville: Abingdon, 1981; Article “Nazareth” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

(Misplaced Pages does not have an article on James F. Strange or Eric M. Meyers, but Strange is mentioned at Yahad Ostracon and Meyers is briefly mentioned at The Jesus Family Tomb.)

Is the Anchor Bible Dictionary a reliable source for archaeological claims that have no citations to peer-reviewed science? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Without genuine academic peer-review, neither of these sources meets our requirements as a erliable source for archeological claims. All the more so as Strange seems to have no qualifications as an archeologist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dictionaries produced by non-scholars and aimed at non-scholars, such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary, are not suitable places to publish scholarly archaeological conclusions. Scholarly archaeological conclusions are required to support claims about historical Nazereth's population and importance.

Abingdon press is a mass sectarian press, with no indication it has the competence to support the publication of scholarly monographs. Seek scholarly reviews of Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity in scholarly peer reviewed journals, bring such reviews here. If they're positive they may overcome the limits of Abingdon's capacity to publish. Until you find indication that Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity is accepted by the community of scholars, don't use it. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit outside of the scope of my question, but would someone be so kind as to take a look at my other concerns on the article talk page? It's pretty short.

If this was in my normal area of editing (engineering) I would just edit the page to reflect what reliable sources we have and take out claims that aren't backed up by a RS. I suspect that trying to do this on a page which touches on religious beliefs like this one is very likely to unleash a storm of protests, so I want to make absolutely sure that I have all my ducks in a row before trying.

There appears to be a large amount of debate on the internet about this, mostly from blogs that freely admit that they have an agenda. A few of the more widely-quoted (and, of course completely unreliable other than for documenting that a controversy exists) blogs are:

PRO:

http://www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/Archeology/intro.html (Search on "Nazareth")

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/nazareth.php

CON:

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

When making claims about the contents of religious texts, the appropriate sources are scholarly theologians (and in some cases truly Expert practising contemporary theologians), scholarly religious studies academics, and scholarly literary criticists of religious texts. When making claims about the historical past (WP:HISTRS), appropriate sources are scholarly archaeology, scholarly history, and occasionally scholarly historical anthropology etc…. We have a responsibility to properly attribute and weight all non-FRINGE scholarly opinions, based on their acceptance in the preponderance of scholarly literature. I would suggest doing research on the scholarly opinion regarding Nazareth's historical significance before editing, so you're aware of the scholarly context. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• One should generally avoid things with names like "bible dictionary", but each case has to be considered on its merits. Contrary to what Fifelfoo claims, the Anchor Bible Dictionary is one of the most scholarly publications in this class, edited by a well respected scholar and containing articles signed by many eminent academics. The multi-volume series it appears in was recently taken over by Yale University. The reliability of this should be treated about the same as the best encyclopedias like Britannica. Zero 00:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• The comments about James Strange that Guy Macon is posting are completely wrong and probably a violation of WP:BLP. The fact is that James Strange is an archaeologist, involved in actual excavations. See for example this, this, this, this, and this. Very very obviously a reliable source. Zero 00:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• You just made a very serious accusation against me. Before I say or do anything further, I would like to give you the opportunity to retract it. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been arguing that Strange is not an archaeologist due to being unqualified. For someone whose profession is archaeology, such statements are false and defamatory. So, no, I won't retract it. I don't have any sympathy with your ignorance either as it takes about one minute with google to determine that Strange is an accomplished archaeologist who is frequently cited by his peers. His coauthor in the book you don't like is even more eminent. It is also easy to determine that they are both specialists in the required subfield of archaeology. Zero 10:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not "arguing that Strange is not an archaeologist due to being unqualified" I am asking whether there is a reliable source that supports the claim that Strange is an archaeologist. The citations you list above do not support that, and your argument that they do is WP:SYNTHESIS. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• • So cite the YUP edition, it is more recent anyway, and cite it properly. A wide variety of scholarly encyclopaedia articles are less than desirable: the unsigned ones for example. Doubleday (and before them Anchor) simply don't have the capacity to supervise scholarly outputs. Similarly, I'm less than willing to accept Expert arguments about scholars when they're publishing in non-scholarly presses. Reviews of the work in question in the scholarly literature are far superior to demonstrating that the scholar has indeed on other occasions published scholarly content. The issue is if the article desired to cite from in scholarly. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC) As discovered below YUP takes full responsibility for all Doubleday and Anchor elements of this series. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a more recent edition. The article on Nazareth is signed by James Strange. As a summary (2 pages) by an expert, it is fine for the few uncontroversial things being cited to it. It could be replaced fairly easily, but there is no urgency. Zero 10:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"The few uncontroversial things being cited to it"? You call a speculation that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ was 480 -- a claim that I have shown that there is a huge debate about -- so uncontroversial that we are to accept it without a citation to a reliable source? I can think of only two possible explanations for you making such a claim. The first possibility is that you don't understand or verifiability policy. Misplaced Pages:Scientific citation guidelines#Uncontroversial knowledge clearly defines uncontroversial knowledge: "Some statements are uncontroversial and widely known among people familiar with a discipline. Such facts may be taught in university courses, found in textbooks, or contained in multiple references in the research literature". Either add a citation to a reliable source for the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ, or the statement must be removed. The second possibility is that you are unable to overcome a bias that causes you to be willing to ignore Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy, and should recuse yourself from editing this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Anchor Bible Dictionary arbitrary break

• • I haven't been able to find specific reviews, however this work has been cited admiringly regarding its extensive analysis of language use in New Testament Studies ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500006056 ), "For the latest over-all survey of the languages in first century Palestine we refer to E. M. Meyers – J. F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis & Early Christianity (Abingdon-Nashville, 1981), ch. 4, pp. 62–91." This methodology paper also treats its conclusions on Greek versus Aramaic as standard: McIver, Robert K., "Methodology and the Search for the Historical Jesus: A Response to John Dominic Crossan" (1999). Theology Papers and Journal Articles. Paper 23. It is relatively widely cited ( http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=8951557329322791848&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en ), but a quick check of citations indicates potentially superior sources for historical Nazereth, ( http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7_rtx8zTBOAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&ots=96a7yGl450&sig=IiKMzKLMQ8VL1W4IAHPaKWL7_GU#v=onepage&q&f=false ). YMMV. I think it seems like the text is treated as a member of the scholarly publications in its field. (I wish they'd find better publishers than minor, non-scholarly, sectarian presses for this stuff). I re-emphasise: Anchor/Doubleday isn't an appropriate scholarly text, cite the YUP version if, and only if, the piece is signed; regarding the Abingdon work, I believe it to be reasonably accepted in the scholarly literature, but by checking who cites the work in scholar I found multiple potentially superior works whose primary focus is on social and economic history in the region (for example). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC) As noted below YUP has taken full responsibility for the scholarly quality of all Doubleday and Anchor impression works in this series. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

    Our policies do not require the citation of a "scholarly text", and if the two editions say the same thing, by the same author, then demanding the one with the fancier-sounding publisher is silly, bureaucratic hoops to jump through. We normally prefer (NB: not require) scholarly sources because we think them more likely to get it right. So long as the facts are right, then any minimally reliable source, even if wholly non-academic, is acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

    The quality of the source needs to match the quality demanded by the claim. It is that simple. You can take your personal truth regarding facts and shove it up your personal original research. If you want to meet policy and consensus regarding V in areas covered by scholarly work, guess what you need to cite? And mass market paperback publishers aren't that. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I ask again: What policy and what consensus (at least what consensus that is not limited in its application by WP:CONLIMITED)? What you have said is arguably the best practice, but neither policy nor consensus requires it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." WP:IRS. Think about "appropriate to the claims made." in the context of a pulp presses' dictionary. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yale University Press describes the six-volume ABD and its companions as "a prestigious collection of more than 115 volumes of biblical scholarship" and thought highly enough of it that they bought it and promised to keep publishing every volume.

But Fifelfoo seems to be saying here that if the version in your hands was published before the 2007 acquisition, then it's not scholarly on the grounds that the enormous original publisher has some non-scholarly books in its list, but the minute that the same book, with the same contents, says "Yale University Press" instead of "Doubleday" on the copyright page, it's okay. This is silly. We have a reliable source saying that ABD is a scholarly publication. YUP—Fifelfoo's preferred publisher here—is selling the exact 1992 volume being cited here. We don't need to rely on Fifelfoo's personal opinion about whether Doubleday is capable of having a scholarly source in its list. This is a scholarly source and should be treated like any other scholarly tertiary source (which is to say, it's reliable-but-not-best for most purposes). There is nothing "inappropriate" about using a prestigious scholarly encyclopedia (IMO it's more encyclopedia than dictionary) as a source for basic information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying, and your quotation of YUP makes me reverse my position because you've demonstrated that the acquisition is due to the scholarly quality of the entire series (not just "new" YUP releases). How can you demonstrate it is scholarly? Do you have reviews of the Anchor edition in scholarly theological journals? I'd accept these as proof that it is scholarly. Do you have reviews of the Doubleday edition in scholarly theological journals? I'd accept these as proof that it is scholarly. Can you point to the YUP acquisition document praising it? You did! In fact Yale points out my criticism is valid when they say, "This sale will enable Doubleday to enhance its existing focus on publishing general religious titles for the trade market." Doubleday and Anchor are not scholarly presses, they work in the trade market. But when YUP acquires a work because, "Yale University Press will publish all backlist and new volumes in the series, to be renamed Anchor Yale Bible, going forward. Yale University Press will be adding a highly-regarded line of books that strengthens its existing publishing program and serves its mandate to publish serious works that further scholarly investigation and advance interdisciplinary inquiry." Then this for me counts as YUP taking responsibility for the editorial content of the entire series. I'm sure we're all familiar with now reputable sources that began in the gutter press. New Left Review began as the unreviewed dissident communist Reasoner within the Communist Party of Great Britain (possibly in the CPGB historians group...). NLR is scholarly. Reasoner ain't. YUP's acquisition statement demonstrates that all of the Anchor series were scholarly. RS/N needs a process to use for demonstration of source reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of these sources that we are talking about are not available online. I would very much like to read the sources we are basing this article on in context. I believe that it would be well within fair use for someone with access to these sources to quote a paragraph or two on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Guy, most humanities works have a "long tail" of tens or even hundreds of years; they are also very much paper library oriented (except for the past two years of publications). You may have to hit a high quality scholarly library. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I found this, for what its worth. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Alarmed to see top editors falling out so quickly. There are some complexities here, and it necessarily takes a few posts to work it out properly. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's the usual problem for the regulars here: someone asks whether a source is reliable, and half the group says, no, it's unreliable because it's not the best imaginable source, and the other half says yes, obviously it's reliable, because it meets or exceeds the minimum standards set forth by the guidelines and policies. And when you throw in a suspicion that the "unreliable" answers are knee-jerk anti-Christian bigotry (which would be appalling in this context, because modern archaeology was practically invented by Christians for the purpose of studying religious history), then you get prompt a falling out.

In the future, I suspect that we could reduce this miscommunication by saying "best" when we mean "best" and "reliable" when we mean "complies with WP:RS". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not that at all. All posters were addressing the criterion of a fully scholarly source, essential for an archaeology article. It was about haste, probably. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that party of the problem is an unexamined assumption. Zero0000, who is no stranger to wikiconflicts, seeing me question the reliability of his sources assumes that I want to remove material from the article. My actually my goal is, if at all possible, to keep the material and add a new and better citation. Removal is only a reluctant last resort. My main issue is that the sections that are about archaeology really do need to have citations that can be traced back to a peer-reviewed source for all controversial (likely to be challenged) claims. Claims that there was a population of 480 there in the first century -- or any population at all -- are very likely to be challenged and need to be backed up by peer-reviewed science. I really do think that previous editors accepted poor citations for religious reasons, and that the article will be far stronger if we only report what is in the peer-reviewed science. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Judith, there is no rule requiring every single source in an archaeological article to be "a fully scholarly source". Every source must be reliable, meaning that every source must meet or exceed the minimum standard set forth at WP:RS. Some sources should be fully scholarly sources, but "some" is not "all", and "reliable" encompasses far more than "fully scholarly". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(e-c) Guy, this is a different point from the one first made. Now the question seems to be not whether the source is a reliable source, which it pretty much clearly is, but whether it is one of the best sources on the subject, which in fact is the kind of sources we would prefer to use. Standing on its own, I would have to say no, it is not one of the best possible sources. The question then would be whether we can find better sources. This might not be as silly a question as some might think. Remember, we are talking about Israel here. A lot of material relating to this subject might not have been translated or made easily available in English. The problem is whether anyone has access to those better sources, wherever they are. I would agree if possible better sources, including academic ones of some sort, would be preferred. Even some non-scholarly books might be preferable. This page lists a book by Charlesworth, generally regarded as a very good scholarly author, and mentions a few others. But, at this point, I don't see any good reason to necessarily remove the information, although admittedly it would be a good idea if better sources were found. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Anchor Bible Dictionary second arbitrary break

I have a followup question. Let me know if it belongs in a new entry. Is this page

http://web1.cas.usf.edu/main/peopleDetails.cfm?ID=9537&DeptID=0-1259-000

a reliable source for the claim "James Strange is an archaeologist"?

On the yes side, are these statements:

"He was Montgomery Fellow at the W.F. Abright Institute for Archaelogical Research in Jerusalem in 1970-71 and NEH fellow at the same Institute in 1980."

"Dr. Strange's research interests are in Biblical Archaelogy,"

"Strange has participated in field archaeology annually since 1969 and has directed the excavations at Sepphoris, Israel annually since 1983"

On the no side is this:

"James Strange is Professor of Religious Studies and Director of Graduate Studies. He has served both as Chairperson of Religious Studies (1990-93) and as Dean of the College of Arts and Letters (1981-89). He earned a B.A. in Philosophy from Rice University in 1959, an M.Div. from Yale Divinity School in 1964, and a PhD. in New Testament Studies from Drew University in 1970."

...no degree in archaeology, and nowhere does he claim to be an archaeologist.

Related questions: would the above justify calling him a "biblical archaeologist" or "amateur archaeologist"? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

First, the Anchor Bible Dictionary is a reliable source. Depending on the date of publication, and the length of the material included, and the potential bias of the author of any individual article (which happens rather often), and other things, it may not be the best source, but it is reliable. Second, Strange I think could reasonably be described as a Biblical archaeologist, given his status as a director of excavations. However, if one wanted to get really OCD about it, one could describe him as a biblical historian who has directed archaeological digs. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

People who are paid to do archaeology cannot be described as "amateurs". Amateur vs professional is all about the money. University degrees are not relevant: Abraham Lincoln, for example, was a lawyer despite having attended school for only a total of 18 months in his life. He was a professional lawyer because people paid him to do the work, not because he spent years in a classroom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Counterexample: "Dr. Carl Baugh, Director of the Creation Evidence Museum, began his excavation project on the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas in March 1982. Since that time, Baugh, along with teams of volunteers, has uncovered over 400 dinosaur tracks and over 80 human footprints in Cretaceous limestone." Source: Creation Evidence Museum People pay Baugh to do archaeology, but he is no archaeologist. Baugh is a creation scientist, and Strange is a Biblical Archaeologist (not to compare the two - Biblical Archaeologists are real scientists)

Also, Abraham Lincoln became a lawyer in 1836 when he passed the bar exam which was administered to him in Sangamon County Circuit Court and obtained his law license. It was then and still is no illegal to practice law or call yourself a lawyer just because someone is willing to pay you to practice law. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am addressing only the question of amateur vs professional: You don't become a professional _____, no matter what _____ is, until you get paid for doing it. An unpaid attorney, archaeologist, or armadillo hunter is an amateur. The word derives from "doing it for love", i.e., not for money. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If he's published archaeological conclusions in scholarly peer reviewed archaeological journals, then he's an archaeologist. If he's got a PhD in archaeology then he's an archaeologist. If he's published archaeological books in a University Press (or similar) and they've not received hostile reviews in the scholarly peer reviewed archaeological journals, then he's an archaeologist. If he's published archaeological findings in the mass-marked non-fiction presses, and these have been reviewed positively in the scholarly peer reviewed archaeological journals, then he's an archaeologist. Membership of the practicing scholarly community is the criteria, this is most easily evidenced by research publications that meet the standard of scholarly acceptance. (This answer in terms of considering expertise in terms of reliable sourcing, not in terms of reliably sourcing[REDACTED] claiming he's an archaeologist) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim in question is both extraordinary and controversial, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Furthermore, the claim is archeological in nature, and thus requires a genuine archeological source. The Anchor Biblical Dictionary clearly fails as a source because it was not compiled with the intention of being an authoritative source on archeological matters, nor did it receive any sort of review from an archeological standpoint. The author of the article is also not a recognized expert in the field of archeology to the extent that his claim should be given any weight, published as it is in without the benefit of peer-review. He seems to be a minor character in the field of archeological research in Israel, with no formal training and a modest and unspectacular pubication history. He has never particpated in excavations at Nazareth, nor does he have the training, expertise or stature to give his claims about Nazareth any special credibility. In fact, his claims sound like little else than armchair speculation. Sorry, but claims about archeology pertainign to Nazareth by an archeological lightweight who has no special knowledge about the site in question that are published in a non-peer reveiwed, non-archeological source carry little weight, especially since no one in the archeological community has bothered to comment on them in independent reliable sources. The claims do not appear to be part of the schlarly debate on the topic, and thus should not be mentioned here in WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This paragraph should get a prize of some sort. Zero 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is really quite absurd to imagine that someone who has been the director of several archaeological excavations in Israel is not an archaeologist. The State of Israel issues excavation permits carefully and sparingly, of course he's an archaeologist. Incidentally, he also wrote the article on Nazareth in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, under the auspices of the American Schools of Oriental Research (one of the most respected academic organizations in archaeology) and published by Oxford University Press. I guess Dominus Vobisdu will tell us it is really a children's book. He spent three years as Fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, the most famous institution in Middle East archaeology, of course he's an archaeologist. His coauthor Meyers was even the director of the Albright Institute for a while. Can we stop this nonsense now? Zero 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

People stumbling on this section might not realise what is going on. There is a fringe theory that Nazareth was uninhabited at the time of Jesus, and some of its adherents have been trying for years to push it into Nazareth. It must be true, but the archaeologists refuse to cooperate. They even do things like digging up houses from that time period, bad bad archaeologists! Zero 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• The confusion may have resulted from the fact that his son, James R. Strange, helps him do his field work. James F. Strange is the one qualified in archaeology. is/was a lead archaeologist at the site of the ancient city of Sepphoris. Notice these links: University of South Florida, A blog of someone working with the Strange family (second generation includes the son and a daughter): Here; James F. Strange has published in peer-reviewed journals. He is leading in excavations at the site of the ancient city of Sepphoris, three miles from Nazareth. His opinion most-likely is biased in favor of the existence of the ancient Nazareth of Jesus, but there seems no doubt that James F. Strange is a competent and respected archaeologist. Note these search results from Google scholar here. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Regarding evidence for the existence of Nazareth, it may still be FRINGE to doubt that it existed, but the lack of evidence is a valid concern. This helps explain why the excavations at Sepphoris hold significance for these Christian archaeologists. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, nobody ever claimed that Nazareth didn't exist. The claim is that there is no evidence of human habitation between the Late Iron Age (c. 700 BCE) and Middle Roman times (c. 100 CE). I personally doubt that claim, based upon arguments by Richard carrier,, but the fact remains that the only citation to a RS the article has on this dates the artifacts found to "the first and second centuries CE". All I am saying is that if Misplaced Pages says that there were people living in Nazareth at the time of Christ, we need to have a citation to a RS that says that. Right now we have no such citation. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• That is cutting an awful fine line. If there are no humans, then Nazareth, as a human construct did not exist during that time. So there is no ongoing question regarding James F. Strange's credentials as a bonafide archaeologist? If a reputable archaeologist, such as James F. Strange, speculates about Nazareth at the time of Christ and is quoted in a reliable source, then his opinion is okay to cite, I would think. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone questions James F. Strange's credentials as a biblical archaeologist, but as a reliable source for the claim we are examining there are at least two participants in this discussion who question his qualifications. First, Dominus Vobisdu above, who wrote

"The author of the article is also not a recognized expert in the field of archeology to the extent that his claim should be given any weight, published as it is in without the benefit of peer-review. He seems to be a minor character in the field of archeological research in Israel, with no formal training and a modest and unspectacular pubication history. He have the training, expertise or stature to give his claims about Nazareth any special credibility. In fact, his claims sound like little else than armchair speculation. Sorry, but claims about archeology pertainign to Nazareth by an archeological lightweight who has no special knowledge about the site in question that are published in a non-peer reveiwed, non-archeological source carry little weight, especially since no one in the archeological community has bothered to comment on them in independent reliable sources. The claims do not appear to be part of the schlarly debate on the topic, and thus should not be mentioned here in WP."

I myself also question the claims, partly because Richard Carrier, who I have found to be very reliable when he reports a fact (his conclusions are another matter), wrote "some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth" That statement is enough for me to require actual peer-reviewed science that supports the claim. Nobody has pointed me to a peer-reviewed paper where James F. Strange makes the claim, and nobody has pointed me to a peer-reviewed paper that James F. Strange may have consulted before making the claim, and nobody has shown me that James F. Strange is enough of an authority on this that I am willing to accept his word that there are -- somewhere -- peer-reviewed papers that support the claim. In fact, I suspect that if I had access to the Anchor Bible Dictionary article on Nazareth, I would find the he presents the claim as opinion or speculation, not as a fact that is backed up by peer-reviewed science. I also question the fact that this is the only source that anyone has come up with that gives a population estimate for the period in question. Where did Strange get this data that nobody else can find? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Haven't investigated James F. Strange enough to defend his credentials. Archaeology in the Middle-East has moved away from biblical reference points. There are some very good older archaeologists who are very reputable but still could be called "Biblical" archaeologists. Regarding Nazareth, I am okay with a strict skeptical standard. Misplaced Pages is served well by such. I have tried to find any kind of information about early 1st-century "Israel". Outside of the biblical manuscripts, there isn't much available about anything. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a cut and dried case of an article basing a claim on a source that does not meet our criteria for being a reliable source for that claim. Think about what we are being asked to accept here. We are expected to accept a Misplaced Pages article giving an estimate of the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ. Everything about our reliable sources policy points to a requirement that there must exists a peer-reviewed archeological paper that makes that estimate for that period. We are being asked to accept that somehow Strange knows the population without any sort of evidence, based upon a statement he made in a publication that is not peer reviewed. Given the high visibility of this particular topic, if there really was a peer-reviewed paper backing up Strange's claims, we would know about it. So how, exactly, does Strange know what the population was? Unless he has a time machine, he must base his opinion on peer-reviewed science, and we know he does not have any peer-reviewed science to back up his claim. To accept Strange as a reliable source for the the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ goes against everything our verifiability policy stands for. Verifiability means that we can verify that he knows what he says he knows, when in actuality we know that he has no way of knowing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just not true. There is absolutely no "requirement that there must exists a peer-reviewed archeological paper" that says anything about this. Misplaced Pages requires reliable sources. We do not require "peer-reviewed papers". Peer-reviewed papers happen to be one of the many types of sources that are typically reliable, but we do not require a peer-reviewed paper for every fact about history or archaeology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to this? It says something about estimating the population using Safrai's method, but I can't see what the answer is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I can get ahold of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, but it would take a few days. But I also agree with WhatamIdoing above. Guy Macon said we can only use academic journals. We can and do have other sources available, and they are of sufficient quality that they can be used as well as academic journals. Also, yes, we are not obliged to use exclusively academic journals anyway. But, back on point here, Google books here lists several books which discuss the matter. One of which I just pulled out, the Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible also edited by David Noel Freedman. It says something about the respect an editor is given when two different encyclopedia want him as their main editor, right? I have started to get together a list of dictionaries on religious topics at User:John Carter/Religion reference, but haven't gotten around to adding them all yet, and having looked at the reviews I found as I pulled them up, and the general academic opinion of the editor, it is basically counted by academics as being on a par with academic journals in terms of reliability. Quoting Eerdmans page 951, in the article on Nazareth written by Jonathan L. Reed, "At the time of Jesus, Nazareth was an obscure village S of Sepphoris. ... Evidence for a necropolis helps determine the extent of the 1st-century-ruins, which correlate to a populataion of well under 500. Nathanel's exclamation in John 1:46, 'Can anything good come out of Nazareth?' aptly symbolizes the town's obscurity in the 1st century." The bibliography for the article includes B. Bagatti, Excavations at Nazareth I (Jerusalem, 1969); E. M. Myers and J. F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity (Nashville, 1981); J. E. Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places (Oxford, 1993). Maybe it is a bit of a guess, but I assume those sources support the content of the article. Now, by saying this, I am in no way saying that the article should not include some information regarding how this conclusion is apparently questioned, because that seems to be valid as well. However, that quote, "some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth" explicitly uses the word some. "Some" is not all, or even a majority - it means some. So based on the evidence I have seen, there is sufficient evidence to include the material on both sides, using the language "some" used in the source regarding the numbers of those who question it. It might be better if someone found on the secondary sources included in the Eerdmans bibliography, but I think we can use either that book, or the Anchor, as a reliable source in its own right. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have the article from Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus and it does indeed address the population of Nazareth. Thanks to WhatamIdoing for finding it; it will improve the article. The author (Paul Foster of the University of Edinburgh) says that one method would give 630–720 and another method would give 200–220 which "appears to be an underestimate". Then he cites Strange's estimate of at most 480 from the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Note two things: one is that Strange is very widely cited on ancient Nazareth because he is regarded as an authority on the subject, and his article in Anchor Bible Dictionary is one of those which is widely cited. Second, not in this article nor in any other article I have ever seen in the professional literature since the 1950s excavations of Bagatti is there any credence given to the possibility that Nazareth was unoccupied in the time of Jesus (let alone for many centuries as Salm's amateur theory insists). The possibility of it being unoccupied is hardly ever even mentioned. There is in fact no controversy over this question among archaeologists. People who want to write the article on the basis of there being a dispute should first prove that there is one. Of course there are disagreements over details, but that is how science works. Zero 06:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And by "prove that there is ", we mean by citing sources rather stronger than http://www.nazarethmyth.info and http://www.jesusneverexisted.com, which seem to be the only "sources" cited as proof that these academic books and journal articles are all wrong.

It seems to me that we've determined that both the ABD and the article from Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (1) are reliable sources for statements about the population of Nazareth during the time in question and (2) represent the mainstream academic views on the subject (i.e., the population was a couple of hundred, and exact estimates vary according to the method used). Does that sound like the consensus to everyone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Snopes.com

Is snopes.com considered reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorofthewiki (talk • contribs)

Yes, sort of, in certain contexts. Are you talking about this? The snopes article is based on Dave Marsh's book Louie Louie. You may be able to find it in your local library. Arcandam (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'm sure this has been asked a bajillion times, but what about about.com? Specifically http://oldies.about.com/library/weekly/aa091602a.htm and related links? ~EDDY ~ 03:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

My initial guess was that it wouldn't be; however, it appears like it is reliable. It is a part of the New York Times Company. Check the page for a random contributor Aaron Gold. This appears to be the contributor who added the information. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I would say that Snopes is reliable but not About.com. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Too expand, if we can trust the information they provide us about their contributors, the author of the link given is "an entertainment critic and journalist who has been published nationally for over a quarter century, and has written about oldies music for most of that time". Aaron Gold, who I linked to earlier, works full time for about.com and is a consulting producer for Top Gear. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand the site well enough to comment conclusively ... my impression is that about.com contributors are well chosen for their expertise and the site is professionally managed. I'd incline towards saying "yes, reliable". Andrew Dalby 08:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

To be more precise, About.com itself is not reliable, but the individual authors fairly often qualify for expert status (see WP:SPS) and are thus reliable sources no matter where they publish. That's why we say that "source" has three meanings on Misplaced Pages (author, publication, and publisher). Only one of the three needs to be acceptable. In this case, the overall publication (About.com's website) is unreliable, but some of the authors are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Campus Circle (newspaper) and Campus Circle Media

Inre: February 22, 2010 interview in free alternative newspaper Campus Circle as used in the article The Last Hurrah (2009 film) for sourcing non-controversial information in The Last Hurrah (2009 film) "Production" and "Critical response" sections:

From "Production":

The movie is filmed in one single, continuous 88 minute shot. The film is considered part of the mumblecore movement because of its shooting style, emphasis on dialog, and focus on Generation Y relationships. The director states that the film was inspired by Richard Linklater and Woody Allen, with dialogue intended to be "a lot of fast-paced one-liners. A lot of philosophy." Obstacles encountered while shooting the film as one take included coordinating a film crew in a party scene filled with extras, and equipment limitations such as cameras with 30 minutes shot length. Filming took five nights of shooting attempts - on the fifth night, "the film came together."

From "Critical response":

Campus Circle wrote that teen comedies have become reviled due to their becoming "synonymous with cheap laughs and awkward, over sexual punch lines," but that Last Hurrah "reminds audiences of what has since been lost from the high point of ’80s filmmaking."

Refcite: Stokell, Spence (February 22, 2010). "Jonathan Stokes: The Last Hurrah Director Takes Five" Campus Circle. Retrieved July 15, 2012.

Campus Circle's "about us" and "media" pages stress that their target demographic are readers between the ages of 18 and 34, gives company history and background leading to the formation of "Campus Circle Media" in 2000 as a group of 33 alternative newspapers nationwide that are distributed both on and off college campuses in their respective cities, and offers that they now network with over 34 different publications in 32 different markets. Their "contact us" page shows that they have different editorial departments and, in serving college and university age students on campuses across the US as part of their target demographic, they have main offices at a non-university address in Los Angeles. The bottom of their main page shows that along with the online version, hardcopy issues are published 49 times a year. So... is the source reliable enough in context to what is being sourced? Or not? Schmidt, 04:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason here to think that it is less reliable than any other weekly entertainment rag.

I assume that you're worried about it being considered a student newspaper. It's not. We accept sources that young people read. We worry about sources that inexperienced people write. That's why we have a general dislike for student newspapers: the students who write, edit, and publish those papers don't normally know what they're doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Would DA be a RS?

I'm a pretty big book fan and as such, I edit a lot of articles about books. Every so often (rather often, depending on the genre) I'll come across a book that has a review by Dear Author, such as this book. I'm halfway between seeing the site as a reliable source and half not. It is essentially a book blog when you get down to it, but the site is also seen as a pretty reliable source in the publishing industry, with the site being quoted by other sites (not just no-name book blogs) and portions of their reviews being placed on book jackets and the like. They've also been somewhat responsible for the publishing of various authors by way of putting the first page of an author's work on their site. (Agents and the like see the page and if they like what they see, they contact DA and get the person's contact info and publish the book, which has actually happened.)

However, I know that it being a blog does sort of put a crinkle in the mix, so I thought I'd come here and ask. To me it's a RS and the reviewers on the site are considered authorities, but I figured I'd come here and ask.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:USERGENERATED deals with personal blogs, but per WP:RS, "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If site reviewers are established authorities, and have been published elsewhere, it would appear you are good to go. Best to cite the expert, AS an expert. For example, if Roger Ebert were accurately quoted in a blog, it would be he as the expert who lends the credence to what is being quoted... not the blog. Schmidt, 08:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

New York Daily News - reliable source for attribution of "Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012"

Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has any number of issues that need to be dealt with, but is the screaming headline from New York Daily News ] a reliable source to base the inclusion of a new "incident" into the article? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Typically, we do not cite news headlines as these are (generally speaking) not written by the author, but by the editor trying to get the reader's attention. I'm not sure if there's a rule that says that, but that's typically what we do. In that particular news article, there's a quick summary beneath the headline that says, "Bus driver responsible for the zombie-like attack took a long liquid lunch before jumping on the hood of a passing woman's car, biting her when she got out, reports say." Does anyone know who typically writes these? If it's written by the journalist, I would say that it's reliable; if it's not, that I would say no. Of course, that's assuming that Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 is a real topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

re: "that's assuming that is a real topic. " got any advice on how to proceed on that front? I am at a loss and just attempting to keep it from getting worse. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The actual source for this is the Shanghai Daily—there's no reason to think that the New York Daily News article contains any original reporting, so why not cite the Shanghai Daily? Of course, then you have "intoxicated man gnaws woman's face," which says nothing about zombie-like behavior. Even if the headline were WP:RS, it doesn't say that this is a zombie attack—it asks if it was a zombie attack. I think it's important to be careful when reading articles like this to differentiate between what the reporter says happened, and what the reporter or in this case, editor, implies might have happened. These days if you want to get a lot of ad impressions, news articles have to imply things that are titillating, but of course they don't actually say these things, and we ought not to take the implication as if it were a statement. Abhayakara (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth do we have an Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 article? How did this survive Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2012 Zombie controversy. Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

why do we have it? the AfD process is broken + ZOMBIES. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Media's use of the word "zombie" is a sensationalism intended to sell papers and, as in none of the cases was it determined that biters/flesh eaters were actually undead. I suggest the entire stub be smerged and redirected to its parent topic Cannibalism in its subsection Cannibalism#2012. Schmidt, 17:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

David Jay Brown a reliable source for blog post re cultural views of drug use?

Would a blog post by David Jay Brown be considered a valid "expert" self published source for a commentary about the mainstream media and cultural views of use of drugs? Specifically His commentary here for use in Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012?

Absolute, definite, imperative NO. Not reliable for anything at all except for what cranks think. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not? He's written non-self-published works about marijuana. That's the definition of "expert" under WP:SPS, isn't it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons sourcebooks

Several discussions at Dungeons & Dragons related AfDs and talk pages lately have been going nowhere, due to the contested issue of the independence of certain sources. The articles are all concerning creatures within the Dungeons & Dragons game system (this one, for example), and the sources in question are all sourcebooks for the Dungeons & Dragons game system.

In the articles, the source in question is the Tome of Horrors sourcebook. What is the difference between the Tome of Horrors and the Monster Manual that makes it independent? Both are sourcebooks for Dungeons and Dragons, and both are nothing more than a list of entries for monsters to be used in the Dungeons & Dragons game, and both require other Dungeons & Dragons books in order to be used. The only difference is that one was published by a company that owns the rights to Dungeons & Dragons game system, and the other was published by a company that uses the rights to Dungeons and Dragons game system. That's the only difference.

There is not a single policy, guideline, essay, or even consensus that comes anywhere close to suggesting that using the rights as opposed to owning the rights makes any difference when establishing the independence of a source. The fact that rights to the game system are used at all makes it not independent of the game system whose rights this sourcebook is using. How is a sourcebook written specifically to be used with Dungeons & Dragons independent of Dungeons & Dragons? Having a different publisher does not make it independent; two publishers being independent of one another is not the same as a publisher being independent of a game system it's publishing books for. There seems to be a confusion among editors between third-party publisher (i.e. not the rights holder) and third-party source (i.e. unaffilated with the subject, in this case Dungeons & Dragons). We don't use a video game to establish notability for the same video game, so why would it be different just because the medium changes to a table-top format? Third-party publishers have created video game content for games before, this doesn't make it an independent source, and if an article about a video game creature only cited the video games themselves, I don't believe anyone would seriously argue that those would be independent sources.

Am I wrong in this line of thinking, that something is not an independent source on the sole basis that the sourcebook's publishers do not own the rights to Dungeons & Dragons? (and this is ignoring the fact that this only contributes to a single line in an "Other publishers" section in these articles, and that the articles aren't based on third-party sources per WP:SOURCES). - SudoGhost 04:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

you are correct - "third party" sources need to be fully independent. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

While Dungeons and Dragons sourcebooks may make for useful citations as in references to works that discuss the topic, they are not good as sources in the sense of works that we write[REDACTED] from. They are certainly not useful for establishing notability. For example, if Lamia (Dungeons and Dragons) were widely discussed in sources providing notability, it would certainly be appropriate to have the sourcebooks where Lamia are described "in universe" under the Further Reading section; but, it would not be useful to base the content of the article on the sourcebooks. We are an encyclopaedia where readers are interested in Lamia (Dungeons and Dragons) as culturally notable; not as in-universe. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your first sentence is self-contradictory. Sources are the only thing we cite. That's why the page on how to type up a proper bibliographic citation is called WP:Citing sources. I think that what you meant is that we want articles to be based primarily on independent/third-party sources, just like WP:V says ("Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources..."). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

the middle east quarterly

the middle east quarterly (meq) is publication of "the middle east forum" (mef). mef works, according to their website, "to define and promote american interests in the middle east and protect the constitutional order from middle eastern threats." one of the tools to achieve this is the middle east quarterly.

this publication must surely fail our wp:rs-policies? here on wiki the meq is used as a source on primarily controversial subjects like the books of bat ye'or and so on.-- altetendekrabbe  17:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

they sound like an advocacy group and their opinions should be clearly identified by text in the article as coming from them (if their opinions should be included at all as a significant or noteworthy set of opinions.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since 2009 its peer reviewed academic journal thus it acceptable source much like Journal of Palestine Studies --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

i agree. their opinions are controversial and non-neutral. as a start meq-related content should be removed as it violates wp:npov and is wp:undue, in my opinion. what we need is sources that comply with wp:scholarship.-- altetendekrabbe  18:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What is sourced to MEQ?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Journal of Palestine Studies is published and distributed by the University of California Press so I'm not sure the comparison works...not that that necessarily matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

MEQ has come up several times before. Not to be regarded as a straightforward academic journal. What claims is it being used to support? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I see in the article the only thing that MEQ is sourced for is "Johannes J.G. Jansen, Professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at Leiden University, wrote that "In 1985, Bat Ye'or offered Islamic studies a surprise with her book, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, a convincing demonstration that the notion of a traditional, lenient, liberal, and tolerant Muslim treatment of the Jewish and Christian minorities is more myth than reality" IMO as it attributed to scholar in the relevant field so I think its should be OK.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

jansen is *clearly* a counterjihadist......"the impossibility of bridging the gap between islam and the west"...? sounds very familiar to the rhetorics of another age... here's another quote, "to portray the crusades as the equivalent of the jihad, as the multiculturalists do, is a false presentation of the matter, an absurd distortion of history. it is like equating a cold with aids: both are viral diseases that lack appropriate curative drugs." and we all know what the crusaders did to the jews and muslims. he's a counterjihadist, nothing more nothing less.-- altetendekrabbe  19:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So what he is scholar if the field thus his opinion is notable but lets hear from uninvolved editors shall we?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also be careful about WP:BLP you can't call people names and source it to some blogs--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I 'm seeing WP:REDFLAGs here, but you need further opinions. Which articles are we looking at? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or.And here is the link What exactly is red flag here ?As I understand its favorable book review.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He was a speaker at Counterjihad Brussels 2007: European Conference Resists Islamization according to this Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There are still some WP:BLP problem especially at last sentence--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

he was the tutor of theo van gogh, here's a pearl: ""we do not realise that the threat of violence, and violence itself, can only be stopped through the controlled and cunning use of violence". the dutch secret service (auvd) should get a special department "that gets its hands dirty, if need be"..

everything is, of course, "islamic propaganda" . here's another: "hans jansen criticised the subservient role he considers the churches and the government are adopting towards islam". wow, the churches *and* the government in netherlands? really? what kind of a conspiracy is this? :P no wonder he is found of bat ye'or.-- altetendekrabbe  21:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed we must be careful about BLP. Writers have a right to express their opinions. At the same time, we have to take care about which sources we can use. If this professor really is close to Geert Wilders, that's a possible indication of extremism, in our definition. That's a red flag for me. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

he's in the counterjihadist-movement where you have worse people than wilders.-- altetendekrabbe  21:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

OK but it can be complicated. The animal rights movement has some advocates who are definitely extremist and some who definitely aren't. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The main question still stands can be used for his opinion on Bat Ye'or book?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Need more uninvolved opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Middle East Quarterly is included on the HighBeam Research site, so I assume it meets minimum standards of a reliable source, at least in their eyes, and considering that is a site owned by Gale Publications, that's a fairly good recommendation. That leaves the specific quote quote Shrike produced. , it seems to me generally acceptable, barring possibly the use of the word "convincing". On that site, in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, in a review of her later book The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, it says of this book, "Her earlier The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (reviewed in J.E.S. 25 : 104-105) was a ground-breaking work that gave definition to the hitherto unexplored sociopolitical and religious concept of "dhimmitude." So I'm guessing the favorable view of the book is supportable as well, although I might prefer the 1988 review of the book, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be on the site. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Is HighBeam really anything other than a centralized Archive system? Yes, Gale is very relible to accurately present previously published content, but I am not sure they are doing anything other than "this is what was published in that source". -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam is very handy (I declare an interest because I got free access for a year as a Misplaced Pages contributor) but it doesn't guarantee reliability. We have to judge individual publications as we always would. Andrew Dalby 08:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

agree on that. in addition, book reviews like jansen's are not necessarily scholarly pieces, as pointed out in our wp:rs-policy. they can be opinions and summaries as well. given the fact that jansen is involved with the counterjihadist-movement his views on bat ye'or are neither neutral nor reliable... both authors are part of the same extremist political movement.-- altetendekrabbe  09:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There seem to no consensus if the source should be used or not maybe a RFC is a proper way to continue?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC would be inappropriate because this is the place to get comments about sources. Opening further discussions elsewhere would be "forum-shopping". My view, after considering all the issues, is that this is not reliable for reviews of the subject's work. Scholarly reviews exist, positive and negative, as well as some reviews in mainstream news media. This source is much more of the nature of political commentary, and it is a tiny-minority view. Therefore exclude. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

i agree. filling up articles with minority partisan political commentaries is not good way to build an encyclopedia.-- altetendekrabbe  11:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Not a reliable source. Their statement on peer-review is deeply troubling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

And note that, even if we were to accept that, as noted above, MEQ has been peer-reviewed since 2009, the article in question was published in 2005. So the journal's current status is irrelevant; when the article was published, it was not subject to peer review. RolandR (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

very good point. thanks.-- altetendekrabbe  17:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

While I think that the right decision has been made in this context, a then unreviewed journal of doggerel is not the best place to "appreciate" a controversial academic's work in a highly politicised domain—particularly where the journal of doggerel claims that the academic's work is actual reality, rather than theory—we should remember that reliability is not undercut by politics, it is undercut by politics that lacks the scope to discuss the content and claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Charley Project

Disappearance of Robin Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this webpage from The Charley Project a reliable source for these statements in Disappearance of Robin Graham:

The case of Robin Graham's disappearance has been included in television specials about missing persons. It remains an unsolved mystery.

Some speculate that Graham was a victim of the Zodiac Killer.

Thanks! Location (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

no. a self published source can only make claims about itself (ie the website or the project) so if the website says "This could be the work of the Zodiac Killer" the website could be used as a source for a statement in the article "The Charlie Project thinks it is the work of the Zodiac Killer (citation to website)", but the inclusion of such a statement in the article would need to be based on the fact that the opinion of the Charlie Project was an important point of view WP:UNDUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Location (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why does The Charley Project even have its own Misplaced Pages article? DreamGuy (talk)

I was wondering that, too. There is only one non-self published source in that article and it only mentions The Charley Project as part of a listing: . Location (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Pink Slime source

People in the beef industry have referred to the additive as "pink slime" due to the product's unique appearance.<ref>{{cite book |title=The great food robbery: How corporations control food, grab land and destroy the climate |last=Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2012 |publisher=Pambazuka Press |location=Oxford |isbn=9780857491138 |page=57 |pages= |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=7-XSc2znVFoC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=pink+slime&source=bl&ots=_arUmvz0HO&sig=kaYqn5WE9Z-HMBNDYQ1bNBNv27o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FegJUMv5JsjBrQGLvLHBCg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=pink%20slime&f=false |accessdate=July 2012}}</ref>

Has a minor problem - the source uses Misplaced Pages as one of its sources. The book was issued on 28 April 2012 by "Pambazuka Press". demonstrates that one of the listed sources for the new book is Misplaced Pages. The book has no named authors, and is not from a peer-reviewed or recognized academic publisher. "GRAIN.org" is not recognized as any sort of authority on anything that I can find. it appears to be mainly a political organization.

The book is described:

This book is intended to reveal the ways in which corporations seek to increase their control over the food system so that they can be more effectively challenged. It aims to provide information and analysis that enables and inspires people to take action to take the food system back from corporations and put it in the hands of people.

I suggest that where a book is so recently issued, uses Misplaced Pages as a source, and is not written nor issued by a publisher known for editorial control per WP:RS, that it is, in fact, not a reliable source. Collect (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion is excellent RS/N reasoning. CIRCULAR concepts only apply when a work does not have independent review processes sufficient to overcome the stigma of citing wikipedia. For example, a scholar published in Routledge is free to cite wikipedia. An unauthored work published by a lowgrade press is itself unreliable due to the lack of publishing and authorial competence. The core problem is the lack of editorial review of the book, and as such we ought to reject its claims in relation to food science. (GRAIN.org might be competent in relation to food politics, but this is not the issue at stake.) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Publication from Prof. Colin Rourke, University of Warwick

It was suggested to make an inquiry here to verify that the following publication is reliable:

Title: Hadley: a study in fakery (version 2)

Author: Prof. Colin Rourke, Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, COVENTRY CV4 7AL, UK. This full address is mentioned on the bottom of the paper.

Publisher: Aulis (including link to the paper)

The paragraph “Anomaly 2: The outward shadow” is the topic of the Misplaced Pages article Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Inconsistent_color_and_angle_of_shadows_and_light, second paragraph.

When Prof. Colin Rourke wrote this paper he was working for the University of Warwick. He made several publications. Such further information can be found on his private homepage, via a link from his university homepage.

My recommendation: Reliable. The only reason why it might not be judged as reliable is the content of the paper which is contrary to the “published opinion”. But this is never stated to be a criterion. Andrew199 (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

References:

1. "University Homepage of Prof. Colin Rourke". Retrieved 2012-07-25.
2. "Hadley: A Study in Fakery". Aulis.com. Retrieved 2012-07-25.

Aulis describes itself as a "flexible outlet" for publishing anti-orthodox content. In other words, it is a peer-review-free zone that publishes fringe content. Looking through the other papers published on that site will lead you to the same conclusion. This is not a reliable source for anything but author's opinions, which are only significant if there is some special reason for caring about that author's opinion, such as in an article on himself.. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is the author who is responsible for the content of a paper. And here we have a paper from the University of Warwick. The question is therefore whether the Warwick University is reliable or not. Andrew199 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Warwick University is exceedingly reliable. Has the uni put its weight behind this particular paper. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be the self-published (except through Aulis.com, as noted above) work of a professor of mathematics there; it's also available through his personal ftp page as hadley.doc, but interestingly enough is not mentioned on either his personal web page there or in his (badly out of date) CV linked from that personal web page. While he appears to be an expert in topology, there's no sign that he is an expert in photographic analysis or in forensics in general. There's no peer review or university endorsement of this paper that I can find. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The examination of photographs, as any examination, can be approached from different sides. A mathematical contribution on behalf of Warwick should therefore be welcome, even if the concerning review process is not known to us. Andrew199 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Images of genealogical relationships

There is a dichotomy in the interest of those who edit many of the articles which come under the auspices of PEER. Some edit to include the notable events in which the subject of the article took part. Others edit to build up a genealogical profile. This often takes the form of an ancestral tree. Often these trees are put in place without any sources, but because they are in specific sections of an article and although the appear in graphical formats (see for example here), because they are constructed with text it is possible to add both {{unreferenced section}} and more specifically {{citation needed}}. However there has recently been an edit to the article Dál gCais that turned the text linked above into an image (see diffs).

There are several advantages to the approach most of the aesthetic, but it causes several problems with sourcing:

• The image is not likely to be scrutinised with as much details as text would be (it will be assumed that the text is from a copy from reliable source and the usual tools used to scan for textual errors will miss them as they are contained within an image)
• It makes it impossible to link the subjects of the new image to their articles (and hence indirectly to the reliable sources used in the more specific biography article (which (particularly but not exclusively biographies on women) may be under a different name.
• If an error is found in the image most people will not have the tools to edit the image to fix the errors.
• It is not possible to use {{unreferenced section}} and more specifically {{citation needed}} on the image -- although {{citation needed}} can be added it can not be added to a specific entry in the image.

If a major error is found in the image then of course it can be deleted and moved to the talk page for further discussion. But what if there is a minor mistake, what should be done if the original editor is no longer available to fix the mistake, or refuses to fix something they do not consider to be a mistake? -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As a side issue, the editor who made this image, has also been adding a template to what I think are inappropriate types of articles such as dab pages: eg Flood (surname) had template:Dalcassians added to it (diff) where should an editor discuss the mass addition of a template to what may be inappropriate articles? -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated a section: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Template:Dalcassians -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

let's start with the obvious question: do you personally believe that the information now in this graphic is right or wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would judge (if I may intrude on that question) that it's very difficult to say. Early medieval genealogy is not an exact science, and that's the reaon why each link in the chain or each branch on the tree needs a footnote. If it lacks a footnote, it wants a "Citation needed" template. So the answer to WhatamIdoing's question would involve a measure of probability on each genealogical link: one couldn't possibly answer for the table as a whole.

It's a bit like the historical maps made by Wikimedians. They are very handy, and may be preferable graphically to anything we can copy from PD sources, but are they accurate? We don't know. Are Wikimedians reliable sources? Well, no, they aren't. So do we accept such graphics in Misplaced Pages articles or not? It's a hard question. Andrew Dalby 16:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but "it's not cited and probably okay" doesn't bother me much. The rule is that it must be possible to verify information, and if we think it's probably right, then it's probably also verifiable. But if we have some reason to believe that it's probably wrong, I'm going to be much more concerned. Uncited good information is okay. Uncited bad information can be a disaster. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What does probably ok mean? The problem is that the standard of proof which many editors that add genealogical information is below that used for notable events. For example in this case neither the text that was replaced or this graphic representation has even one citation (nor are there any on Wikicommons). Often when asked for, if it is provided, it is from web sites which do not meet Misplaced Pages reliable sources criteria. It is usually fairly easy to check the father of the subject from the sources in the text and in some cases the mother. But each generation back the number of ancestors doubles and the sourcing often becomes less and less reliable. My position is the same as Andrew Dalby's on this issue. One needs to be able to highlight for the reader those parts of a tree that have no sources, those based on unreliable sources, and those based on reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the editors of graphics treat them much like writing an article. This may mean that the graphic will require a descriptive reference section, or even a bibliography. This is an ideal of course, and I hope such graphic designers use SVG or other vector formats so that other editors can subsequently edit their works to improve them or improve citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would certainly be a worthwhile goal. What the chances are of achieving it on Commons I don't know. Andrew Dalby 09:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Next to nothing I suspect. Commons worry about copyright not about the reliability of sources used to validate images such as these. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Map graphics giving modern information (statistical, administrative, etc.) are generally safer: they are often derived from just one or two highly reliable sources and it is evident or is stated by the creator what sources were used. Historical ones are more dubious. Andrew Dalby 09:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

One possible solution for family trees is a development of an idea I used in an an image I introduced into an article Bodiam Castle. It has letters on it for rooms, which are then listed in the Misplaced Pages article. If an image for a family tree, was to carry superscripts for each entry then a bundled citation could be used to link the names to sources within the usual footnote system. Preferably the sources could be added to both the Wikicommons description and a Wikipdia article that uses it. Even if the initial editor does not introduce any citations with the image other editors could request sources by using the hooks in the image to do so or add them (just as is done in a text section on ancestry). -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this a fringe claim?

We have to printed, reliable sources for the outcome of Talk:Battle of Dirschau, as a Polish victory ( and a book by historian Leszek Podhorodecki. There is also a website () that calls it a Swedish victory; it does not cite any sources, through the author seems somewhat reliable (). I think that the website is less reliable, and without support form other sources, it claim is fringe-ish. Another editor uses it to argue that the battle outcome should be changed from Polish victory to indecisive. What would our resident experts on reliability suggest? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Easy. Misplaced Pages does not call the "winner". We cite the opinion of each source to the source itself. And we only use "reliable sources" per the strange Misplaced Pages usage. Collect (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

a quick scan on google books shows quite an array of interpretation on the battle.[REDACTED] should present the notable views in the proportion that they are held by mainstream scholarship, generally determined as by how they are presented reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not seeing any interpretations other than Polish victory/Swedish defeat. Could you point me to those you found? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

it was a "quick scan" and I saw things like "was a minor swedish vicotry" (which on closer inspection turns out to be self published and so not reliable unless Robert Firth is a notable historian)

and its only a snippet view so you cannot really verify exactly what is in the work but "Battle of Dirschau: Swedes defeat Poles " in The northern wars: war, state, and society in northeastern Europe, ... by historian Robert I. Frost.

a close inspection could very well show that those are non-notable and/or fringe interpretations. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw and discarded the first source a while ago, as it was self-published (as you note) and also got the date wrong. Robert I. Frost is a reliable historian, but I'd like to see a little more before including him in the infobox; he may merit inclusion in the text, however. (He also gives the date wrong, same as Robert Firth; I wonder if they are using a different calendar?) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We can't count the website as a reliable source, though I agree it looks good. The Robert Firth book has no claim at all to be reliable in our terms. The Robert I. Frost text, assuming Red Pen of Doom cites it correctly (I can't verify) is potentially a reliable source allowing us to say that the result has been called both ways. And it would be good to say that, because, clearly, if you read the text of our page and of other narratives about this battle, it was not really conclusive and it isn't surprising that evaluations differ. Andrew Dalby 14:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would not use the Frost claim without having some one be able to verify the actual text. The content in the snippet view appears pretty straightforward, but without being able to verify it in full context it is not really supportable other than as a discussion point that there are apparently alternate views. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"The History of the Swedes" seems to state that Dirschau was "restored" to Poland in 1629. This strongly suggests that Poland was not in control of Dirschau and that Sweden was, as of 1629. It may be of interest that different countries in Europe may or may not have adopted the Gregorian calendar at that time -- Poland appears to have used it from 1582, and Sweden from 1700 (sort of - it took 44 years to fully align). Interesting reading for sure. Collect (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If the sources disagree, I would suggest putting something like "Disputed" or "Interpretations vary" for "Result" in the Infobox, with a link to the section of the article or a footnote which explains how the sources diverge on who won the battle and why. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Or just leave that field of the infobox blank, and explain the differing accounts in the lead and final sections of the article. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

God helmet article and "Neuroscience for the Soul" source

• God helmet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I work the WP:COIN board. There is a very detailed request there rearding the God helmet. It doesn't appear to be a COI dispute. However, a recent post there by an IP sugggests that the dispute may be over adding negative information from a source that might not be reliable in the way it is being used in that article:

I haven't been a very active Misplaced Pages editor lately and I came to this page because of my interest in the subject. It looks like Famousdog does not have a conflict of interest under the Misplaced Pages rules. It does look like he has a strong bias. His edits do make the page biased. That kind of editing is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. After reading what others have said here, I agree that you should carry on providing facts and references about the God Helmet. The negative information all derives from the study in Sweden, news reports about it and a review article by Aaen-Stockdale. It seems that the Aaen-stockdale article has a misquote about a study of responses to photos(I looked it up). Because of this, the Aaen-Stockdale article isn't really a reliable source. It may be published in a worthwhile magazine, but the Aaen-Stockdale article obviously has one or more mistakes in it. The God Helmet page should have the mistaken quote from Aaen-Stockdale removed and the quote from Gendle and McGrath used instead. Just because Aaen-Stodale got it wrong doesn't mean Misplaced Pages has to also. In fact, replacing a mistaken quotation with an accurate one would make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia no matter what page we're talking about. Improving Misplaced Pages is everyone's goal, and accuracy is the first order of business. If a source has a mistake, it shouldn't be used. Famousdog's reverts (or is it edit warring?) of the corrected quotation show a strong bias. You should continue editing to keep the page accurate. However, bias is not the same thing as conflict of interest, although I can see how they might look the same in this case. If Famousdog persists, you might consider mediation, as that appears to be the recommended process for Misplaced Pages. Do carry on if you are sure of your facts, but this is probably not a conflict of interest as defined by Misplaced Pages rules. I think you should add the biased and/or NPOV tag (but NOT the COI tag) to the page, as it is biased editing. If I have time, I may do a little editing of this or related pages myself.

I'm hoping RSNs effort can help calm things at the God helmet article. Is -- Craig Aaen-Stockdale (2012). "Neuroscience for the Soul". The Psychologist. 25 (7): 520–523. -- a reliable source for the God helmet article? If so, to what extent can it be use in that artice? Also, please look over any other references being used to support negative information that article. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thank-you to the IP address and Mr. Uzma Gamal who have considered the situation. This article is not a reliable source. It misquotes the original findings by Gendall and McGrath. Here is an example:

Aaen-Stockdale:

" ... claims these devices are able to modulate emotional states, in addition to enhancing meditation and generating altered states. In flat contradiction of this claim, Gendle & McGrath (2012) found no significant difference in emotional state whether the devices was on or off.

Famousdog :

"Experimental attempts to produce these effects have found no difference in emotional state whether the device was on or off."

Actual quote (from the Gendle study):

"Although the device's "amygdala signal" had no effect on the emotive response to images in this study, additional investigations examining the effects of weak and complex magnetic fields on various aspects of perception and cognition are warranted."

Instead of trying to edit on the God helmet page today, I will instead head your suggestion and re-read the article very closely for other negative information from that article. Once again, thanks for your consideration.Ksirok (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Going to the website for the device in the Gendle study, I found that it doesn’t claim to "modulate emotional states". Instead, what it does claim is that it can enhance moods for people who feel at their worst in the morning, but don't have psychiatric disorders. The Gendle study only examined changes in the way people responded to images with emotional impact. It doesn't look like the Gendle study examined any of the effects attributed to the God helmet, but I'll have to read the full study to be certain.

The Aaen-Stockdale article also claims that the researcher Michael Persinger bases his ideas (about the neurological basis of religious experiences) on the literature of epilepsy. This isn't true. Persinger’s ideas are based on temporal lobe and limbic lability (how easily these brain areas change their state). Epileptics are only one of the groups who have this trait.

Aaen-Stockdale says that Persinger uses field strengths of 1 millitesla. In fact, the fields are much lower - 1 to 5 microtesla. Aaen-Stockdale's information is not correct. He claims that the fields are too weak to penetrate the cranium, but it's a fact of physics that magnetic fields penetrate everything. Nothing can stop a magnetic field (so-called magnetic shields bend the fields, but aren't insulators). True magnetic insulation appears to be as impossible as perpetual motion. Persinger attributes his effects to field-to-field interactions between the God Helmet and the weak magnetic fields present in the brain, created by its electrical activity. This error may have originated with a psychologist in Sweden who attempted a replication experiment, but Aaen-Stockdale's article perpetuates it. Accuracy is more important. Perhaps a physics editor can confirm this.

Looking over the references for the God helmet page, I can see that most of them are from scientific journals. There's no need to rely on popular psychology magazines, like The Psychologist. I will be looking into this some more, because of my interest in the subject, but for now it looks like the Aaen-Stockdale article is not a reliable source on the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.181.216 (talk)

Could I please have a WP:CHECKUSER on Ksirok and the anonymous IP 70.44.181.216 who "hasn't been active on Misplaced Pages recently" (yeah, right. Or indeed EVER) who are trying to argue that a review article with an extensive bibliography published in the official publication of The British Psychological Society isn't a reliable source and that the editor who added the citations to it (me) has a COI? Ksirok has already attempted to out me and this seems to be rapidly turning into a witch-hunt against a single source that they disagree with! I bet you $10 that both these new, single-purpose editors have a connection with Laurentian University in Ontario. Famous_dog (c) 09:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ksirok's claim that I "misquote" the Gendle & McGrath study is nonsense. The text that he refers to is clearly a quote from Aaen-Stockdale NOT Gendle & McGrath. I will add the section he quotes from Gendle & McGrath ("additional investigations ... are warranted.") if it will keep him happy, but its a pretty lame, standard conclusion for researchers looking to justify further funding and ignores the very strong conclusion in their previous sentence ("the device's "amygdala signal" had no effect"). Famous_dog (c) 09:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous IP's claim that "it doesn’t claim to 'modulate emotional states'. Instead, what it does claim is that it can enhance moods" is a complete tautology. How on earth does one "enhance mood" WITHOUT "modulating emotional states"!?!? If you want to re-word this (consistent with the citations), then that's fine, but stop trying to discredit this source. Famous_dog (c) 09:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous IP states that Aaen-Stockdale "claims that the fields are too weak to penetrate the cranium, but it's a fact of physics that magnetic fields penetrate everything." This is true, but actually, Aaen-Stockdale says "the magnetic fields generated by the God helmet are far too weak to penetrate the cranium and influence neurons within". This is a different matter. He argues (in the very next sentence) that "TMS uses field strengths of around 1.5 Tesla in order to induce currents strong enough to depolarise neurons..."). Magnetic fields must be strong enough to depolarise neurons, otherwise they cannot influence brain function, whether they penetrate the cranium or not! This is willful misquotation by Anonymous IP. Arguing, as Anon does, that field strengths even weaker than that quoted by Aaen-Stockdale would have bigger effects demonstrates the level of desperation that this discussion has reached. Regarding Anon's argument that "most of are from scientific journals. There's no need to rely on popular psychology magazines, like The Psychologist" I'm afraid that the vast majority of these references are by Persinger (which surely introduces the sort of bias that Anon and Ksirok claim to be defending the article against). In addition, secondary sources trump primary sources. Famous_dog (c) 10:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative reliable sources for personal info in an article

Some advice is needed for alternative sources that we can consider reliable for personal details in a Misplaced Pages article. Recently, the Brittany Binger article has included information about her engagement to a person, and we've recently had some editors who claim to be personally involved that she is no longer engaged. What sort of sources can we consider reliable here, other than mainstream media? We have a blog that has been used as a source, but it is a gossip blog. Does this engagement information even need to be included in the article in the first place? If we remove it entirely would that satisfy the issue well enough for now? -- Avanu (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

RS/N works through specificity. Could you please cite the blog being used to claim that the engagement took place. Personal correspondence or knowledge (for example, "I personally know that this engagement is broken off") is never acceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Source for engagement: http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2012/01/sorry_ladies_grady_sizemore_is.html

Source for breakup: http://www.terezowens.com/grady-sizemore-brittany-binger-call-off-engagement/

-- Avanu (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So, do I have to tweet it again since the newspaper used Twitter as it's only source despite it being true? I don't want to have to do that. Jpjpstar (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have not looked at that article, but my standard response to a situation like that would be to remove any claim that is not of essential encyclopedic value and for which there is a plausible belief that the information may be incorrect. If there are multiple reliable sources saying someone is engaged (and none saying otherwise), and if that information is considered somehow valuable, the normal approach would be to include it. I underlined "reliable" because with gossipy stuff one often finds multiple websites that are merely repeating the opinion of one source. If someone is particularly concerned, they should ask at WP:BLPN and could consider a personal statement via email to WP:OTRS. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I can't find any editorial information regarding the purported newspaper The Plain Dealer or any of the content hosted by Cleaveland.com => not reliable for BLP. The claim needs to be removed immediately as a BLP violation. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• http://www.terezowens.com/ is an unedited blog. The claim needs to be removed immediately as a BLP violation. (I have had enough of these snakes on this plane.) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Plain Dealer is the major daily newspaper for Cleveland, with the largest circulation of any newspaper in Ohio, and the 16th largest in the US . How does this not meet guidelines for a reliable source? TimofKingsland (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. It and The Columbus Dispatch were usually considered the best dailies in Ohio. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to find their editorial details on their "official" website; it is an exercise in futility. When I eventually did find something purporting to be such, on a non-official website, I was more impressed with the editorial policy displayed on heavy metal music review (edited) blogs. Reliability is about demonstrable reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you had a look at their awards pages (via their about us) page? The newspaper has been recognised by a large number of independent organisations, such as universities, press societies, etc. TimofKingsland (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That isn't their webpage, consult http://www.cleveland.com/ where the article is a) published and b) claimed to be the website of The Plain Dealer. We are not an apologia for fucking idiotic US publishing modalities: cleveland.com does not supply any editorial information. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Facebook page for the PD contains more information. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That is their website. Look at the bottom of every page "Get today's news (...) from The Plain Dealer, exclusively on our affiliated Web site, cleveland.com!". Or cleveland.com - "We are the online home of The Plain Dealer featuring real-time news (...) from Ohio's largest newspaper." ThePlainDealer.com is the official website of the newspaper, online versions of the article are put on cleveland.com. As stated on both of the websites. TimofKingsland (talk)

So the source as cited we're dealing with here, which was published on cleveland.com; is clearly unedited. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The source was published and edited by a reputable newspaper, who republish the content of the newspaper on their affiliate site cleveland.com. The choice to publish the material on cleveland.com rather than their own website is a business/marketing decision by the newspaper, and has nothing to do with the reliability of the newspaper, or the content they produce. This is like arguing that using a book that is republished freely on google books as a source is not acceptable because google books have not re-edited it themselves, despite the original publisher of the material being considered reputable. The Plain Dealer is a an established newspaper, therefore the content they produce is reliable, even if they decided to publish the online version of their content through a website other than their own (like a publisher allowing their books to be read on google books). TimofKingsland (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrate by citing against theplaindealer.com or a physical copy. Because cleveland.com contains no editorial information regarding theplaindealer.com, and shows no evidence that they're a credible news archive. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is on PlainDealer.com, clearly the official site of The Plain Dealer, which directs users at their home page to read online copies of their content at cleveland.com (and at ever other page on the site). Cleveland.com is clearly The Plain Dealer's official source for online copies of their newspaper, as per The Plain Dealer's website. TimofKingsland (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that cleveland.com is an accurate, complete, correct or true archive of anything. If we cite cleveland.com, then cleveland.com must be reliable. If you have consulted a paper copy of The Plain Dealer, containing the article in question, then proceed. But if you are going to hold to citing cleveland.com you'd better remove the content because there's no evidence that there is any editorial control over cleveland.com. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

even if it were in the NYT, we would not be printing BLP information sourced only to a report of someone's twitter feed. engagement announcements are almost always entirely trivial to the subject of the article and should not be included to begin with. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland.com is unquestionably reliable. Continuing to doubt that cleveland.com is The Plain Dealer is disrupting the function of this noticeboard. No comment on the other issues at hand. Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a report on a tweet, but I'm not interested in whether the content is kept or not. I don't care. Other editors have been edit warring about it. I'd rather stay out of it. I'm concerned about the idea that Ohio's biggest newspaper cannot be cited on Misplaced Pages because the site they host their content on is different to the site they use to handle subscriptions and business matters. In the case of a major news event in Cleveland, the inability to cite the online edition of Cleveland's largest newspaper will hinder Misplaced Pages's coverage. It seems the argument is about a technicality - that they have chosen to use another company to host their material online, rather than handle it themselves. But this is just like using another company to print their newspaper. The reliability of a newspaper is not determined by who prints/hosts it, as long as they are appointed to do so by the newspaper. Or why is this not the case? And why should we not trust a reliable source to choose its own content publisher? Or do we have a consensus that The Plain Dealer articles sourced at Cleveland.com can be used as a reliable source? Only one editor disagrees with this. TimofKingsland (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion just confirms in my opinion that WP:RS needs to explicitly state that RSes are not required to publish an "editorial policy" online or to have an "editorial board". Real newspapers don't publish editorial policies in their print copies either, and many "editorial boards" are responsible solely for opinion pieces. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Off topic here. For the talk page of WP:IRS. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

from the website: "Binger, from Bellevue, Ohio, announced the engagement on her Twitter account. The former Playboy Playmate in June of 2007 Tweeted a picture of her engagement ring." yeah, its a twit. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed your post. I hadn't look that closely at the source material. You're right, it is a story on a tweet. TimofKingsland (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, sources for biography subjects' personal lives include published biographies, the mainstream media, (taking account of WP:RECENT), possibly the subject's own official website or official fan club, statements by their agents, and that's about it. We do not cover celebrity gossip. Have a look at some featured biographies. On Cleveland.com, if you dig around you can see that it is closely related to the Plain Dealer. It's annoying to have to dig around. Perhaps a reader will email them and ask them to add an About Us section on their website. Itsmejudith (talk)

OK, again, not arguing for inclusion, but out of interest, how does WP define celebrity gossip? I would have thought an engagement announcement covered in an RS would be notable as a detail about their personal life, especially if it was to someone else notable. This was reported in the sports section, which might not be the most reliable section of the paper, but it's not the gossip section. TimofKingsland (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Announced engagements, pregnancies, weddings, divorces (to give these celebrity-intensive events in chronological order) aren't tittle tattle. "Friends said" stories are tittle tattle, as are "she looked tipsy" stories. Even so, the announced situations are not always notable. It depends on the biography. Posh's marriage to Becks has to be included in both biographies, but in the case of a scientist you wouldn't want more than "she is married with four adult children". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what I would have thought. On top of that, I would have thought if the engagement was to someone else notable (especially if they are more notable than the subject), it would increase its notability. If a scientist with an article on them here announced their engagement to Lady Gaga, I would expect this to be much more notable, and worthy of a mention in an encyclopaedia, than if they announced their engagement to their high school sweetheart. In that situation, it's quite likely reliable sources would only mention the engagement if it was to someone "notable" like Gaga, as they would consider the engagement more notable. This case is obviously different: the subject is not a scientist, and their (ex?) fiancé is not as famous as Lady Gaga. But their fiancé was more notable and well known than the subject. And the fact that the subject has made a career of being a TV personality (i.e. being paid for who they are), their personal life becomes important to their career in a way it does not for a scientist, and I would argue it becomes more notable. That seems to have been the approach taken for the "Snooki" article. TimofKingsland (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dhimmi

In the dhimmi article, is Abdullahi Ahmed An-Nai'im, Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights and International Law, Syracuse University Press 1990' p 90 reliable for the statement "In classical Islamic law, dhimmis were treated differently from Muslim men in the administration of criminal law and would also face humiliating and discriminatory distinctions in personal law."? Is An-Naim not writing specifically about punishments for fornication? Would such a statement be cherry-picking? The book is scholarly; as the title indicates it is also advocacy (haven't read it in full, but seen Google books preview). At the start the author describes it as "a preliminary work introducing a revolutionary approach to Islamic legal reform". p xiii. The author is a legal specialist, PhD in law, and a former political activist, not a historian. There were major differences between the letter of the law and how it was implemented, as he recognises on several occasions, and as historians stress. Itsmejudith (talk)

For reference his webpage and his wiki page Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im the author is clearly a scholar in the field but maybe used with attribution to alleviate any concern--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

in the main text, *perhaps*. in the lead, no.-- altetendekrabbe  14:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking for uninvolved comments, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The author is an academic expert in the field of Islamic law and human rights, with numerous books published on the topic of Islamic law by academic presses. The specific source you are using is an on-topic book, published by a university press. If thou want to edit the sentence win question to better reflect the specific claim (wrt fornication) - do so, but there is no doubt this is a relabel source. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The source may be 'reliable' in the abstract, but that is not what is at issue. Is it 'reliable' for the material it is cited for? I say clearly not, simply on the basis that the word "would" is unsupported - or more accurately, is contradicted by the source, which argues that such discrimination 'might' have occurred, but was by no means a universal given in the practice of 'classical Islamic law'. I'd also point out that the material under question is in the article lede, and as such should summarise what is said in the body of the text - it doesn't, so regardless of its validity, it doesn't belong there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this sourcing seems to be the claim that formal distinction existed in law which is necessarily actual social discrimination. The source doesn't adequately support this claim. It supports most of the rest of the content, this is "AndyTheGrump"'s would. The author appears to hold the opinion that formal distinction in law is necessarily concrete discrimination at all times in all places, this claim could be attributed, but then we are forced to ask if the author is competent for such a claim. I'd say yes because this claim is a trivial argument in law. But in history it isn't a trivial argument, and it certainly isn't widely accepted (it'd be accused of anachronism out of the box). Correspondingly the concept that this was "humiliating" is a more historical than legal claim, that I worry about. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that al Qattan in the International Journal of Middle East Studies is a better source, and can supersede this one? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest using scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles in preference to this source, and replacing this source with such articles as they exist. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C.

Hey all,

I want outside opinion on this source, ] it says founded 1873, there has been a long on goign dispute on this page and another about whether this club has been liquidated or not, but the scottish football league have put on there site as a founded year of 1873, i know this will probably be a primary source but can it be used reliably to determine for[REDACTED] article whether the club is the same club that existed since 1873 or is in fact new club. I am not trying to ascent the club has or has not been liquidated only trying to put a end of this dispute.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of any source which speaks about this club being liquidated? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC).

Zodiac and Horoscopes

It seems User:Bobrayner will keep removing reliable information from the Chinese Zodiac and not from the Western Astrology articles. I keep informing the user if you keep remove per WP:BOLLOCKS the user should have had the common sense to remove the BOLLOCKS information from the characteristics from the (Western astrology) section as it also pertains BOLLOCK book sources. If the user does not do anything with the Western Horoscopes. I will keep the information of the Chinese Zodiac signs if the user does not do away with Western astrology characteristics, and please inform the user why the user did not complete the rest of BOLLOCKS information from other Chinese zodiac signs.--GoShow (...............) 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All the astrology articles need cleanup. If you can find sources for Chinese astrology that would be helpful. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see from Chinese zodiac, the only edits Bobrayner has made was to add fact tags. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a lot of the b*ll**ks out of the Chinese zodiac now, and made suggestions for further improvement in a discussion already open on the WikiProject Astrology talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Something that bothers me about zodiac sign articles, which are mostly astrology but sometimes contain elements of astronomy, is reliable sources for the dates on which the sun enters and leaves a given sign. A pattern in these articles is that someone will quote an online astrology source which gives definite dates. For reasons stated in the next paragraph, these dates are necessarily an approximation, but at least they are a verifiable approximation which vandalism-fighters can refer to when dubious changes are made. Then some well-meaning IP comes along and changes the dates to a different approximation, which while plausible, disagree with the cited source.

The dates are necessarily an approximation; the two biggest factors causing different dates are the time zone and the place of the year in the four-year leap year sequence. I imagine the various online sources are using Universal time, but this is seldom stated explicitly. The method of choosing a typical or average date over the course of the leap year sequence is never stated. Perhaps an approach is to make the various infoboxes more rigorous with citations to reliable sources that explicitly state their methodology. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Race and Racism

Encyclopedia of Race and Racism by Gale group in article about "Anti-Semitism in the Arab World" says the following "Manifestations of anti-Semitism erupted in the Arab world during the late twentieth century. However, discrimination against Jews has relegated them to second-class status under Arab hegemony (“dhimmitude”) since the successful uniting of the tribes in the Arabian peninsula by Muhammad (570–632) in the sixth century." I want to use it as one of descriptions of dhimmitude in dhimmitude article.Thank you in advance--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The article is authored by --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

While not an outright bad source, that appears to be a tertiary source from a publisher which, according to its website, is focused on e-research and educational publishing for libraries, schools and businesses. A secondary, and preferably scholarly, source would be much superior, especially given that this is a sensitive and disputed topic - our Dhimmitude article states that some scholars consider this concept to be a myth (please also see WP:PSTS for background on the relevant policies here). I hope that this is helpful. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is there already some secondary sources its not the only source.Maybe it could be used with conjunction with other sources?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As a non-authored article in an encyclopaedia aimed not at scholars I don't see why we should pay this any attention under WEIGHT and exceptional claims (claiming a tenuous theoretical construct is reality). These claims are meant to come from scholars. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It does authored by him --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Steven L. Jacobs has no experience in Islamic history in the 6th and 7th century. An article authored by a non-specialist in a generalist encyclopaedia is irrelevant to exceptional claims (such as a historical theoretical construct actually existing in reality). See WP:HISTRS for suitable sources regarding establishing one historiography (particularly tenuous ones) as actual fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Brevik and Dhimmitude

This source "Liz Fekete. "The Muslim conspiracy theory and the Oslo massacre". Race & Class" is used for the follwoing claim "Anders Breivik, who identified Bat Ye'or as a key influence, used the term "dhimmitude" in his internet postings to describe what he called "jihad against the kaffir"." Does it acceptable becouse the article is not about dhimmitude.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Is dhmmitude substantially discussed, or is this the only sentence discussing it? If the latter, the source isn't sufficiently about this topic to really bother with. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have linked the source.As I am involved I really like outside opinion--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The source looks impeccable, since it is peer-reviewed and written by a leading expert in the relevant field. As a general observation, though, I'd be cautious about a disparate bullet-point list of example's of the usage of term, which is what the article currently contains. Formerip (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said my problem it would be cherry picking and WP:UNDUE for this article maybe in Brevik article it probably would be ok.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, though, it would certainly also be cherry-picking to arbitrarily exclude the information. If there's a case for WP:UNDUE, that should be made on the talkpage. Formerip (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have another concern the author of this piece is not an Academic in the field does it acceptable?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be published in a relevant journal and the author also appears to be in the relevant field . IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes but she is not scholar I am not even sure what kind of education she has, does being member of the think tank and getting printed in scholarly journal make her reliable source? I have another example what about this? Its peer reviewed scholarly journal but again the article is not by scholar in the field does it acceptable too or no?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Liz Fekete is the Executive Director of the Institute of Race Relations, and head of its European Research Programme. She is a member of the International State Crime Initiative at King's College, London. She is a frequent visiting lecturer at universities. She has published counbtless papers in peer-reviewed journals, including Race & Class, of which she is Reviews Editor. She has been described by Professor Avery Gordon as "one of the best analysts of the complexities of racism in Europe today", and her recent book A Suitable Enemy: Racism, Migration and Islamophobia in Europe has been widely reviewed and cited. In short, she is one of the researchers best qualified to comment in this field. RolandR (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes that very nice but I like to hear comment from uninvolved editors--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In what way am I an "involved editor"? RolandR (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Leaving that question in the air ... I agree, based on the credentials cited, that Liz Fekete should be regarded as an expert in this field. We can and should cite her. If there's reason to suppose her view might be controversial (yes, this is a controversial field!) there is always the option of in-line citation. Andrew Dalby 15:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

IRMEP document link for FARA article

Regarding narrowly this diff showing removal of a link to a Dept of Justice document the Institute for Research Middle East Policy obtained through FOIA and put on its website (along with many others). The document supports statements by two other WP:RS. (For your convenience, here is the actual document link: Photostat of November 21, 1962 letter from U.S. Assistant Attorney General to American Zionist Organization regarding registration as foreign agent.)

At this April WP:RSN discussion over two dozen WP:RS discussions of, quoting from, reprinting of IRMEP materials were presented and several editors opined it was fine to link to its documents in this manner. (I can repeat the list and a number more if people really want to see them again.) Nevertheless, User:Biosketch who made the above edit claims there is no such "consensus" to link to such documents on IRMEP's site.

Unfortunately, despite the title of that first thread “IRmep: actual reliable source evidence re: FOIA docs” editors who do not want IRMEP opinions seen as WP:RS kept bring up that issue resulting in a ridiculously long thread. So hopefully if we focus on one article and one document we can have a short discussion without the histrionics generated last time. CarolMooreDC 15:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't its primary source?Why it needed in the article at all?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Primary sources are fine to back up WP:RS and are often used to provide weight and credibility to other WP:RS, as well as to provide details missing in them. Like the date, the actual author, and the actual text. Also, when some editors are trying to downplay or even delete any mention of some fact in what seems to be a politically censorious fashion, it's helpful to provide documentary evidence. CarolMooreDC 16:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If the statement is already supported by RS, why is the primary source required as a source and not simply placed into "Further Reading." What additional claims does the primary source support that are not already supported by other sources? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Right now sources only say that the request for registration happened in the 1960s. I'd like to put the exact year; the actual foreign agency funding the operation also is mentioned. I am not sure how that bears on whether IRMEP itself is WP:RS as a link to this primary source document. CarolMooreDC 03:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Carol; that is a legitimate use of a primary document, where secondaries already mention the fact, and the document, and we're only referring to the document to clarify points secondaries have already mentioned. Reasonable enough. In my other life, I am a historian, and regularly use archives of a variety of qualities. Looking at the separation of the archival unit from the general unit within the organisation, the archival unit's specific mission relating to the promulgation of acquired public documents, and both example documents and example collections—ie, examining the archival quality of the ILA archive of the IRMEP—I am convinced that the ILA meet the minimal acceptable criteria for an archive of primary documents (complete, context, in full, invariant, provenance, etc.) Thus I am convinced that it is reasonable to use the primary source in the above manner: 1) Secondary sources establish the point exists, and the importance of the point; 2) The primary source is only used to clarify the point (year, name) of elements already considered important; 3) the archive supplying the primary source is minimally trustworthy as a publisher of archival material (that's a high bar minimum btw). Without point 1; without point 2; or without point 3 this would be bad. See WP:HISTRS for why I reason in this manner regarding primary sources use in historical articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, Misplaced Pages's criteria for determining what qualifies as a reliable source are summarized at WP:RS as follows: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Can you demonstrate how you concluded that IRmep has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in determining that we can rely on its documents for their authenticity? Also, this is already the fourth or fifth time that the IRmep organization is being brought to RSN: in none of the preceding discussions was a compelling argument able to be formulated for accepting IRmep as a reliable source for anything other than the opinions of Grant Smith.—Biosketch (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Read IRS closer, Biosketch. This is about the reliability specifically of ILA at IRMEP for copying documents from the US government's National Archives or from US government FOI procedures, and then mirroring them, intact complete invariant. This isn't about secondary sources regarding the actuality of the middle east and the weight or verifiability to ascribe to opinions written by a politicised author. Do you see the difference? Supply intact, complete, invariant and provinenced archival material is radically different to supplying appropriate history, sociology or political science of the middle east? This is why the claim supported issue is relevant. I would still suggest, and defend, not using IRMEP for secondary sources in connection with the middle east. I would suggest, and defend, not writing articles or facts in articles based on content in the ILA (due to PRIMARY and WP:HISTRS's discussion of primary). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

ILA (an acronym for "The Israel Lobby Archive," which is a classification not used in any of the purported FBI documents) is a component of IRmep's website. Unless IRmep is itself considered a reliable publisher, which is what I'm insisting be demonstrated per WP:RS's criteria, ILA doesn't qualify as a reliable publisher either. ILA and IRmep are for all intents and purposes the same entity here. What has convinced you that the documents hosted at "Israel Lobby Archive" are authentic?—Biosketch (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Typology and typesetting, administrative markings that archived or released documents ought to possess, degradations from photoduplication or scanning, artefacts from large digitisation actions (photographic bleed through, etc), the amount of provenance information supplied with the documents, the fact that documents in series are complete, the absence of markers of variance, and the stated mission of the ILA subgroup's mission regarding the archives in various pages discussing what it is and how they work. These reliability criteria only relate to the ILA function; not to IRMEP commentary. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of these features establish IRmep's "Israel Lobby Archive" as a reliable source for documents it claims to have obtained from archives of official United States agencies. Reliability is established by things like peer-review and a reputation for fact-checking. As long as the authenticity of these documents isn't upheld by sources themselves known to be reliable, our own evaluation of them is insufficient. Compare the editor User:Fifelfoo's comment re cleveland.com above:

There is no evidence that cleveland.com is an accurate, complete, correct or true archive of anything. If we cite cleveland.com, then cleveland.com must be reliable. If you have consulted a paper copy of The Plain Dealer, containing the article in question, then proceed. But if you are going to hold to citing cleveland.com you'd better remove the content because there's no evidence that there is any editorial control over cleveland.com.
— User:Fifelfoo

—Biosketch (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, let's not compare. We are talking here of a convenience link for an official document. Are we certain that this is the original? I haven't looked. Re Cleveland.com, I think Fifelfoo is probably mistaken, and have posted on talk IRS at length about local newspapers. This is quite a differentcase. I suspect that, as Carol hinted, behind this query is a slow burning war on Israel Palestine articles to "get sources on" or "get sources off" Misplaced Pages. Sort of 1x Ilan Pappe = 1x Alan Dershowitz. Tell me I'm wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right, of course. IRMEP has a lot of govt documents relevant sites are reluctant to carry for political reasons. (After I finish my IRMEP[REDACTED] article in the fall we can discuss whether its opinions, just like the opinions of a number of advocacy groups, also can be used in articles.) Right now I just want to use links to and info from the documents themselves.

I think the credibility of IRMEP for posting accurate documents is evidenced by [this April WP:RSN discussion listing over two dozen WP:RS discussions of, quoting from, reprinting of IRMEP materials. Since that list was made, Grant and/or his documents have been covered in Courthousenews.com, Sacramento Bee, WBAI Pacifica radio (interview) as well as a number of the sources mentioned in the WP:RSN archive. I haven't seen IRMEP challenged on the grounds it is manufacturing or messing with documents.

Just for the heck of it I just did internet search of November 21, 1962 Assistant Attorney General American Zionist Organization and this was the highest quality source making it available. (Actually what we should do is get all this stuff into the National Archives via GLAM! Thanks for inspiring that idea, Biosketch!) CarolMooreDC 17:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

{outdent}} Biosketch wrote above: As long as the authenticity of these documents isn't upheld by sources themselves known to be reliable, our own evaluation of them is insufficient. Given that request for such information, let us again list such sources that do just that, the first two very directly, the rest by simply using them:

• A Washington Post blog paragraph by security expert Jeff Stein reading: And judging by once sensitive FBI documents making the rounds in recent days, the Israelis have been at this task in Washington for a very long time. The 21 documents, obtained by Grant F. Smith, a Washington, D.C. author who has made a career out of writing critical books on Israeli spying and lobbying, detail the FBI’s investigation into the theft of a confidential U.S. document on the Reagan administration’s position going into the 1984 U.S.-Israel Free Trade Area Negotiations.
• Journalist Philip Weiss writes Smith is doing “the best investigative work” on the Israel lobby here.
• IRmep research is used in: Ben Simpfendorfer, The New Silk Road ( Macmillan , 2009); Nathaniel Minnott, Harvard Law School, "The Economic Espionage Act: is the law all bark and no bite?", Information & Communications Technology Law, Volume 20, Issue 3, 2011; Jahad Atieh, Foreign Agents: Updating FARA to Protect American Democracy, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Summer, 2010, 31 U. Pa. J. Int'l L. 1051; Clifford Attick Kiracofe, Dark crusade: Christian Zionism and US foreign policy, Volume 31 of International library of political studies, I.B. Tauris, 2009, p 207; Pierre Guerlain, "Fighting for the Hearts and Minds of American Jews: Identity Politics at the Crossroads of Domestic and Foreign Policy, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre, GRAAT On-Line Occasional Papers–April 2009, peer-reviewed journal GRAAT (Groupe de Recherches Anglo-Américaines de Tours, or Tours Anglo-American Research Group), Tours, Université François Rabelais; Frank P. Harvey, Explaining The Iraq War: Counterfactual Theory, Logic and Evidence, Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 329.
• Most recently IRMEP released new FOIA documents from the FBI (See PDF here) showing that current Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was involved 30 odd years ago in illegally purchasing United States nuclear technology for Israel’s nuclear program. Antiwar.com published Smith's article on this; Gary Null at WBAI radio interviewed Grant Smith here. I am not sure at this point if IRMEP also obtained and released the original documents which resulted in the publishing of a book on the topic (reviewed here) or relevant to this The Israel National News article. This obviously is still a developing story and I'm sure more WP:RS will use Smith's documents in the future.

I would hope NPOV editors agree that this is more than sufficient evidence that: "the authenticity of these documents is upheld by sources themselves known to be reliable." If not, we are going to have to scour Misplaced Pages of thousands of primary source references. CarolMooreDC 22:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Boxofficemojo a reliable source?

Someone posted an edit request at The Dark Knight Rises talk page saying 'box office wordwide $268,387,000 reference - http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batman3.htm'. Is this website reliable? Floating Boat A boat that can float! 09:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, yes, unless contradicting evidence is found. It's a standard source here at WP. Check the RSN archives for earlier discussion. --Lexein (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Stereotypes of white Americans in the United States

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No RS/N query made, simply commentary on an article's sourcing Fifelfoo (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed a lot of info from this article. A sample is below.

In general, the problem is that information is cited to self-published sources.

When it is not, the sources sometimes do not support the statements. For example:

They also considered to be incapable of properly raising children, with a significant minority endangering their children in various -- and usually, bizarre -- ways.

If we want to say 'Some people think white people can't bring up children properly', then the cited article MUST SAY THAT. This article was about an act of child abuse by two people who happened to be white. The article didn't draw any wider conclusions about whether white people are capable of bringing up children.

This pattern crops up again and again. Statement that some people think white people are bad. Example of white people doing something bad.

Is the point of the article supposed to be that white people are bad? Or is it supposed to document the stereotypes believed about them?

I think the problem is the wiki community doesn't think this is very important and can't be bothered to improve the article, which means it is neglected and fills up with rubbish.

Some selfpub examples.

A popular origin story in the U.S for these stereotypes is that of the first impressions Native Americans had of Puritan refugees from England when they first came into contact with each other http://www.pantribalconfederacy.com/confederacy/useful/pdf/hygiene.pdf

and that the natives had to teach those refugees basic hygiene techniques so that they would be able to clean themselves. This also has a strong basis in European history http://en.wikipedia.org/Hygiene#Hygiene_in_medieval_Europe

as personal hygiene was seen as something of a fashion choice, akin to whether one should wear a hat outside or not. dhr.history notes: "The cities Europeans lived in exposed them to "crowd" diseases, or those spread by close contact, poor sanitation, and poor personal hygiene (Europeans rarely bathed). http://www.dhr.history.vt.edu/modules/us/mod01_pop/context.html

Risingrain (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Guitargeek.com

http://GuitarGeek.com hosts diagrams and lists of equipment used by famous guitarists. The site was created by Adam Cooper, a published illustrator who interviews guitarists and guitar techs for the info.

Usage: In Adrian Belew#Musical_style "In 2010, Guitar Geek interviewed Belew's guitar technician Andre’ Cholmondeley, creating a list and diagram of Belew's guitar setup at the time.". Here, Cooper directly interviewed one of Belew's guitar techs. I consider this one reliable enough for inclusion in Adrian Belew, at the end of the Musical Style section.

Bad usage: Nirvana (band). GuitarGeek states the reliability of diagrams, such as in Nirvana where it states "STAGE RIG COMPILED FROM VARIOUS BIOGRAPHIES, MAGAZINE ARTICLES, CONCERT FOOTAGE AND EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS. THE ACCURACY OF THIS SETUP IS NOT GUARANTEED." As a result, I support this source's recent removal from Nirvana (band).

So, I propose that GuitarGeek is reliable when used carefully. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My opinion: I know nothing about this subject area, so I'm looking at this as an outsider, which is probably beneficial. :)

GuitarGeek.com appears to meet WP:SELFPUBLISH. So the relevant policy is whether the "expert" applies here:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Google searches on strings like "Adam Cooper" guitar -site:guitargeek.com show that Adam Cooper and his site make significant strides toward meeting the "self-published expert" criterion. Cooper is active and successful professionally in his field. He's widely cited. Where he and the site are weak is trying to find how much they've been "published by reliable third-party publications" as this is a specialist world Cooper's an expert in. I did find this independent, professional site using his work:

Ibanez guitars 1

Ibanez guitars 2

Lexein my feeling is that you're dead-on in your assessment and usage of his work and the site. I'd make sure the article attributes any content that relies on Cooper and/or GuitarGeek attributes it in the article. Zad68 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving Jetpack66's comments out from inside my comment, for chronological order. Thank you for the additional information! --Lexein (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Adam Cooper, along with Nick Bowcott (of Grim Reaper fame and long-time artist relations manager for Marshall Amplifiers), created the "Vulgar Display of Power" column for Guitar World which ran over 10 years. The popular column featured famous guitar player rigs and was the longest running column in the magazine's history. GuitarGeek.Com has been online since 1995. The vast majority of the rigs are compiled from actual interviews with the artists and/or their techs. Jetpack66 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

From Adam's bio: "Adam Cooper's award winning GuitarGeek rig illustrations have appeared in GuitarPlayer, Total Guitar UK, Guitarist, Alternative Press, History of Marshall Amplifiers, Roland/Boss User Guides, Ibanez Steve Vai Jemini & Paul Gilbert Airplane Flanger Instruction Manuals, as well as the longest running monthly column in Guitar World Magazine's history: Vulgar Display of Power. Before launching GuitarGeek.Com in 1995, Adam published the highly respected music zine, Whirlpool, which was distributed worldwide via major record store chains." Jetpack66 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Where do you stand on using GuitarGeek carefully (meaning, not when its own certainty is low, as in Nirvana), with attribution in the article text? --Lexein (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Vidstatsx

I have not come across the website vidstatx before, nor seen it used as a reference on Misplaced Pages. To me it seems like a clear case of WP:SPS, someone who claims to know what the YouTube rankings are. It has been added as a source for the recently deSALTed Dave Days. Has it been used elsewhere on the project as a reliable source? 117Avenue (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(Corrected name of section head from "vidstatx" to "Vidstatsx")

I am involved in editing this article with 117Avenue. The source is being used in the following way to support the shown article content:

As of July 2012, YouTube channel was among the top 50 most-subscribed channels on YouTube...

Source URL: vidstatsx.com/youtube-top-50-most-subscribed-channels

...and was in the top ten most-subscribed channels in YouTube's Entertainment genre.

Source URL: vidstatsx.com/youtube-top-100-most-subscribed-entertainment-channels

Source is also currently supporting similar content at Sara Niemietz discography, Corey Vidal, Caitlin Hill and Charlie McDonnell among others. Zad68 14:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(unarchived, relisted hoping to actually get comments this time) Zad68 19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Unedited, unauthored random website. There is no reason to believe that this website is reliable for anything. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

facts.org.cn and Falun Gong

There seems to be a current dispute at Falun Gong at least in part relating to the source www.facts.org.cn here. Does this source qualify as a reliable source for the material it is sourcing, which seems to be basically critical of Falun Gong? John Carter (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

facts.org.cn appears to be an unedited news-aggregator run by a political organisation. There are no named editors in the English version, and the site lacks an "About" page despite the site's producers being broadly familiar with English language expectations (cf: "FAQ"). As an unedited aggregation, do not use. Original copies (ie: unaggregated material) may in itself be reliable, if found at the original source of the material, and if reliably published itself. Don't use facts.org.cn—not because it is critical, but because it is unedited and thus can't have a reputation of fact-checking. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that it appears to be an arm of the China Association of Cultic Studies, a government-affiliated organization set up after the crackdown against Falun Gong got underway in order to slander the practice and incite hatred towards its members inside China (NB: political slander in the context of a campaign of violent physical repression is different to simply "critical" content). A more detailed discussion of the state's campaign is over at Persecution of Falun Gong, the above is just what I glean from a scan of the sources. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't matter in terms of reliability. States regularly set up institutions to persecute individuals, such as Centrelink or the Reserve Bank of Australia. The Reserve Bank reliably publishes excellent material. Reliable sources don't have to be "nice" or "neutral;" and when the best sources appear to have a particular position, then as they are the best sources that position is the NPOV one in[REDACTED] terms. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Leni Riefenstahl's films were made in a way that would be familiar to many filmmakers but no one would suggest that they are reliable sources for Judaism. But your point is that we ought to look at the source's reputation for accuracy and fact-checking - not their political biases - in determining reliability? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Riefenstahl possesses no qualifications regarding the sociology of Judaism, and reviews of her works from the 1930s discuss their cinematographic, fictive and ideological functions (rejecting by silence any competence of Riefenstahl regarding the sociology of Judaism). We reject Riefenstahl because she is unreliable for the sociology of Judaism, not because of the ideological content of her films in the 1930s. We look at sources' reputations for accuracy and fact-checking, and more over their capacity to comment in a field (newspapers are bad for science, historians are bad for contemporary US pop culture biographies). In this case, "facts.org.cn" fails to display core signs of reliability in the fields of news journalism and opinion, or the sociology of religion in China—facts.org.cn's ideological position isn't relevant to their (lack of) reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Right - but how was that determined? Do we look at the source and say "Let's see, this doesn't appear to display core signs of journalistic reliability or the sociology of religion in China, given all the Chinglish and irrational ranting"? Is there a checklist? It would seem that one could make the argument that because the site is supported by the Chinese government, it should have great insight into China's social mores and be able to comment decisively and authoritatively on matters of Chinese religious practice in the country. After all, with the state's vast surveillance apparatus, the organization of the CCP might know as much about the composition and activities of Falun Gong people as any other organization in the world. Why doesn't that make them reliable? (This is not a trick question, I'm seeking to educate myself in a comprehensive way in our RS policies and conversations like this help.) TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The absence of named meat—either editorial staff (journalism) or an editorial board (scholarly product). The lack of authors for works. The absence of material discussing the organisation who produced or commissioned these works. It isn't a scholarly output (no discussion of peer review or submission requirements). It lacks the basic apparatus of identity of publications that any website possesses these days. Mostly this is from experience of what sources should look like for scholarly and journalistic pursuits—look at a bunch of international good news sources: SBS, abc.net.au, guardian, bbc, al jazeera, Le Monde, Times; look at how they present information about themselves, and about their products; etc. etc. This website does none of this grounding content, and makes rather extraordinary claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is a typical advocacy/propaganda web site, possibly even qualify as hate site. I would suggest to blacklist. It has versions on several languages including Russian. This piece on Russian (linked to the site) tells that FG is a terrorist organization, the followers are mentally sick, and that policemen in China are allowed to torture or shot them on spot. After looking at this, I would tell that even famous Soviet anti-religious propaganda did not went so far, although there are many similarities. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, that is easy to fix. Are you saying that all they need to do is present a set of mugshots, add some bylines and datelines, and write in the inverted pyramid form and we've got a bona-fide reliable source saying that Falun Gong followers eat their babies and poison beggars? There is surely more to it than the surface issues you raise. Zujine's remarks (they'd been accidentally deleted) below seem apropos. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As this discussion has gone into the theoretical, and as you've already invited me to discuss the theory of RS/N responding, lets continue this on my talk page as you suggest. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a primary source with no reputation for fact-checking or verifiability. There are some sources indicating that the organisation that runs this site is tied to the Communist Party's 6-10 Office. The 6-10 Office was established with the mandate of eliminating Falungong, including through what scholars describe as a "massive propaganda campaign". For the specific material this source (and another government website) was used to support — the charge that Falungong encourages suicide — there are numerous reliable sources that have discredited these reports, and none of the government's claims in this regard have ever been independently verified. There was a former arbitrator who put it pretty well: "Information regarding the nature and activities of a religious group produced by a state engaged in a campaign of suppression of that religious group cannot be considered reliable."

Under the right circumstances, questionable sources could potentially be used as sources about themselves, but not to make exceptional claims about third parties. Interpretations of falungong's beliefs and teachings should come from academic sources, not from a Chinese government website.—Zujine|talk 05:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Information regarding the nature and activities of a religious group produced by a state engaged in a campaign of suppression of that religious group cannot be considered reliable." That arbitrator's reasoning is wrong, and I would be very happy to correct them on why they are wrong. The arbitrator is discussing the source's neutrality, not its reliability. Some kinds of sources regularly make claims that specifically take a side in an ongoing social debate. For example, most authors write in a fashion that makes the mid-twentieth century paroxysm of genocidal violence out to be a bad thing. Thankfully, many of these writers are specialist scholars who have the capacity to sustain such a claim, such as Hannah Arendt. The problem isn't that the Chinese government encourages "independent" organisations to anonymously slang off a religious group. The problem is that neither the Chinese government, independent organisation nor anonymous authors are suitable experts for religious slanging off. It doesn't matter if these parties detest and loathe a religion, all that matters is if they're competent to make extraordinary claims about a religion. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So facts.org.cn is a primary reliable source, that would require an attribution if cited. See for instance secondary reliable source citing this website: Benjamin Penny (13 April 2012). The Religion of Falun Gong. University of Chicago Press. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-226-65501-7. Retrieved 26 July 2012. With that not sure why anyone would want to cite facts.org.cn, given the wide selection and availability of secondary scholar reliable sources on the topic of Falun Gong. In fact, facts.org.cn currently is not being used for any citation at Misplaced Pages, so it is not a big problem. With that not everything is perfect:

• faluninfo
• clearwisdom
• clearharmony
• the epoch times

The Epoch Times using epochtimes.com or Falun Gong using faluninfo.net citations appear ridiculous and those citations should be replaced with higher quality secondary sources, per explained above. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Agada: a hate site meant to vilify a persecuted group is different to a regular primary source used to make claims about the party producing the primary source. That said, it's often a question of context. One would have to look at specific cases. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There is definitely a conflict between China government and Falun Gong. Both sides utilize propaganda. It is interesting that secondary sources note that master Li media activity is modeled after China government one. Li was exposed to it, when Falun Gong was an integral part of the state and enjoyed their support. We as Misplaced Pages are neutral and don't take side in this conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed we don't, but the dichotomy I identified above is not my own, it is the frame adopted by reliable sources. And of course the pages should and do discuss Falun Gong's own communications strategies and the doctrines and influences that inform them; those are two different matters. But we've departed from the status of facts.org.cn. The consensus seems to be that at the very least it is not a reliable source TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"So facts.org.cn is a primary reliable source, that would require an attribution if cited." No. It is not reliable for any of its claims, due to lack of editorial process. Its opinion lacks any weight, as it is not comprised of weight-worthy commentators. Do not use facts.org.cn Fifelfoo (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Good angles and points, 10x, Fifelfoo. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation technique

This source is used four times in the Transcendental Meditation technique article. However:

• 1)The source document is hosted on this Christian website a web site which says it "affirms the inerrancy and absolute authority of the Bible".
• 2) The author of the source document, Vishal Mangalwadi, makes his purpose clear in his final paragraph called, Talking Points, which says: "Once we can help a Hindu to see that man’s basic problem is moral, that we are guilty of breaking God’s law and deserve punishment, it will be easier for him to see that Christ is the only way to salvation, i.e. forgiveness and reconciliation, because he is the only one who has died for sin.
• 3) The author of the article, Vishal Mangalwadi, is the Co-founder & director of the Christian organization: Theological Research and Communication Institute (TRACI), New Delhi
• 4) The author, Vishal Mangalwadi's bio says: Vishal and Ruth are currently in the United States exploring The Soul of Western Civilization - the Bible. This study was inspired by Vishal and Ruth's recognition of India's need for the reforming power of the Bible."

At present the source is being used to support the article text listed below:

• "all who want to learn are taught"
• "Vishal Mangalwadi says the mantras, having the names of deities, are meaningless sounds used in the Japa yoga tradition."
• "and students are required to bring a clean handkerchief, some flowers and fruit, and their course fee."
• "The TM teacher is said to "worship" the picture of Guru Dev during the TM instruction, puja ceremony."

Is this an appropriate source for this article and the content specified above? Or should other sources be used in its place? A prior discussion at WP:RSN regarding the Maharishi University of Management article, indicated that sources with a narrow Christian point of view should be avoided. Is it true in this case also? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Vlach claims to have an appropriate PhD for Theology, but his . Vlach is publishing a tertiary source for non-experts. Non-expert tertiary: do not use for a scholarly field like comparative religious sociology. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, however, Vishal Mangwaldi is the author of the source in question. Michael Vlach is merely the founder of the web site that is hosting the source document. Sorry if my post was confusing, I've added a URL link and some wikilinks to my original post to make it clearer. Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this changes the incompetence of the publisher of this work's importance to indicating that this source is unreliable for religious sociology or theology. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not challenging your position. I just wanted to make sure that my post, which questions the validity of the Mangalwadi source, was clear. Thanks again,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the Mangalwadi article, the website hosting it (theologicalstudies.org.uk), and the RSN archived discussion Keithbob mentioned. Considering these, it looks like the rule is that sources with a narrow Christian view should not be relied on as sources of factual information. Here, the website and the book it hosts promote a narrow Christian view and have been sited as the source of factual information. IMO the rule applies here and a different source should be used.Coaster92 (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

While that's a good generalisation regarding sources promoting narrow ideological views; it isn't universal. Scholarly theologians publishing in the scholarly mode do have the authority to make weighty opinions or claims in this field, more the moreso their theological publications exist in cross cultural comparisons etc. Theology isn't bad for sourcing religion—non-scholarly theology is bad. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

diputaciondelagrandeza.es

This website is the sole source for a new article, Grandes de España (Current). I know there are a number of websites making claims for nobility that don't stand up when examined, and I'm concerned that there is a BLP article with only one source (and which doesn't even explain much about its subject. Anyone know anything about this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks completely genuine and official, either that or a good fake. Grandee has the background, and the list article could do with a few sentences saying what the list is all about (Spanish nobles, in a nutshell). The new article seems to be based on the Spanish Misplaced Pages one, which makes sense. We have extensive coverage of British nobility, why not Spanish too? Worth querying, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guys, my thinking when I created this page was that the source was pretty good. I remember looking up most of them at the time to verify the title and did not find any discrepancies. I definitely understand the pervasiveness of the "faking nobility" problem, but really, these Grandees are the most powerful (in title at least) of all the Spanish nobility and it would be very difficult (impossible really) to fake such a title especially given that the Spanish monarchy is still very much active. Just my thoughts. Best, --ClarkSui (talk)

More Information on the history of Bultfontein (the town in the Free State)

Awamiweb.com and awamipolitics.com

• awamiweb.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• awamipolitics.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I recently came across these sites being used as references by Mubashir09 (talk · contribs). These appear to be rather disorganized, multi-user blogs trying to be news aggregators. They each appear to have a few main contributors, but allow "guest writers" to contribute. Many of the articles appear to be little beyond opinion pieces. The English is often very poor, sometimes to the point where the meaning is undecipherable. There is no indication of when (or if) they are doing their own reporting rather than simply translating news from other sources. Granted, it's difficult to tell and I haven't spent much time going through their articles let alone looking for possible sources for their reports.

Anyone have time to look into this further? --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

University of al-Karaouine

A book by James Fergusson, a freelance journalist, titled Taliban: The Unknown Enemy and published by DeCapo Press is used in the article University of al-Karaouine to say that al-Karaouine is the world's oldest "madrasa" (the quote from the book is "The oldest madrasah in the world, the Jami'at al-Qarawiyyin in Fez, Morocco, has been operating benignly – and continuously – since it was established in 859."). Contrasted with that, and dismissed as a "generalist source" is the following:

• Aslan, Ednan, ed. (2009), Islamic Education in Europe, Wiener islamisch-religionspädagogische Studien, vol. 1, Böhlau Verlag Wien, pp. 220–221, ISBN 9783205783107, The Muslim community maintained, favoured, and organized the institutions for higher education that became the new centres for the diffusion of Islamic knowledge. These centres were places where teachers and students of that time would meet and also where all intellectuals would gather and take part in extremely important scientific debates. It is not a coincidence that around the 9th century the first university in the world, the Qarawiyyin University in Fez, was established in the Muslim world followed by az-Zaytuna in Tunis and Al-Azhar in Cairo. The university model, that in the West was widespread starting only from the 12th century, had an extraordinary fortune and was spread throughout the Muslim world at least until the colonial period.

Ednan Aslan is University Professor at the University of Vienna in the field of Islamic Religious Education (see here) Is the book Taliban: The Unknown Enemy reliable for the statement that the school is a "madrasa" and is Aslan's book reliable for the statement that it was established as a university? nableezy - 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The topic was already discussed here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no it was not. Neither of these sources are mentioned anywhere in the ANI report. Please dont misrepresent the content of that page. This page is specifically used for opinions on the reliability of a source. The ANI report was specifically about a user edit-warring to try to force in a favored version of an article. Please dont conflate the two subjects, as it only distracts from the purpose of this page. Thank you. nableezy - 18:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Highly disingenuous of you to include the second source, as if to say, "Hey is this source reliable, even though mine is better?". The second source has no bearing on whether the first source is reliable or not. Athenean (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. I am asking about both, because you rejected the second as "generalist" but said the first was "reliable". So I am asking about both. That you rejected the second while accepting the first isnt my fault, now is it? nableezy - 21:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

Could this be used for this claim.It seems to me like a blog without editorial oversight with unnamed posters.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC is not a "blog", it is a well-regarded non-profit organization that, among other things, tracks hate groups. Attribute it if you want, but remove it? No. nableezy - 18:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Can the KNMG official viewpoint document be used in this way?

RSN request

• Article: Circumcision
• Article content under consideration:

"Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians state that none recommend routine circumcision"

• Source used:

The Royal Dutch Medical Association's (KNMG's) "official viewpoint" (as the KNMG itself describes it): "Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors (2010)"

• Applicable quote from document:

"There is currently not a single doctors’ organisation that recommends routine circumcision for medical reasons."

Question Is the KNMG's official viewpoint document a sufficient source to support the claim being made?

Discussion

In my evaluation, the KNMG's official viewpoint document is not a sufficient source to support as strong and as broad a statement as is being made. To call it a "summary statement" as the article claims, I think we would require a statement from a neutral, peer-reviewed source such as a law or ethics journal, with a clear description of how the survey of the many world-wide professional associations of physicians was performed, what the inclusion criteria were, some discussion of the primary sources themselves, and description of how the conclusion was drawn. I'd also expect that a neutral overview to be the stated goal of such a journal article. But, we don't have any of this:

• First, the KNMG official viewpoint document is clearly persuasive in nature. Regarding circumcision, the document states "he KNMG does believe that a powerful policy of deterrence should be established".
• The goal of the document isn't to present the summary results of a neutral survey of the world's associations, but rather to justify the KNMG's own position.
• Take a look at the endnotes in the KNMG statement, they cite:

• A paper "Circumcision - a Victorian relic lacking ethical, medical, or legal justification"
• The anti-circumcision site nocirg.org (which would never be considered a neutral reliable source of such information by Misplaced Pages)
• "Jews against circumcision"
• The anti-circumcision site circumstitions.com (which would never be considered a neutral reliable source of such information by Misplaced Pages)
• The anti-circumcision site circinfo.org (which would never be considered a neutral reliable source of such information by Misplaced Pages)

among others.

• The KNMG statement doesn't even match up precisely to the claim being made. The KNMG statement is about "...for medical reasons" and the claim in the article doesn't have that qualifier (although this could be fixed with wording, but this wouldn't address the issues I see here)

I don't see how the KNMG official viewpoint document could be used to support anything other than the positions of the KNMG itself.

Input please! Zad68 20:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The document is not persuasive, it supports some view that is overwhelmingly prevalent in Europe. In Europe where circumcision was quite rare after WWII and before the recent influx of immigrants nobody did care about circumcision for the 50-60 years while the circumcision-rates were about 0.5-5%. The Netherlands were traditionally the country with the highest percentage of immigrants so they were one of the first to notice the issue. Similar statements were issued in Germany and many hospitals have stopped religious circumcisions in Switzerland and Austria after the recent Kölner Landgericht ruling. Yesterdays Neue Zürcher Zeitung reported about the discourse between Swiss legal experts whether neonatal circumcision is antragsdelikt or offizialdelikt (one that must be prosecuted under any circumstances).

The document is perfectly representative for Europe and should be given adequate weight, any thoughts that the KNMG might represent some anti-circumcision fringe views are completely misleading. Richiez (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of caring more about WP:The Truth than about the joys of finding a perfect sourcefor the footnotes, is there any professional association of physicians that actually does recommend routine circumcision?

The purpose of our sourcing guidelines is to get things right (where "right" is defined in terms of reliably published information rather than Wikipedian's personal beliefs), not to throw up bureaucratic barriers to filling an article with good and relevant information. Do we have any reason to believe that this statement is actually wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Richiez, you and I are both involved at Talk:Circumcision debating this issue, thanks for providing your side. It's good for the two of us to get some opinions from outside editors here at WP:RSN.

WhatamIdoing, be careful not to miss the subtlety of the RSN question being posed here. I actually believe that it's quite possible that the statement "No professional association of physicians recommends routine circumcision" is WP:The Truth™, although since the World Health Organization started recommending circumcision as a way to slow the spread of HIV, it also would not surprise me to find out that some small medical organization in HIV-ravaged Africa does recommend it. I don't know.

The issue is that the statement "No professional association of physicians recommends routine circumcision" is not the article content the KNMG statement is being used to support. The article content is:

"Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians state that none recommend routine circumcision"

so what is being claimed here is that there are multiple "Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians" being quoted. The KNMG statement can't be called a "Summary of the views of professional associations of physicians" when it was written for an entirely different purpose. In WP:MEDICAL articles, the word "summary" has a special meaning referring to the easy-to-read analysis of the results of an independent third-party review of existing medical literature. (Look at WP:MEDRS, which talks about the use of the word "summary" in reference to medical sources.) For example, take a look at this summary from the highly-respected Cochrane Library: Zinc for the common cold. To refer to the KNMG statement as a "summary" is very misleading. If the statement were changed to "The KNMG states that no professional association of physicians recommends routine circumcision for medical reasons" I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the characterization of the KNMG statement as a "summary statement" in a medical article that I find an unacceptable use of the source.

To expand on this, take a look at this article published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics. It states "no medical body has advocated a policy that calls for the prohibition of circumcision", the inverse of what the KNMG says, in addition to "Although they recognise that existing medical evidence does not support that the procedure that can be universally recommended" as well, supporting the KNMG statement. But even this cannot fairly be called a "summary of the views of professional associations of physicians".

I'm not trying to throw up bureaucratic requirements, I'm just trying to get the article to accurately reflect the sources. This has nothing to do with any beliefs I might or might not have. Zad68 02:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Summaries state that..." is lousy writing style. If this is a fact (or a fact as far as the extensive research into sources by Wikipedians has been able to determine), you should report it as a fact.

And the intent of the summary doesn't matter. If the source actually does summarize them, even if it does so as a side issue or afterthought or any other reason, then its contents may be described as a summary of said statements (but only one summary, in the singular, unless you have other sources that do the same). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree "Summaries state that..." is lousy writing style, I don't like that. This does give me motivation to offer some new ideas for different phrasings to the article's regulars. Hope we can get consensus. Also hoping to see input from others here as well. Zad68 02:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Stanglin, Douglas. "Facebook photo of duct-taped kids prompts couple's arrest". USA Today. Retrieved 19 May 2012.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution