Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Collect (talk | contribs) at 23:31, 17 August 2016 (→Review of William Benemann, Men in Eden: William Drummond Stewart and Same-Sex Desire in the Rocky Mountain Fur Trade.: as stated in the review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Age of Consent template: primary vs. secondary sources

The Template:Age of consent pages discussion header states (after clicking on "show"):

In the interest of accuracy and quality it was decided by consensus to hold these pages to a high standard of verification and to avoid ambiguity through the use of prose (not dot points) discussing the relevant statutes, case law or other authorities.

My concern is specifically with case law, which is in the form of the actual judicial opinions (ordinarily rendered by an appellate court), serving to clarify how specific statutes are to be interpreted.

My question is whether the judicial opinion may be cited in preference to an article in a mass media publication, presuming that the judicial opinion (at least if read carefully) can be interpreted without any specialized training? Or is the judicial opinion itself to be avoided because it's a primary source? Fabrickator (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, judgments require a degree of expertise to read, and we should instead use secondary sources, which explain what the judgments meant. In particular, readers need to distinguish between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. In a case of breach of contract for example, a judge could say that a minor could not be sued because the age of consent was 18 and then say that applies to any form of consent. But the case would only be a precedent for contract law. Also, a court could decide that there was more than one decisive issue. A minor could for example plead that a oontract was void because it was not properly witnessed and he was too young to enter into a contract. If the court believed both, it would not set a precedent because if it had not been properly witnessed, the plaintiff could not win on appeal, regardless of whether the court was right on the age of majority. TFD (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Make sure also to distinguish between age of majority and age of consent as they generally are not the same thing or number.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Template:Age of consent pages discussion header only applies to articles about the Age of consent for sexual activity, so I'm not sure these responses are getting at OP's question. The purpose of the template is to remind editors to only use the highest quality sources since these articles involve laws related to child sexual abuse and this is how it defines high quality sources: "Where writing about legislation or other law, the appropriate statutes and similar must be cited." (my emphasis). But as Fabrickator said, citing the actual legal code can be misleading, either because the wording might be ambiguous or because it differs in important ways from the case law, the actual authority for how the law is interpreted in the US (and plenty of other places, but I can't speak to them). I can think of a lot of potential issues with regularly citing the judicial opinion too though, like it might be hard for editors to determine the most recent, relevant case, especially when there's been more than one ruling about different aspects of the same legislation. Also, some precedents are still on the books that were set in the 1800s, which comes with its own host of problems.

Are there usually academic sources covering the judicial opinion in precedential cases? Because if it's reasonable to expect the majority of these laws will have been covered by academic sources, IMO, those would be the highest quality sources, not the actual statutes or court records. —PermStrump(talk) 21:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

TFD ... you say that secondary sources should be used because reading judicial opinions may require expertise, though the same may be said about the statutes themselves, yet the "age of consent" pages (e.g. for United States) liberally cite and quote from statutes. The difficulty of interpreting statutes is at least one reason that appellate courts wind up overturning decisions of lower courts. Requiring secondary sources instead of the statutes themselves is seemingly problematic ... because even if one finds a "reliable" mass media publication that covers this (and attempting to use sources other than mass media has its own problems), the articles in mass media publications simply are unlikely to meet the necessary quality requirements. Now the advantage of judicial opinions (at least in some cases) is that the judge has the opportunity to elaborate, and elaborate they do, because they are not limited to a certain number of column-inches. Fabrickator (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The best sources are legal text books, which meet the test of reliable secondary sources. While it may seem paradoxical, generally statutes do not need expertise, or very much expertise, to be read, since legislators generally do not deliberately write ambiguity into them. But legal precedents become necessary when there is ambiguity in statutes or conflicts between them. If for example the age of consent is one age for males and another for females but it conflicts with a sex equality law, and there is a precedent, then we would want to consult a legal textbook to explain the degree to which the precedent effects interpretationn of the law. Sometimes a series of precedents are required before full clarity is obtained. In a similar situation, the case of D.C. v Heller invalidated a D.C. law on gun ownership. But the degree to which it restricts gun control laws is unknown. On the other hand, we would be fairly safe in most cases in using D.C. statutes as a source for the laws of D.C. If legislation says for example that people cannot keep pet lions without a permit, we can assume that is the law. TFD (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if the template (specifically the age of consent template, not all legal templates) should be reworded then to say that academic sources should be sought for interpretation of legislation in addition to citing the actual legal code? —PermStrump(talk) 19:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

While citing the statutes may work fine for the easy cases, these tend not to be subject to interesting legal appeals. Proposing the use of legal textbooks or academic journals is problematic, IMO, because of the limited access to such sources, assuming that such sources may be presumed to comprehensively cover such things (not having such access, I can't really say whether this is the case). OTOH, states frequently have multiple statutes (or at least multiple sections of the same statute) which interact in ways that may not be apparent to a casual reader. I suppose that what I'm really saying is that quoting statutes within the body of the article is actually counter-productive, because someone attempting to educate themselves on how the law applies is essentially left to use their own wits to figure it out. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which implies the use of sources to provide usable articles, but it by no means implies that the "ideal" article would be comprised largely of a bunch of quotes from cited sources. Fabrickator (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Would anybody care to argue (or support) the point that a judicial opinion which has been "approved for publication" (meaning the court has authorized its use for citation in other cases) is not only a reliable source, but unless understanding the pertinent parts of the opinion is beyond the ken of an educated person, a secondary source presuming to interpret the opinion should generally be treated as inferior?

To raise a different question, at least one editor has made statements to the effect that any verifiable source must actually refer to any age-based restrictions on sexual activity using the phrase "age of consent", in order for that to be a suitable source for this page. So a source describing the circumstances under which one may be subject to prosecution for consensual sex under the laws of a state may not be cited in the absence of the phrase "age of consent". I find this to be beyond the pale, that for the purpose of the "age of consent" pages, this phrase has a specialized meaning, and that is the meaning we are seeking on this page, regardless of the precise words used in statutes or other sources. So I'd appreciate any comments that may lead to a consensus on this point. Fabrickator (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

What article? Where is that discussion happening? I wanted to read the context before responding. —PermStrump(talk) 09:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

On Talk:Ages of consent in the United States, it is asserted that "the 'age of consent' is however the press and the media define it". This same page mentions an article by "Carter" that's in a mass market publication. This is the article I had in mind as being problematic. Specifically, the Carter article gives the impression that a prosecution under Texas statute 43.25 requires that a sexual performance be involved. But the pertinent judicial opinions make it clear that a person can be prosecuted for "inducment of sexual conduct" (of an underage person), thus serving as an example of the need for the "high standard of verification" called for in the template. Fabrickator (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the judicial opinions? With that info, I can look for a secondary, academic source that clearly articulates the legislation, which IMO, would be the best option. —PermStrump(talk) 02:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are the opinions on two particularly pertinent cases: Summers v. State: http://www.leagle.com/decision/19921285845SW2d440_11248/SUMMERS%20v.%20STATE, Dornbusch v. State: http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/thirteenth-court-of-appeals/2005/14000.html Fabrickator (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@PermStrump: Do you have any more feedback on this?

Kabali (film) and List of highest-grossing Indian films

Hey all, I'm having some ongoing problems at both Kabali (film) and List of highest-grossing Indian films. Breifly, Indian films are very popular in India, but they're also very prone to promoters bloating box office financials, and Misplaced Pages often gets caught in the middle of these promotional campaigns. List of highest-grossing Indian films was fully protected because a bunch of editors, including auto-confirmed ones who had suddenly come out of retirement, kept changing the box office values to reflect the box office figures a producer, (a primary source) was reporting a few days after the Tamil-language film Kabali was released. The producer claimed the film had grossed 3.2 billion (320 "crore") rupees. No amount of discussion on the talk page was making a difference. Same at Kabali (film), although to a lesser degree.

With that wave of disruption mostly over, a new disruption arose after Financial Express, which is generally considered a reliable source, made claims that the film has grossed 650 crore and higher. However International Business Times, which is also generally considered reliable, has outright called these high estimates "fake", noting that they include income unrelated to the film's box office take. IBT places the more reasonable estimates at 309-350 crore (3.09-3.5 billion rupees) as has First Post, which has said, "More conservative estimates put Kabali’s collections at around Rs 300 crores from worldwide ticket sales." This is obviously less than the 320 crore that the producer was reporting a few days into the film's run.

This talk page comment of mine is a bit of an obnoxious read in response to an IP user's demand for a detailed explanation, but I think it clearly explains the various issues. If anyone is willing to comment at either that discussion, or at Talk:Kabali (film), or at both, that would be appreciated. Or just to add these pages to their watchlists to help address some of the questions would be helpful too. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the 309-350 crore figure is currently outdated and we now have multiple sources pointing the Domestic collection as "Rs 211 Crore" and International Collection at "Rs 259 Crore", which brings the world wide theater collections at atleast 470 Crores. . Yes, Tamil Nadu government has a cap on ticket sales at Rs 120 per ticket hence the domestic is lesser than the international. Indiatimes, The Financial Express, BoxOfficeCollection-India, Galaxy Reporter and Bollywood Box Office Collection. So i think we can move on from Rs 350 Crore to Rs 470 Crore until a more updated figure is available. Thanks. --Pearll's Sun 03:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

pearll's sun - And I don't think we can, since the values that were put out by Financial Express drew skepticism by Firstpost and IBT. They didn't just question the values, they criticized the lack of research behind the values. If other members of the media are criticizing a publication for not doing research, why would you assume that the rest of their report would be factual? When you can find values from established reliable sources that do not originate from Financial Express, then perhaps we can move ahead. But for days now you've been citing the same problematic references, or (as above) citing publications that are referring to these problematic references. As for your inclusion of galaxyreporter and boxofficecollection.in, no dice on those as far as sourcing goes. I'm not even going to look at them. I know from past experiences that these are faceless blogs, which fails WP:UGC. You seem to be a real hurry to update the box office data using the most questionable sources out there, and that is problematic. I've explained several times at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films that we have no deadline, but you seem to keep conveniently ignoring it. You also seem to have ignored my points that Indian cinema articles are prone to corrupt inflations. If you were interested in academic integrity, now would be the time to demonstrate that, rather than deciding of your own accord that now's the time to fluff up the disputed box office values. I'm perfectly fine with the compromise of removing the box office data for Kabali entirely from that article and from Kabali (film) until multiple sources report independently of Financial Express what the gross values are, but somehow I strongly doubt you're interested in a compromise. As noted, the only thing we know for sure is that the film has crossed 350 crore. We do not know for sure if the 470 crore estimates are close to what the rest of the film analysts think. I'm proposing caution and circumspection with time determining what value should be used, you're proposing we rush to publish what one periodical thinks, apparently with no regard for whether or not we'd be republishing bullshit marketing hype. Yours is not the sound position. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb. Perfect, Why publish a wrong figure or publish a disputed/inflated one? Removing the box office data entirely from the article claiming it to be "disputed" sounds like the best way to keep off false figures from the article. Also when we check google, it seems to reflect wiki and shows a wrong value. But on the "Highest Grossing Indian Films", can we say its around 350 - 470 Crore or 350 - 650 Crore and call it disputed?. Let's not fix a value by ourselves. Thanks. --Pearll's Sun 04:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I would remove the gross from List of highest-grossing Indian films and from the Infobox at Kabali, with the latter maybe pointing to a relevant section in the article that discusses the disparity, maybe with "Disputed, see Box office". An option for the former article might be to present the gross in the form of a range as I previously did, and as you suggested above, but to flag it as disputed with {{disputed inline}}, linking to a relevant discussion on the talk page (see template instructions). I don't have time to do this now, so if you want to handle both, I'll trust your judgement. Whatever you do, you might want to link to this discussion in your edit summary. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm a bit biased but when real reliable sources say that the 600 and above range is complete rubbish and anonymous blogs are cited as the exact kind of thing that the reliable sources consider quoting the rubbish, using the anonymous blogs as evidence for a mid-level claim. I'd rather keep a week-old citation and then we can figure out whether or not than a poorly sourced recent one. As noted, our policy is that badly sourced information is worse than no information at all and being conservative is better than claiming things like "this moves from the 14th highest Indian film gross of all time to 6th" and possibly retracting that entire claim. This is no small claim. Just to make sure it's clear, a number that is literally tens of millions of dollars more as we are moving from 350 crore (about $52.6 million) to 470 crore ($70.6 million). A difference of 120 crore which is equivalent to $18 million or basically what the third US box office results were in their entirety this weekend. I know one huge problem is that the Indian film task force has not really analyzed these websites (in part because a new one seems to pop up every few months) and we tend to take the "accept it unless evidence is to the contrary" approach instead of WP:BURDEN the reverse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682, thanks for your comments. IBT's latest from 9 August 2016 is casting some shade on some of the broken record claims. They also wrote: ""Kabali" has collected more than Rs. 300 crore at the global box office in 17 days and its current pace shows it will not be able to surpass the Rs. 500 crore mark in its life time." It's somewhat noteworthy that the milestone they mention is 300 crore, not 400 crore. Though I have no evidence to support it, the Financial Express pieces read more like press releases than articles. Knowing that the Kabali producer was claiming 320 crore gross a few days into release, which was not supported by independent sources, it would not surprise me if his people had flooded Financial Express with a puff piece and they reprinted it without fact-checking, which is kinda what IBT suggested when they mocked the unnamed publication for printing claims of up to 675 crore. Needless to say, other sources hungrily reprinted the nonsensical claims without any effort of fact-checking, because hey, it brings in clicks. In the discussion above with pearll's sun I recommended presenting the data in the form of a range. It's one way to go and I would typically endorse that for minor disputes, but I really don't know how much Financial Express can be trusted on this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb Yes, IBT says it has collected over 200 Crores in India. But again we need to see which are the most trustable sources. For me all the popular Indian news media are a trustable source and IBT is new one as only post Kabali reports i learned about this news agency.

1: India Times - 1 week back - 211 Cr Domestic + 259 Cr Overseas = 470-500 Cr Overall. 2: FilmiBeat - 2 dys back - 211 Cr Domestic + 259 Cr Overseas = 470-500 Cr Overall. 3: India Today - Film producer claims film earned 320 Cr in 6 dys in Tamilnadu there is a Cap on ticket sales at Rs 120 whereas and theaters sold the tickets at 10 times the price which does not happen otherwise in TN which is illegal, now the question is if the quoted price from IBT could be at Rs 120 per ticket and Producers claim could be the other one. 4: Financial Times - 1 week back - 211 Cr Domestic + 259 Cr Overseas = 470-500 Cr Overall 5: Domestic collection at over 200 Crore - BoxOfficeCollection-India And we have 6: IBT that keeps publishing same collection report for past 1 week.

Now which one to choose? I too second in Ricky81682 comment that "badly sourced information is worse than no information at all". Do we have any option (an e.g. from any article) to place a value such as "350 Cr to 700 Cr" with a tag "Disputed"? or simply remove the value and place "Disputed - See Box Office report within article"? --Pearll's Sun 14:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

IBT is not a "new" source. It's been around for years and is widely considered reliable by the Indian cinema task force at Misplaced Pages. Per your points:

1. The India Times reference you keep bringing up cites Financial Times as the source of the info. That's not an independent confirmation, so it doesn't count as an additional source. It is not constructive to keep bringing it up as though it were a unique source reporting its unique findings.
2. There's also no indication that Filmibeat is considered a reliable source by the WP:ICTF. On the contrary, the community appears to dislike Filmibeat/Oneindia as a reference.
3. The Indiatoday source you bring up cites the producer as the source of the financials. We don't use primary sources for controversial data. Obviously the producer has a financial interest in inflating the box office claims. I don't know exactly what point you're trying to make about the ticket scalping, but why would it matter if we're going to discount what the producer claims anyway?
4. Yes, we are aware of the Financial Express claim.
5. There's no indication that Boxofficecollection.in is anything more than a blog, or that it is in any way considered a reliable source by WP:ICTF. Useless for our purposes.
6. Yes, we are aware of IBT's adherence to a value <400 crore. Does it occur to you that this is because IBT doesn't believe the film crossed 400 crore? Like here where they mention crossing 300 crore, but not 400 crore?

Your suggestion that we list the top-end estimate at 700 crore is ludicrous. You couldn't possibly believe that 700 crore is a reasonable top end, since not even the poorest of the sources you've provided has claimed that Kabali grossed 700 crore at the box office. I genuinely don't understand your reluctance to wait a couple of weeks until the chaos subsides. It is not inaccurate to say definitively that the film crossed 350 crore. What is inaccurate is to say definitively that the film crossed 400 and 500 crore. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

700 Crore is just a figure and can mean anything the sources claim it to be. So instead of focusing on the "700" i think we should see if we can either place two figures and call them disputed or remove the outdated 350 Crore claim by IBT (unless wiki clearly specifies IBT to be only reliable source).

1. If IBT is widely considered reliable, does all other popular news including "Financial Times" and "India Times" considered un-reliable?
2. Is IBT the only reliable resource of wiki?
3. For me IBT and other sources such as "Financial Times", "NDTV", "India Times" and other popular press media seems same unless wiki specifies a list of most reliable sources.
4. I'm now so glad that google has finally removed the 350 Crore figure from its search sourced from wiki and placed "5.7 billion INR (570 Crores... no idea if this is right or wrong yet they seem to have an updated figure)". Hope wiki too finds an acceptable solution for such issues.

Thanks. --Pearll's Sun 14:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Maya

There is a discussion, or rather close to an edit war, on Talk:Maya_(illusion) whether etymology of the Sanskrit word maya can be sourced to a sociology/philosophy book by some Pintchman. One editor, Ms Sarah Welch, keeps inserting the reference, arguing that since Pintchman is currently a professor and the book is published, it can be used on Misplaced Pages, and by removing the reference I "attack professors". While I argue that Pintchman's book is on sociology - precisely, on certain religious concepts in Hinduism - and not on linguistics; Pintchman is a professor of religious studies who in her own admission learned the Sanskrit language barely for 2.5 years; she only mentions the etymology en passant, when proposing a theory of a Hindu Goddess, in this WP:PRIMARY publication; and a reference to another book proposing this etymology (by Jan Gonda) is sufficient on Misplaced Pages. However, my argument seems to fall on deaf ears.

The discussion also takes place in a wider context, perhaps less relevant to this noticeboard, of existing teories on the etymology of the word maya (well, that's not a terribly wide context). Ms Sarah Welch keeps highlighting (not to say, promoting) original theories of religion by Jan Gonda (not a linguist, either - but in Hindu traditions, language and religion are strongly interconnected); whilst I try to present existing theories equally and list them in chronological order in the article. Unfortunately, because anonther editor apparently totally unfanmiliar with the subject of Indian studies (RexxS) has joined in doing reverts and attacking me, I decided to ask for a third opinion on sourcing. Thanks for any remarks you may have. — kashmiri  06:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In the above submission on RSN, @Kashmiri has questioned the competence/behavior of @RexxS and me, but not provided the link to the source whose reliability apparently in question. Here it is: Pintchman's book (pages 3-4). It was published by State University of New York Press. This specific book has been reviewed by scholars in peer reviewed journals, such as:

David Gordon White (1996), The Journal of the American Oriental Society, 116(2), pp. 356-358;

Lou Ratté (1997), International Journal of Hindu Studies, 1(1), pp. 211-213.

David Gordon White in his review writes, "Tracy Pintchman (...) fills a long-standing gap in Western writing and research on the Goddess, (...) in special relation to the three cosmic principles of prakrti, maya, and sakti. This work will no doubt become the reference work on the subject, as well as a useful tool for teaching on undergraduate and graduate levels." Lou Ratté review is similarly positive, and mentions Pintchman's discussion of "prakrti, maya, and sakti". Pintchman is a professor in the subject, and she is respected in the field of Hinduism/Indian religions as these reviews suggest. Based on a combination of all this, I respectfully submit that the source is reliable, a secondary source on maya-related etymology/terminology context, as it is being used in the article (Maya (illusion)). I further submit that a read of the book amply show that @Kashmiri is falsely alleging the nature of the book, like much else.

This is not a new issue. In January 2016, @Kashmiri questioned, then attacked the "competence and speculations" of Jan Gonda with "can't even believe a scholar of Sanskrit would have published such a thing". @Kashmiri then argued Gonda is a sole/primary source, and we need more sources to establish this is mainstream view, is now flipflop lecturing above that "another book proposing this etymology (by Jan Gonda) is sufficient on Misplaced Pages". As in months gone by, now @Kashmiri is lecturing @RexxS about WP:Primary again. This is not a reliable sources issue, it feels more like a behavioral issue on @Kashmiri's part, persistent disruption through deletion of content and scholarly sources, and WP:TE since January 2016 despite comments and cautions by editors and an admin, other than @RexxS and me on this (see edit history here and here). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A couple of things - yes, generally you do need more than one source to establish a 'mainstream' view, otherwise it is just one (reliable or not no comment) person's opinion. If there are dissenting/different views, then again more sources are required to establish what the mainstream is. If there are no dissenting or no other sources, then it should be presented as the opinion of the expert rather than 'this is the definitive answer'. Secondly - I would not use a non-linguistics expert as a source to verify a words etymology - where other sources are available from linguistic experts. If there are no dissenting or better sources available, then you work with what you have. I would say from looking at the diffs back and forth, this does seem to be an area where there is disagreement. It is not great to have in an encyclopedia article 'Maya is probably...' when there are multiple theories RE the origin. (Saying the above, from looking at Jan Gonda's article, I cannot see why they would not be considered qualified enough to have an opinion and be referenced on the subject, but I can see the argument behind Pintchman) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death does duty end: Jan Gonda is known for his linguistics work. Tracy Pintchman reviews and states the past scholarship on Maya-related etymology-terminology among other things, on pages 3-4 (her publication is an example that Gonda's study is accepted by other scholars). That section of the article has multiple sources. I agree, we should retain the multiple sources, not delete them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Thanks for your balanced view. Let me point out that Ms Sarah Welch has shamelessly manipulated my words - where I asserted that "I can't even believe a scholar of Sanskrit would have published such a thing", I was absolutely correct - this was about a (linguistically absurd) idea that maya is a combination of two verbal roots ma + ya, which Ms Welch attributed to Gonda and defended fiercely but which, as it turned out, wasn't actually even mentioned in Gonda's book. Reluctantly and after lots of fighting, Ms Welch allowed the statement to be removed from the article, as you can see now. To be fair to her, as a former Sanskrit scholar, I am more than familiar with a belief among many newbies to ancient Indian literature that whatever is printed is holy, is sacred and should be revered much like the Vedas.

For a similar reason, I removed Zimmer's primary study that Ms Welch tried to add as a source to whatever, seemingly forgetting about WP:BRD that she earlier kept repeating ad nauseam. I do not see any value that this work from the philosophy of language could add to the Etymology section (which should, or must, adopt linguistical approach and not a philosophical one); while of course it may be cited in other parts of the article. Hope this clarifies, although I admit I grew tired of Ms Welch's attacks. — kashmiri  20:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a notice at the top of this page: Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability. If you have nothing to say about the reliability of the source, then please stfu. Take your attacks on other editors elsewhere; they don't belong here. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The article Maya (illusion) currently has a section Etymology and terminology. The present article contains references to half-a-dozen different opinions on the etymology of the word. The sources include two books published by State University of New York Press and two published by Motilal Banarsidass, all of which Kashmiri is trying to remove from the article. The purpose of this notice board is to garner other opinions on whether a particular source is a reliable source in a given context. The source in question that opinions are sought on is:

• Tracy Pintchman (1994), The Rise of the Goddess in the Hindu Tradition, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791421123, pages 3-4;

for the statement "Māyā (Sanskrit: माया) is a word with unclear etymology, probably comes from the root mā". So is it a WP:Reliable source? according to WP:NOR ("In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals; Books published by university presses; University-level textbooks; Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and Mainstream newspapers."), it is.

@Only in death: If others also wish to offer their opinions of whether the source should be included or not, per WP:DUE, then please consider WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." There are another three sources that also support Pintchman's view:

• Jan Gonda, Four studies in the language of the Veda, Disputationes Rheno-Traiectinae (1959), pages 119-188
• Donald Braue (2006), Maya in Radhakrishnan's Thought: Six Meanings other than Illusion, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120822979, page 101, Quote: "Etymologically, the term māyā is derived from the Sanskrit verbal root mā (...) Whitney says the primary meaning of √mā is 'to measure'. L Thomas O'Neil agrees in his helpful exposition of the ways and contexts in which māyā is used in the Rigvedic tradition."
• Adrian Snodgrass (1992). The Symbolism of the Stupa. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 29. ISBN 978-81-208-0781-5. Quote: The word māyā comes from the same root mā, "to measure", as does mātra, "measure", which in turn is etymologically linked to the Latin materia, from which our word "matter" derives. Materia not only relates to mater, "mother" and to matrix, but also to metiri, "to measure, to lay out (a place)", (...)

I believe that anyone reading the current section Maya (illusion) #Etymology and terminology is "representing fairly, proportionately, and ... without editorial bias ... the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" as required by our policy. --RexxS (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The way this issue has been brought here leaves much to be desired. @Kashmiri: you needed to read and follow the directions at the top. This is not a dispute resolution venue, but rather a venue to get opinions of uninvolved editors on sources. In particular, conduct issues do not concern us.

The only question that seems to concern this board is whether the Pintchman source should be included. I think there is no harm in including it, because it says that maya derives from ma (to measure) and so provides support for this derivation. This doesn't immediately clinch the issue, but it shows that this derivation has found favour among scholars. Whether Pintchman is a linguist or not doesn't matter much, because she is a secondary source here, and it is all the better if she is not a specialist.

More broadly, looking at this edit, the difference between the old and the new versions seems rather slight. So, I think that, if you discuss with cooler heads, you should be able to find agreement quite easily. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Kautilya3, I also think that finding agreement ought not be difficult. As I see it, this noticeboard should be able to tell us whether the Pintchman source is reliable or not, and (if required) the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard can judge whether the source should be included in the article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks. (1) I can't agree with terming Pintchman's work as a secondary source. Pintchman's book is absolutely and undoubtedly a PRIMARY source as it consists nearly uniquely of her own research. The book is not just a summary of other people's work, it is not a compendium-type publication nor a Review type academic paper. Same to Zimmer's qouted work. (2) Because it is not a secondary source and Pintchman is NOT a linguist nor an authority on Sanskrit or the Protoindoeuropean language, she should not be referred to in the Etymology section. She lists her specialities in her CV linked above, please feel free to verify that "Sanskrit scholar" or "linguist" are not among them. So, Pintchman's book just happen to mention such an ethymology (without quoting a source btw) because it fits her philosophical idea and not because she studied extensively the origins of Sanskrit or PIE words. — kashmiri  22:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: please note that WP:SECONDARY tells you: A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement. For the matter under discussion, the derivation of maya, it is a secondary source because Pintchman is not stating her own view, but rather the received view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It's also important to realise that a book published by a major publisher carries the weight of editorial oversight and the peer-review process. Its reliability does not merely rest on the author. In this case, the publisher is SUNY Press, which is one of the larger university presses, and publishes its Manuscript Review Process, including its peer-review process.--RexxS (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid the reliability of sources is not such a black-and-white issue. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and what we know about the expertise of the scholar, the context in which the statements appear, and the scholarly support provided for the statements etc. are also considerations. In this particular situation, the Pintchman source is scholarly and peer-reviewed. However, the author appears not to be a specialist in Sanskrit linguistics and no citations have been given for for the claim that maya derives from ma - "to measure". These considerations imply that the source cannot stand on its own, but can only be used in addition to the other sources, to tilt the balance a little bit in favour of this derivation against the others. But, on the whole, I don't think the balance in favour of this derivation is so great that it should be singled out as in the old version. I think Kashmiri's version is more balanced in this regard. (I also participate on the NPOV Noticeboard. So, I am switching hats slightly here.) Sanskrit, and perhaps other classical languages too, relish multiple meanings and sliding from one to the other. You may be looking for clarity where none is expected to be present. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

TeleSur English

Source: TeleSur English (Elliott Gabriel, Ways Jill Stein's VP Pick Will Shake US Politics Beyond 2016, August 2, 2016)

Article: Ajamu Baraka

Content: TeleSur writer Elliot Gabriel said: "e is an accomplished Black scholar, professor, and human rights advocate who has tirelessly fought for the rights of working people in the United States and throughout the world."

TeleSur is a Venezuelan state-run news agency usually identified as Bolivarian propaganda by scholars and media. (See, e.g., here (piece by Council on Foreign Relations international affairs fellow focused on Venezuela describing it as such). Even those sympathetic to the Venezuelan government identify it as such (see, e.g., p. 29 of this book in which Nikolas Kozloff quotes Gregory Wilpert as saying that Telesur has a "widely-acknowledged reputation for being a vehicle for Chávez-funded propaganda").

Given all this, I do not think it is a properly reliable source for this (laudatory) statement about an individual. I welcome input. Neutrality 15:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

disagree, given that the article has been claimed to be OK for citation concerning "negative" elements. User talk:Neutrality is reacting to the fact that a user requested the deletion of an article he added from Politico (owned by the son of Texas billionaire Joe Allbritton), which contained one and only one sentence about Ajamu Baraka portraying him dismissively. Cf. The TeleSUR page to understand the origin of the network as an attempt to counter the oligarchic concentration of Latin American media... also note that User talk:Neutrality has not objected to the original selective quotation from the Telesur article (3 words from a long sentence) to make Baraka look bad. My personal decision was to delete both articles, as neither contributes in a particularly useful manner to the article in question, but the complainant decided to revert his citation without reverting the counterbalancing one. SashiRolls (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Politico is financially and editorially independent of the government. "Telesur" is not. There is no meaningful comparison between the two. You may dislike Politico, but it is not comparable to propaganda in thesense that TeleSur is.

As for the other use of Telsur (which is apparently no longer in the article, I haven't looked at it). It appears that the other use is a direct quote from the subject of the article, whereas this statement is an absolutely laudatory quote that serves no purpose other than to heap praise on the article's subject. I think you're clouding the issue somewhat here. Neutrality 15:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There was indeed an error in attribution, the Politico article was being cited for content coming from Telesur. Probably a cut and paste error due to the repeated deletions and reverts. It is corrected. I am merely exposing a contrary point of view to your own, I am not trying to cloud any issue, but would be fairly surprised should we suddenly decide that an innocuous statement such as the one above should be censored because someone doesn't agree with the politics of the source publication. If it is, as I've already pointed out, there are any number of similar citations which could be added (since Baraka is a highly respected individual, having received numerous honors for his human-rights work). However, it seems to me that there is a certain amount of bullying going on here to force acceptance of a free-lance writer's personal attack (from Politico) into the biography of a living person, despite the fact that 3 people have argued that it is not a particularly useful reference (two on the talk page, one by originally deleting it). Your objections to this user's deletion of your content are the source of this contention, as you know. SashiRolls (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Exactly as User:Neutrality states, this is government propaganda arm, not an editorially independent news source. NYTimes: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that the reference was removed. Moreover E.M. Gregory has twice removed the NPOV template placed on the page in question by WikiLeon without achieving any consensus for doing so. This despite the fact that ad hominem attacks against the candidate remain on the page. The latest ad hominem attack comes from Tablet (magazine), which unlike TeleSUR is not financed by 6 governments, but by a single Jewish foundation whose funds come primarily from one donor. Cf. Nextbook SashiRolls (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Prabook as user-generated content

I have cleaned up three or four articles using Prabook already but there are ca. 200 of them. Can I please have explicit confirmation that this is user-generated content and not reliable? If I get that then I may try to work out where to ask about a filter/blacklist for future attempted uses.

BTW, someone did raise this previously in relation to a specific article and, as on that occasion, I suspect Misplaced Pages scraping may have gone on in the examples that I have looked at so far. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, most of the content on Prabook seems to come from the scraping of various, sometimes decades-old Who's Who-type books. Usually a suitable Google Books search will find the original source of the data. Where such can't be found, the data should not be used. And Prabook should never be referenced. But it's just a drop in the bucket, as Wikipedians aren't going to stop citing (or using without even citing) random websites of no authority whatsoever. Mewulwe (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes to some degree but if we adopt that fatalist attitude then we might as well abandon pretty much every policy and guideline, not to mention the project. We either make a stand or we succumb to anarchy. - Sitush (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I have used this cite in some of the articles I created, but a closer look (after Sitush pinged me) tells me that it may not be reliable, though the content therein may be factually correct. However, it could be used to gather information for further research but that's where it should stop. I do not believe it will hold as a reliable reference, as the subject himself can add data and there seems to be no mechanism to check the veracity of the content.--jojo@nthony (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Is TalkOrigins a reliable source for science topic?

There is an ongoing discussion on Macroevolution page whether TalkOrigins can be used as a reliable source for a scientific article. (It is cited in multiple locations in the article.)

To recap, even TalkOrigins themselves admit to the lack of scientific reliability:

• http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/welcome.html

"How do I know the contents of this archive are reliable?"

Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup. While many of the participants in talk.origins are well regarded scientists, this informal procedure is not as demanding as the process a scientist goes through to publish a paper in a scientific journal. It is important to keep this fact in mind when reading the contents of this archive. Because most of the essays have not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or misstatements of fact.

• http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?

We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive.

Even they acknowledge that their contents may contain errors or misstatements of fact because they had not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Furthermore, they themselves encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature.

I propose that TalkOrigins lacks scientific reliability and neutrality to be used as a reliable source. Could you advise please?

69.75.54.130 (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

http://www.talkorigins.org/ is a curated repository of essays and papers on the topic of evolution or the evolution/creation debate, written by biologists and scientists, for the public. It seems that the site is cited four times at our page for Macroevolution:

• First, to document that evolution is ongoing and speciation has been witnessed by scientists today. This essay is a peer-reviewed article from The American Naturalist also held at talkorigins.

• Second and third, to note that evolution is both a theory and fact.

• Fourth, to note that scientist define macroevolution as "any change at the species level or above."

talkorigins is neither an ideal (e.g. textbook) nor a wholly uncredible source. Because it is being used to source uncontested statements of fact I would recommend the citations not be removed, but instead replaced with better sources. I would invite the IP to engage in this work for their own sake and ours if they want to improve Macroevolution. -Darouet (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Darouet, your argument that "evolution is both a theory and fact" is an uncontested statement of fact, is inaccurate. There are many scientists who contest against regarding evolution as both a theory and fact.

http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/ResBot/EvSy/PDF/Fitzhugh%202007%20-%20Zoologica%20Scripta.pdf

‘Evolution’ cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations. Regardless of one’s certainty as to the utility of a theory to provide understanding, it would be epistemically incorrect to assert any theory as also being a fact. ... An emphasis on associating ‘evolution’ with ‘fact’ presents the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty. Acknowledging that the statement, ‘evolution is a fact’, is an incorrect assertion has the benefit of focusing our attention back on the goal of science

I do agree with you that the references to TalkOrigins should be replaced with the better sources.

69.75.54.130 (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the place to conduct a battle over evolution. -Darouet (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Short answer: Yes. Talkorigins is, generally speaking a good enough source, though if a better source exists for a claim, use that.

Long answer: First, talkorigins is not the source of most claims cited to it. Rather, some paper which caught the attention of the users of talkorigin and managed to impress the credentialed users and staff sufficienty is generally the source. In that case, we can link to the talkorigins copy, but we cite the original publication. Additionally, if you think there are problems with the theory of evolution, such as your insistence that it cannot be both a theory and a fact, you have absolutely no business editing any articles on evolution. This is not only common sense (you don't see the majority of liberal editors editing Donald Trump), but a matter of wikipedia policy. Pushing an anti-evolutionary agenda here is a sure-fire way to wind up topic banned or indef blocked. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Darouet, That is why TalkOrigins should be removed. According to them, the main purpose of TalkOrigins is to address creationism/evolution controversy. Let's not bring the controversy to Misplaced Pages.

 

MjolnirPants, You should follow the PDF link to find out whom I have quoted saying, "‘Evolution’ cannot be both a theory and a fact."

You just accused Kirk J. Fitzhugh of "pushing an anti-evolutionary agenda" just because he explained how a scientific theory can never become a fact.

Here is from National Science Teachers Association:

I have heard too many scientists claim that evolution is a fact, often in retort to the claim that it is just a theory. Evolution isn’t a fact.

And that is one of reasons why TalkOrigins should not be used as a reliable source. It causes Misplaced Pages to lose neutrality, and makes people like yourself to think even legitimate scientists are anti-evolutionary simply because they spoke science.

69.75.54.130 (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I would like to hear from a couple of more neutral people regarding the reliability of TalkOrigins.

Again, even TalkOrigins acknowledge that their contents may contain errors or misstatements of fact because they had not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Furthermore, they themselves encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature.

For example, here is one of their erroneous articles written by a scientist and cites many primary literature, but it wouldn't pass a peer review, although it would fool the general public. The article claims that there were 1,000 times more ocean water back on the early Earth, and then uses this absurd figure in his calculation to support his claim. Also, the article grossly misstates the primary literature by claiming "a staggering 2.5 x 10^112 sequences are efficent ligases" and uses this erroneous figure in his calculation to support his claim (the actual value in the cited source is 2.5 x 10^12.) The article has more errors, but these are just a couple that I still remember on top of my head.

These are type of incorrect calculations that even scientists would not easily recognize. No wonder TalkOrigins puts up a disclaimer to warn the readers not to take their word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature. I understand that they have good articles, too. But, the bad articles are also written by scientists and cite primary literature. How are the general public supposed to tell them apart? I have no problem Misplaced Pages citing the primary literature used by TalkOrigins, but TalkOrigins themselves should not be considered a reliable source.

69.75.54.130 (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The example you post looks like a simple typo, and given the responses so far, it's unlikely that there'll be a blanket proscription against talkorigins. People here like to know specific contexts, which are often relevant to reliability. If your specific content concern is about Evolution as fact and theory, we have a whole article about that topic. -Darouet (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

If those figures were not used in his calculations, then you can claim it to be a simple typo. It is not a simple typo when the author uses the erroneous figures in calculations, then uses the erroneous outcomes to back up his claim. Furthermore, I am not even going to get into other errors (not typo) in his article. I had challenged the author long ago, but he has never responded. I think it's because there are many other people who found many other errors in his article, too. The article is unreliable, period. And TalkOrigins posting such unreliable articles should not be considered a reliable source either; simply putting up a disclaimer that we as the readers should check the primary literature does not exonerate their sloppy publishing practice. I don't worry about checking primary literature when I read an article in normal science journals. But, with TalkOrigins, I don't take them at face value. Is this how low Misplaced Pages wishes to lower the standards of reliable source?

69.75.54.130 (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@69.75.54.130:Thus, the warning wasn't just addressed to me; I just erased the sarcastic response I typed up first because this thread is getting sidetracked. Suffice it to say, telling another editor what they really meant is never a very polite or particularly intelligent thing to do. I know you're an intelligent person, so please try to stick to intelligent commentary.

Also, let me offer you some advice: Just let this thread sit. People will continue to read it, and if they feel the need to add to it, they will. But the longer it gets, the less likely new people are to join it. I've hatted the off topic discussion, which should help shorten the thread up quite a bit. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants, Thank you for steering the thread back to the original topic and hiding the off topic discussion. And I'm sorry for the whole warning business; let's start over. I'll listen to your advice and wait for others to chime in. Have a great weekend!

69.75.54.130 (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all the cites to TalkOrigins are to essays by established experts on biology and evolution; therefore, even if we consider TalkOrigins a personal website (which I'm not sure is correct), they still fall under the exception in WP:SPS for work "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." In fact, it seems like almost a textbook case of that clause, and I would not be at all surprised if it was one of the specific examples people had in mind when that clause was written. --Aquillion (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Aquillion,

Open Journal of Geology is a peer-reviewed scientific journal and it is reputably ISI-indexed. Yet, it cannot be cited by Misplaced Pages simply because its parent publishing company (which owns 250 different journals) happens to be deemed predatory. There is not a single shred of evidence that Open Journal of Geology had ever published a scientifically inaccurate article. But, because of its mere association with the parent publisher, it is deemed unreliable by Misplaced Pages.

On the other hand, TalkOrigins is neither peer-reviewed nor a scientific journal, which even they admit. I even pointed out an error-riddled article that they had published. Yet, TalkOrigins is reliable, while Open Journal of Geology is not???

69.75.54.130 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@69.75.54.130: We've gone around on this before; Journals from predatory publishers are considered highly suspect, but papers published within them are to be judged on their own merits. If there's enough evidence that the paper is a reliable source we can use it. If there's no evidence of reliability, then the only thing we know is that this paper was published by a company that isn't rigorous enough to trust. This was the linchpin of our argument on the James Ossuary: Until you made the case to me, and showed me how the paper you cited had been presented to a wider audience of experts without any backlash, and that it was written by respected experts in the field, the only information I had to go on was the publisher, who is highly suspect.

Also, you seem to be hung up on sources, but while we often make generalizations about sources, sources aren't the focus in these discussions. Claims are. If the source is reliable for the particular claim it is used to support, then we can use it. So if we needed a citation on the sentence "the sky is blue," I could go to any tin-foil-hatted, lizard-people-run-the-government, Bob-Barker-controls-my-brain-with-television-signals conspiracy theory website that happens to mention the sky is blue and cite that. It'd be fine. So we can't use a physicist's peer-reviewed, widely cited paper on some minutiae of PET scans to support a claim that PET scans are medically useful. However, we can use some doctor's off-the-cuff comment on his or her personal blog somewhere for it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If what you've said is true about "papers published within them are to be judged on their own merits", then how come the editor removed the journal reference from James Ossuary and labeled it as "unusable as a source"? Perhaps, it is true to you, but certainly not true to other editors of Misplaced Pages; also, you'd be fine with citing an unreliable source based on a claim, but not to other editors of Misplaced Pages.

69.75.54.130 (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that editor was me, and I just (explicitly) answered your question in the comment you asked that question in response to. See This was the linchpin of our argument on the James Ossuary: Until you made the case to me, and showed me how the paper you cited had been presented to a wider audience of experts without any backlash, and that it was written by respected experts in the field, the only information I had to go on was the publisher, who is highly suspect. I strongly suggest you read a comment in it's entirety before you respond in the future (even if it's a bit long-winded, as mine tend to be). If there's a way to sum it up in one or two sentences, I'll add a tl;dr note at the top or bottom. Otherwise, you kinda have to read the whole thing to know what I'm saying. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That editor is not you. I have written twice that my comment was about "other editors".

Look at the history page of James Ossuary and you will see that an editor named David Eppstein was the one who had removed the reference to Open Journal of Geology.

69.75.54.130 (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Inside Futures

I think I already know the answer here but wanted to get confirmation - is Inside Futures a reliable source? Specifically, this article, which I added as a reference on Larry Hite's page. Meatsgains (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The "named chairs" link is broken. The working url is http://www.scholarrescuefund.org/donate/named-chairs. As for supporting the statement about Hite's involvement with Scholar Rescue Fund, they disclaim responsibility for it, maybe they read it on Misplaced Pages! The "Scholar Rescue Fund" citation can serve as an authoritative source for any actual facts about the organization itself, as well as for its stated purpose. Statements based on the Hite Foundation link ought to be particularly "qualified", e.g. they "claim" to be doing this and that (similar to the comment about "stated purpose" for the "Scholar Rescue Fund", only conisderably more so). I am new at posting my opinons on "reliable sources", so I will defer to others who disagree and who claim to have greater experience. Fabrickator (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: Thanks for looking into this. Where exactly did you see that that they "disclaim responsibility"? It very well could be that they pulled the information from Misplaced Pages. Meatsgains (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: When I say they "disclaim responsibility", I'm referring to their statement that begins "One source says ...", without revealing what the source is. Fabrickator (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I see, I think additional feedback from other users would be helpful. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Ciências Sociais Unisinos

Is this Brazilian social-science journal (en) generally reliable? It looks good, but I'd appreciate the opinion of an experienced RS evaluator or a Lusophone academic. It is indexed in EBSCO and ProQuest, among others, but has no JCR-assigned IF.

I'd like to use this systematic review in rewriting Psychology of eating meat, for which the review is excellently targeted. It was published only a few months ago and has no citations (in GScholar) yet, so to be sure of meeting WP:SCHOLARSHIP I'd like an opinion on the quality of the journal in general. Thanks! FourViolas (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of psychohistorians

How mainstream is the theories of Psychohistory? How reliable are writings of psychohistorians on the matters of history? Эйхер (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

After a few minutes on Google I don't see any sign of anything that I'd regard as academically rigorous. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Do such claims, in turn, represent mainstream perception of Psychohistory? Эйхер (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems oversimplified and concentrates on the more amusingly batty ideas, but I'd guess that it does indeed represent mainstream perception of Psychohistory. In short, I'd regard psychohistorians are reliable on their own ideas but not on external reality. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I. e. it's WP:FRINGE, isn't it? Эйхер (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Lifton and Gay are certainly respectable; this isn't a fringe disciple so much as one with broad, ill-defined overlap with fringe ideas. Anmccaff (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd also add that the wiki articles seem centered on Lloyd de Mause, and de Mause is, IMO, quite fringy. Anmccaff (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

But why then a special report, prepared by a governmental scientific body ostensibly for the purposes of developing governmental policies, cite de Mause as an authority on a children-related history topic? The report is used here. Эйхер (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is one more seemingly serious work citing de Mause in the very beginning. Эйхер (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Psychohistory and DeMause are decidedly fringe, both in history, anthropology and psychology. Given that he believes that child abuse is the most important factor in human development and history - he may have some clout specifically in the field of child abuse studies - I would not recommend citing him outside of that specific context. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

And inside that Specific context? Эйхер (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

More specifically, are those parts of this report that cite de Mause for the reference (and, in my opinion, distort even his questionable view) are a reliable source for the statements in the end of this paragraph, given the context, in which these statements are put? Эйхер (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the report is a sufficiently reliable source for those specific statements, which do not strike me as particularly controversial. Since those are more about generl cultural history and not dependent on deMause's specific views I think they are ok.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Individual statements, perhaps, are not particularly controversial. But I suspect, that they are misleading in relation to the context. Эйхер (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

But then it is not really about reliability (of the report, or of deMause) but about its usefulness in the specific context. To me this sounds like something that is better solved through discussoin at the talkpage, I dont think the sentences can be rejected on grounds of demause's (un)reliability - since it is not citing deMause but the report, and since it is not sounidng the more problematic aspects of demause's work.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It is about reliability of the report. In the report these statements are used in the same (or at least similar) context as in the article. The problem is that it appears to me that the authors of the report tend to construe these facts along the lines of de Mause's "childhood-hystory-is-a-nightmare" concept but in a more awkward way. Эйхер (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Just a note: Governments have passed legislation and taken action on the advice of phrenologists, eugenicists, anti-vaxxers, creationists, conspiracy theorists and flat-earthers. A government body taking something seriously, whether that government be of a superpower, a developed nation or a third-world nation, does not, in any way lend credence to it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Can you give an example of a recent nation-wide legislation made on advice of, say, creationists? Эйхер (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act, passed by the Louisiana legislature in the early 1980's. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not nation-wide, and, given the title, is more likely to be made rather in consideration of rights of than on advice. But it's, of course, off topic. I understand Your point. But the questioned report is made not only for governmental purpose but by a government-funded scientific body. I believe, even the said state of Louisiana does not support a creationist institution with taxpayer's money. That somewhat perplexes me. Эйхер (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

tl;dr: This particular argument of yours is extremely flawed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, just that you may want to pursue a different tact.

Long version: You offered up the report as evidence of the veracity of this subject, reasoning that if a government funded scientific body took it serious, that lends credence. The example I provided illustrated my counter argument (that your argument was, essentially a No true Scotsman fallacy). I understand that it didn't meet the specific criteria you asked for, but it didn't need to in order to illustrate my point. I'm not opining on whether this is a valid theory or not, I'm just pointing out that your position is not well-served by that particular line of reasoning, as it's likely to be quickly refuted by others.

And yes, there are pseudoscientific organizations who are primarily funded by the government. The Discovery institute (a creationist think tank) has a number of local government contracts to analyze traffic patterns and act as an intermediary between municipalities in streamlining the transportation infrastructure. Does that have anything to do with creationism? Not on the surface, though their position on intelligent design is one that relies heavily on the study and analysis of systems, which is extremely closely related in scope (systems sciences) to their traffic work. It's worth noting that their study of systems science is necessarily flawed in order to support their views on intelligent design, and those flaws would almost certainly influence their traffic work unless the two divisions are kept strictly apart. In truth, there are several different ways you could use your argument, and I could respond to each of them with an example of pseudoscience being used in a role similar enough to refute the argument. It's not anything wrong with you or even your overall position, just flaws in that particular argument.

In all honestly, I'm not trying to argue with you so much as I am trying to 'referee' this discussion. (I'm not an admin, just a disinterested third party.) In short, my arguing against you thus far is more a form of "that's not gonna work, I'd suggest you try a different tact," advice than a ideological opposition to your position. Indeed, I can see a lot of utility to a psychologically-based study of history (and I appreciate the Asimov connection, though I'm aware it's really not the same thing). Whether this field is pseudoscientific or not really depends on the approach practitioners have taken, and I know little or nothing about that approach. Therefore, I have no dog in this fight.

Sorry for the long post. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the governmental support does not signify scientific reliability. Эйхер (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. It's better to establish reliability by pointing to its use by independent scholars. For example, if you can find some reputable historians who cite psychohistory papers, that would be a better line of debate. If you find enough, then by definition (as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned), your job is done. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I rather suspect unreliability. Эйхер (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Jill Stein (reliable source question)

An administrator User:VictoriaGrayson has said that a video of Jill Stein speaking is not a reliable source for what Jill Stein actually said. Do you agree? She also seems to be arguing that a video of Jill Stein already referenced on the site via the blog "The World According to Matthew" is a reliable source embedded on that site but is not a reliable source when accessed directly. What do you think? Thank you for your time looking into this question in an effort to guarantee the impartiality of Misplaced Pages. The relevant discussion is in this Request for CommentSashiRolls (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not an administrator.VictoriaGrayson 01:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide the specific example. It is possible to inaccurately represent what people said on Youtube videos: "You didn't build that," "I short circuited," etc. Also, it is better to use secondary sources and if whatever Stein said was not picked up in those sources, it is probably too insignificant to include. TFD (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, a video of someone speaking is going to be WP:PRIMARY (unless it's a video of a new channel covering it or something.) Primary sources are usually bad to rely on because they don't provide interpretation or coverage, which makes it very hard for us to say anything (even just "she said this", in the wrong context, could result in implications that violate WP:SYNTH - whereas a news source covering her statement in that context can support the implication that it's relevant.) A video in a blog wouldn't usually be any more reliable, though, since blogs themselves don't tend to pass WP:RS... there are a few limited exceptions under WP:SPS, but they're unlikely to apply when using them for a source on a living third person who falls under WP:BLP. I would suggest looking for third-party coverage of her statement from a news source (or something else that passes WP:RS), and using that for the cite instead. If no such sourcing exists, then it probably violates WP:DUE to include it anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• A video of Jill Stein is a reliable source for what Stein said. However we do not inclde stuff that Jill Stein said unless another source commented on it and thereby showed that Stein's comment was significant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your responses snunɐɯ·, Aquillion, & TFD! In response to your call for more information, here is the sentence that was reverted:

Stein has made unequivocally clear that she does not believe that vaccines cause autism, comparing the media frenzy around the issue to the birther issue used against Obama.

I identified this as an independent source which is both a primary source regarding what Jill Stein said, and a secondary source given the comments of the interviewer (and Cenk Uygur at the end of the video), who both say that her statement is unequivocally clear. My use of her comment about the "birther" scandal seemed to fit the definition of appropriate use of a primary source given at Misplaced Pages... "Primary sources may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." It was added to the page because as it stands the page only includes articles stating that she has been ambiguous on this issue. What do you think? SashiRolls (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

References

1. "Green Candidate Jill Stein Isn't Anti-Vaccine". Young Turks. Retrieved 2016-08-13.

I read over the section, which is Jill Stein#Science. Stein provided an interview with David Weigel, a reporter at the Washington Post. In the article he implies that Stein is anti-science without actually saying so. "Stein's warning about corporate influence in the vaccine approval process is often voiced by "anti-vaxxers." An article by Alan Yuhas in The Guardian does the same: "Stein seemed to echo such fears in her interview on Friday, though again as part of a broader argument about regulators." That is followed by text sourced to similar articles and blogs.

Our challenge in using reliable biased sources is to separate facts from opinions, which the article does not do well. Juxtaposing the fact that anti-vaxxers are suspicious of vaccine approval processes is an expression of opinion. For example, "Like Adolph Hitler, Clinton supports gun control" is a factual statement that presents an opinion. None of the articles say that Stein opposes vaccines, in fact they say she supports them. Nor is there any indication that she thinks vaccines cause autism (although ironically Clinton and Obama said they were not sure themselves.)

In this case, I think it is better to review the article text and ensure that it presents the facts without editorial comment. If we want to add opinons, then they need intext attribution. In reply to your original question, it is valid to provide a denial from someone against whom an accusation is made, provided it can be sourced. See the example in WP:BLP: "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."

Moving forward, it is probably better to post to the NPOVN, since it is really an issue of weight of opinions about Stein. That also applies to other sections of the article.

TFD (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

TFD, thank you very much for your time! I agree with you completely concerning that science section, but as you've perhaps seen on the talk page, I can make no progress against the page owner and his allies. I've tried to do significant cleanup (particularly on that science section: 3 of my 4 censored edits were in that section, but they've been globally reverted. Even trying to oppose the addition of yet another tweet gets overruled... they've got an effective team that's been reverting quite a few editors for over a month now. Any ideas what to do in such a situation? I got angry about it this afternoon and gave up, but I'll try to add the WP:BLP example you've given me, though it would have much more force if someone else did. SashiRolls (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Snopes has a good article about this, which could serve as model for how we present the issue in a neutral manner. Ond way forward is to present Stein's actual position, the objections presented by Weigel et al. and the opinion expressed by the Snopes writer. Or perhaps it is better to leave it out altogether since there is nothing unusual about her position on vaccinations, just a few non-significant opinions expressed about it. I will post a thread and see how other editors react. TFD (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I read that article some time ago (before coming to the Jill Stein page) and thought the question had been settled, but I guess it hasn't. I'll check back later to see if you (or anyone else) had had a chance to add this to the article. For the moment, I'm doing my best to alert people to the issue on the talk page, because otherwise it will be just be reverted if I add it to the article. I've added the long list of evidence for WP:OWN problems with the page here. Thank you again for your help. SashiRolls (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Spaceship Moon Theory

Short: Is The Forbidden Knowledge a reliable source?

Long: There's an article on the Spaceship Moon Theory. It references an article in the July 1970 issue of Sputnik, effectively the Soviet Reader's Digest. I'm not questioning whether or not Sputnik is reliable, but believe that the reference used in the article is not reliable.

It's apparently a copy of the Sputnik article, hosted on an archive site that's take it from The Forbidden Knowledge. Things that interest TFK:

"This domain is dedicated to the teaching of knowledge that was hidden from the human race all through history."

"Freemasonry's connection to the creation of Mankind and his purpose"

"Luciferic power structure and Government center Washington D.C."

"Master numbers encoded within your DNA"

That's just from the home page; it gets worse when you open the site. I.e. it's about as fringe as it's possible to get. Therefore it's not a reliable source, and we simply can't rely on them to have accurately reproduced articles published elsewhere. Or that's what I think. You? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, The Forbidden Knowledge is not remotely a reliable source. The Spaceship Moon Theory article basically just summarises the Sputnik article and adds some third-party criticism, so with respect to the Sputnik article, reliability is less a problem than notability. If the copy at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_6.htm is a true copy is not improbable, but not sure. It would be much better to dig up a copy of the original source. Maybe a Russian-speaking editor can help out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

If it was genuinely published by the Soviet Academy of Sciences it shouldn't be hard to find; it (and its successors) is one of the world's leading academic institutions. Given that the original paper was published in Soviet times, there will be a copy in the Russian State Library (although probably at their Khimki site rather than Moscow), as it was a copyright library throughout the USSR era. ‑ Iridescent 22:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, the article was not published by the Academy, but the authors were members of the Academy. Our article Sputnik is very basic - de: Sputnik (Zeitschrift) is much better. The magazine was, apparently mostly addressing foreigners. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This ] appears to be a good overview of the political and scientific background to this. Irondome (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers guys. There's a partial archive linked to on the Sputnik page, but it unfortunately doesn't contain July 1970. I'll potter off to WP:RX to see if they can help track down the original.

I assume that (for the purposes of including in WP) Jason Colavito's blog is reliable for his opinions, but not for establishing the notability (or weight, I always mix that up) of his opinion? Either way, thanks Irondome for the background information. Bromley86 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bromley86. (The Bromley? I worked there on a Govt. secondment back in the day, 2001, I liked it. Decent pubs!). It could be used i.m.o, and would add political and cultural insights to the article. It could form the basis of an additional section exploring that aspect. What appears to be a good translation of the original article appears in Colavito's piece. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's the same Forbidden Knowledge archive. The upside is it's not a translation (that is, the original was published in English, as well as German, Russian and a bunch of other languages). Despite my insistence that the source is unreliable, for WP's purposes, it probably is an accurate transcript of the original. Certainly, it doesn't include mention of minerals that some of the conspiracy sites add (like brass, IIRC). Bromley86 (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So there I am, websurfing theforbiddenknowledge.com site and enjoying the articles about free energy, and suddenly I run into this... --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Another WP:FRINGE opinion. As all of us Sinclair ZX Spectrum programmers know, the only thing the TI99/4A was good for was keeping your coffee cup warm. The architecture was crappy and the BASIC was, basically, useless (and slow). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: That is absolutely untrue. Not only did it make a great doorstop, but I managed to scavenge some parts from it to repair my Commodore 64. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

World Statesmen.org

Is World Statesmen.org reliable? I'd initially assumed not, but I have mixed feelings as I've used The Peerage before, and I can see similarities. Bromley86 (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No. There's zero authority there. Site just copies, without any hesitation or discernment, information from Misplaced Pages and anywhere else, etc., just to "impress" with quantity, while quality is abysmal. Mewulwe (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-peer-reviewed academic papers

Is an academic dissertation (published independently, not in a peer-reviewed journal or anything) considered a reliable source? The source that provoked this question is this “dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy” from the University of Helsinki. It wasn’t self-published, but to me it feels a step removed from using some student’s test answers as a source for the tested subject. Or is that just me? Could just be me. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

What proposition is it cited for? An institutionally-published Ph.D thesis can probably be cited for some things but not for others. Neutrality 02:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It’s actually published by a law firm (Published by Turre Publishing, a division of Turre Legal Ltd.), not the university. But it was printed in the university, if that matters. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This is tenable only if the dissertation has been sufficiently cited by other academics in the field as having an impact, much as we evaluate journal papers by their citations and impact. Also it doesn't really matter who ran the printing press; rather that the dissertation (presumably) was vetted through the university's academic regulations. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: Thanks! How would one go about checking whether it’s been sufficiently cited? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Google Scholar does an OK-ish job with things like this. See here. GS says 72 cites, which even given the limitations of GS implies that it's made a reasonable though not groundbreaking impact. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:SCHOLARSHIP. PhD theses are generally regarded as reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that section! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You probably missed it because it doesn't exactly say what StAnselm claimed. WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes clear that Ph.D. theses are dubious sources—not "generally reliable" ones—and warns that "care should be exercised" in their use. Boris is entirely correct: the guideline emphasizes that if we cite theses, we should favor theses that "have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties". Do any of these apply to the thesis in question? MastCell  03:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As shock said, it has 72 cites in Google scholar. I would accept it as a reliable source but like all reliable sources that depends on what it is used for. TFD (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Doctoral theses which have been accepted by a known institution have been "vetted" by "third parties." If they are cited by others, that makes them usable on Misplaced Pages, as it is easier to get an "article" cited by many others than to have a thesis cited by many others. At the 72 cite level, the thesis appears to be "noted". Cavils here appear ill-placed. Collect (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Collect is correct. A Doctoral thesis generally has to be defended against criticism by a panel of experts. This is why they're useful to us. The reason we are cautious about using them is that they are generally required to be novel and to make a contribution to the field; two things that mean the contents, by definition, do not represent scholarly consensus. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

In such a case, the source is at least as trustworthy as a source vetted by a journalistic editor. Peer review is a higher standard of sourcing that is available in academic contexts, but that doesn't mean academic sources are only acceptable if peer-reviewed. We can certainly still use academic sources that are only as verifiable as a typical news article or general press non-fiction. Coursework at a lower level than a final dissertation is not sufficiently vetted. Rhoark (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Most journal articles present novel arguments and are intended to make a novel contribution. That is why they are written and published. But that does not diminish their reliability. Good articles accurately present all the relevant facts and fairly describe the scholarly consensus that they might argue against. TFD (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, as far as this initial question goes, the University of Helsinki certainly qualifies as a "known institution". StAnselm (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

https://ru.wikipedia.org/Дунайцев,_Виталий_Владимирович

WP:SCHOLARSHIP is pretty clear that dissertations generally aren't reliable. We might give slightly more credence to a PHD dissertation over a Master's thesis, but in both cases, they do not undergo true peer-review. Both are usually reviewed by a student's committee, but in many cases the advisor has the final say. Even with the committee, there can be a vested interest to get the student out with their degree as long as the work is good enough. It's actually a relatively common occurrence to have dissertation chapters submitted to journals rejected due to quality issues (had a few of these review requests cross my desk in the last months). This is all why we generally consider peer-review at a journal the minimum standard in cases like this. If a dissertation's work has not been published in a journal yet, that's a red flag. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it, in many disciplines (e.g. History and Law) it is not common to publish chapters of Theses in journals. In many countries that do not follow the anglo-saxon publish or perish culture, publishing anything from a thesis is often uncommon.

Yes, I prefer peer-reviewed sources over PhD theses; and as an academic reliable source I would frown upon a PhD thesis. On the other hand, as argued above, we do accept newspaper reports as reliable, and those are also not subjected to independent peer review. So in that light I do not think we should write off PhD theses altogether. Arnoutf (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources and reliability?

I need some help with some sources at an AfD, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MacGyver the Lizard. I'm not asking for anyone to vote - that's not why I'm posting here. What I'm concerned about is that the sourcing is ultimately too weak to establish notability for this animal on social media. The non-primary sources in the article are either from a very narrow window of time (a 2-3 month period) or they're in places that are kind of dubious as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. For example, the article relies on coverage from the Daily Mail and Vice to give notability, two sources that are shaky at best on Misplaced Pages. I know that I don't use them, as they've been known to make mistakes with articles, as their goal is more sensationalism and clicks than reporting the news. (Doesn't mean that I don't read both of them, but they're not really the best reliable sources.

Here's a rundown of the sourcing in the article at present, which I'm clipping from the AfD. On the AfD there's an argument that the sourcing should be enough and that one of the sources, Petcha, should be seen as reliable since an e-mail resulted in the person being told that they have an editorial staff - despite there being no mention of this on the website and the site apparently accepting user content.

I just want to know some feedback on this - I know that this isn't a place for notability, but I do have to question whether or not this is ultimately enough and whether or not some of the sources are in-depth enough to be considered a non-trivial source. I also have some questions about FuzzFix, as the site doesn't have a lot about their editorial process and their company's about page (30M) seems to focus a lot on internet optimization. I get some pretty strong marketing vibes from them overall.

So what's your guy's take on some of the sources? Some of them are fine and reasonably in-depth, while others are pretty brief and others are kind of questionable as a source as a whole. The notability here is borderline, as the biggest argument against is that the coverage is WP:RECENTISM, but I don't know that all of the sourcing here is strong enough. There's an argument to be made that there needs to be a standard for social media personalities separate from ENTERTAINER or NWEB, but I don't know that these are enough to set precedent for a lower threshhold. Again, I know that this is not a place to argue notability, just trying to show where my mindset is coming from with this and I'd like some sort of opinion on the sourcing and whether or not some of them are long enough or some reliable enough to be used. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Review of William Benemann, Men in Eden: William Drummond Stewart and Same-Sex Desire in the Rocky Mountain Fur Trade.

Is being presented as a reliable source that historical figures were overtly homosexual.

An interesting life, yes; and colorful; but worthy of a 300-page biography, so admirably and painstakingly researched in all its available details, given that Stewart was historically only a minor figure and his few efforts as a “spectacularly ungifted” (36) author of (semi-autobiographical) fiction are risible in terms of their literary value? Not really: the reader soon realizes that the true value of Stewart, beyond an example of historical queerness rescued from the misrepresentations of earlier prudish biographers and a thematic impetus for many of Alfred Jacob Miller’s paintings, is serving as a thematic kingpin for Benemann’s lush, vivid overture of that part of 19th-century America that was still deliciously free and wild—and gay. Following the line of inquiry set in his award-winning 2006 book, Male-Male Intimacy in Early America: Beyond Romantic Friendships, the author-researcher provides a fascinating and detailed set of vistas where homosexual desire was enabled, from New York’s Battery Park (where young Stewart’s boat first landed) to the influx of eager young “counter-jumpers” and such dandies manning the urban commercial boom of America’s East Coast, to the gender-bender performativity necessitated by the male-only trapper camp life, including the role of Native American gender models like the berdashes that introduced to whites the idea of a socially-acceptable queerness. Readers, therefore, should not go into this book expecting a “straight” biography, lest they become frustrated by Benemann’s Melvillean lengthy detours into other lifestyles, historical vistas, or lives of other gay couples in America; as the author himself concludes, the center of the story is not Stewart, but the Rockies: “Stewart’s role in the story of the Rocky Mountains in the early nineteenth century is insignificant when compared to that of William Ashley, William Sublette, Jim Bridger, or Jedediah Smith , yet his story is important because so very little is known about what life was like in America for homosexuals during this period” (303-04).

Does not appear to me to be a reliable source for stating that any "minor figure" was such a notable homosexual.

is an edit by the self-described writer of that book William_Benemann, using his own book as the source for the interesting material.

The query is whether the book by Mr. Benemann is a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards? It was published by a university press, but I find no reviews in mainstream media (no mentions at all in NYT, for example) other than the one cited, which appears to be quite dubious of the details about people it states are "minor figures". I posit that a book review of a book is not a reliable source for any claims of fact in any article.

Benemann is a major source for William Drummond Stewart, and the same historian is used for William North for the claim: "The historian William Benemann believes that North was romantically involved with Steuben and another male companion, Captain Benjamin Walker. However, based on the limited historical record, Benemann wrote that "it is impossible to prove the nature of the relationships."", Benjamin Walker (New York) "Historian William Benemann wrote "Steuben was also attracted to his 'angel' Benjamin Walker, but while Walker held the Baron in high esteem, he does not appear to have been sexually interested." Benemann also wrote, "Walker had no scruples about exploiting the Baron's sexual interest although he had no intention of reciprocating."", Alfred d'Orsay "William Benemann in his book "Men of Paradise" is of the conclusion that there is evidence of a sexual relation between Alfred and both The Earl and the Countess" , Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben "It is here he met his reputed future lover, Captain Benjamin Walker. Upon meeting Walker for the first time he exclaimed "If I had seen an angel from Heaven I should not have more rejoiced." Within weeks, Walker was Steuben's aide-de-camp.", and so on. All uses are attributed to that single author, and all involved claims of homosexuality not found in any other sources.

The reviews all note Benemann's assertion of homosexuality for many figures for whom he is the only source of such a claim. Where such a source is not backed by any other sources, is reliance on this person of undue weight in so many biographies?

Mr. Benemann is listed as an "archivist" by profession, and I find no other academic credentials for that person. "Law-library archivist by vocation, independent historical scholar by avocation."

I suggest that while Benemann's work has won a Stonewall Book Award nonfiction selection, that is insufficient under WP:RS to rely so extensively on a single author for claims of fact. What is needed is additional authors making independent claims, as otherwise this seems to give great weight to one author's surmise out of many hundreds of biographies not making such surmise. Collect (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Still relentlessly stalking my edits. Sad. Well, everyone needs a hobby, but this is looking like a vendetta.

"I find no reviews in mainstream media"

You're not very good at search are you. However, the ones in peer-reviewed academic journals, including I note - Journal of American History/Western Historical Quarterly/Journal of Scottish Historical Studies/Pacific Historical Review, etc are far more important. None of them appeared to have issue with the author's conclusions after his assessment of the evidence. Nor with his credentials. Engleham (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I came here because an author cited his own work in an article. The author has no academic credentials, and his opinions are at odds with the majority of other biographers of the person. Collect (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec)You (Collect) are a bit unclear - is the review used as a source, or the reviewed book? Assuming the later: the University of Nebraska Press is a university press with a strong program in Western American history. The NYT rarely if ever reviews specialised academic texts - I'd be surprised if they ever reviewed the Handbook of Automated Reasoning, a cornerstone of my field. Such a requirement would invalidate most of what are usually considered our best sources. The reviews you link to are both positive. The books has, so far, two references in Google Scholar - the one I can see is an academic journal paper that treats it as factual. I see no particular reason not to accept the book. As for other biographies: Do you know of any that disagree with Benemann, or are they just silent on the topic? It's not really surprising that the question was not raised by many biographers until the very recent past - Don't ask, don't tell was instituted as a major step forward in 1994, and only repealed 6 years ago. And this paper seems to agree that Steward was homosexual, so at least that claim seems to have some support. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The book was added as a source by the author of the book who has no academic credentials. His opinions do not correspond with the great majority of other biographers. The review states the author holds the opinions, but is not a source for the opinions otherwise. I suggest that a second independent source would be a wise idea here, as the single source by a person with no training in the field may be problematic. With regard to the terms used about Frederick the Great, for example, the author's opinions are at variance with many other authors. Collect (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:COI is independent of WP:RS. And somehow "I cannot find academic credentials" seems to have morphed into "has no academic credentials". What qualification do you think an Archivist at a major law school needs? Moreover, the book is vetted by the publisher, especially in the case of a university press. I took a look at the book, and it does have an impressive collection of sources and footnotes - it looks impeccably researched. I have not read the full book, so I don't know what Benemann writes about Frederik the Great. However, that Frederik was predominantly gay is largely uncontroversial - de:Friedrich_II._(Preußen) has three sources, and Frederick_the_Great cites 5 (none of them Benemann). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The law school states only that he is an "archivist", and assigns no degrees to him at all. To me, that suggests his work was done as a hbby and not as a professional endeavor as such. Collect (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that the paper cited above is based on Benemann. That's essentially a circular form of support. Anmccaff (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not "based on Benemann", it cites Benemann and many others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No - it says essentially "this is what Benemann says" and makes clear that Benemann's style is

... given that Stewart was historically only a minor figure and his few efforts as a “spectacularly ungifted” (36) author of (semi-autobiographical) fiction are risible in terms of their literary value? Not really: the reader soon realizes that the true value of Stewart, beyond an example of historical queerness rescued from the misrepresentations of earlier prudish biographers and a thematic impetus for many of Alfred Jacob Miller’s paintings, is serving as a thematic kingpin for Benemann’s lush, vivid overture of that part of 19th-century America that was still deliciously free and wild—and gay.

Which suggests that the reviewer finds Benemann's style to be more aimed at the last part than the first. Collect (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Chet Murphy

According to the official USTA Colorado Facebook page, tennis player and coach Chet Murphy died a few months back at the age of 98. See: https://www.facebook.com/USTAColorado/photos/a.373100369408042.103755.165295046855243/1226993777352026/?type=3&theater Normally Facebook wouldn't be a reliable source, but given there are no other notices of his death on the web and the page is linked to the official organization, is there a consensus that we could have an exception in this case? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Generally for a facebook source you would need their verified personal page, rather than a third party. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree that would normally be the case. However, the same Facebook page is linked from the organization's website here: http://www.colorado.usta.com/cta/about_us/about_us_landing_page/?intloc=headernav Thoughts? --Jkaharper (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head, I'd say that the official website linking to it as the apparently official Facebook page is enough. I'm not going to argue the case if anyone disagrees, but that seems pretty clear cut to me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at the Colorado page earlier and didnt spot that (I think I was bypassing the main page) so concur with Mjolnir - that works for me. It will probably also show up on the main colorado USTA news section soon enough anyway, which would be a better link to replace the facebook one with then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution