Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tigraan (talk | contribs) at 09:54, 22 February 2017 (→Casualty Statistics: Participation in hostilities irrelevant?). 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.

Casualty Statistics: Participation in hostilities irrelevant?

Noticing how the B'Tselem's website differentiates between casualties among Israeli security forces and Israeli civilians, but doesn't offers a parallel classification of Palestinian casualties, I was inclined to look closer at their statistical data. I examined the downloadable .csv file listing 3,031 deaths since January 2009 in the West Bank and Gaza, and did find a relevant rubric titled Took part in the hostilities. However, since October 2014, 217 of 250 casualties' participation in hostilities has been deemed Irrelevant (23 listed as No, 10 as Yes). Here are a few questionable examples from last year's casualties, accompanied by the description offered by B'Tselem in the same file:

• Hammad Dakhil Khader a-Sheikh, 21, "critically injured by police fire... after stabbing a police officer with a screwdriver." Irrelevant.
• Muhammad 'Abd al-Khaleq Rida Turkman, 25, "shot dead by soldiers at the DCO Checkpoint after he fired at soldiers there. According to media reports, three soldiers were wounded by his gunfire" Irrelevant.
• Khaled Ahmad 'Alian Ekhlil, 25, "shot dead by Border Police near Beit Ummar after hitting three Border Police officers with his car." Irrelevant.
• Mesbah Sbieh Mesbah Abu Sbeih, 39, "Shot dead by Border Police in East Jerusalem's a-Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood after he shot and killed an Israeli woman and an Israeli police officer." Irrelevant.
• Hatem 'Abd al-Hafiz 'Abd a-Rahim a-Shaloudi, 25, "Shot to death by soldiers near Tel Rumeidah. Video footage shows him producing a knife and lunging at soldiers during a security check" Irrelevant.
• al-Majd 'Abdallah 'Abdallah al-Khadur, 18, "Shot and killed by soldiers after deliberately ramming her car into another car that was at a hitchhiking station at the entrance to Kiryat Arba." Irrelevant.

I call into question the reliability of their statistics on non-combatant casualties.--ארינמל (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Is there a specific problem with a Misplaced Pages article? If so, please point to it.

Israeli military wear uniforms so it is fairly easy to identify who is a civilian and who is not, which is harder on the other side. From your first link, I see five categories for Palestinians dead in Gaza, two of which related to special operations ("targeted killings"). In the other three, the stats are 1591 "did not take part in hostilities", 1042 "took part in hostilities" and 70 "not known if involved in fighting".

I did not look deeply in the site but depending on how "took part in hostilities" is understood, it may exclude terror attacks such as the one you mentioned above. Tigraan 09:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Colin Heaton's biography of Hans-Joachim Marseille

The source in question is Heaton, Colin; Lewis, Anne-Marie (2012). The Star of Africa: The Story of Hans Marseille, the Rogue Luftwaffe Ace. London, UK: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-4393-7.

It is used several times for lengthy paragraphs in Hans-Joachim Marseille#Marseille and Nazism to make the case that Marseille was "openly anti-Nazi". I have argued at Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Evidence for Marseille's "anti-Nazi" stand that these passages in Heaton's bio are almost exclusively based upon personal reminiscences by former comrades and Nazi persona like Karl Wolff, Artur Axmann, Hans Baur and Leni Riefenstahl, which are renowned for being talkative about the Nazi era and being apologetic at that. Their stories are not supported by other sources, but in fact appear to be very unlikely, if not impossible. Heaton's gives dates which contradict themselves and commits obvious errors. The stories he relates about Corporal Mathew Letulu , i.e. Mathew P. Letuku, contradict much better documented secondary literature. Apart from interviews, possibly conducted by himself, which is difficult to tell given the rudimentary nature of the footnotes, Heaton relies almost exclusively on two biographies, one by military pulp writer Franz Kurowski, the other a "tribute" by some Robert Tate. Based upon this evidence Heaton draws far reaching conclusions, namely that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." (p. 4) Given its focus upon oral evidence, collected somewhat 40 (?) years after the events, its poor editing and obvious errors, I consider that biography to be an unreliable source that should not be used excessively (and it is used for many more dubious claims) in a GA in the English Misplaced Pages, because it is misleading.--Assayer (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure. I wouldn't have a problem with it being mentioned as "some biographies say", i.e. carefully attributed. It seems to be overused at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Misplaced Pages editor. Assayer wants Heaton off Misplaced Pages. He has failed to show Heaton unreliable. Those are the facts that matter.

I am also concerned with the comments from Itsmejudith. What do you know about the literature of aerial warfare in World War II? And how could you say that about a book you've never read?

I'd encourage people to have a look at the talk page of Hans-Joachim Marseille - where the complainant makes accusation and assertion with no evidence. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:HISTRS. Popular books by non-historians are not reliable for the history of WW2. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• You are miss quoting what is a guideline; see section: What is historical scholarship. The question as to the book for evaluation is whether it is considered WP:RS or not; I do not know this work and therefore cannot offer an opinion. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, biographical works by academic historians on members of the Wehrmacht or SS below the rank of general can be numbered on the fingers of one hand, so WP:HISTRS is useless and we must fall back upon the traditional methods of evaluating a book and its author like use of primary sources, use of puffery or biased language, etc. All that requires actually reading the book more thoroughly than a Google snippet can allow. I've never read Heaton so I really don't know if I'd consider him RS or not. Personally, I'd be most interested to see what Wübbe has to say.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: On Wubbe, here's input from an editor familiar with this work: The book is 20% text and 80% pictures and copies of the original documents plus newspaper clippings. Source: User_talk:Dapi89/Archive_1#Hans Joachim Marseille. I.e. it's about 80% primary material, including unreliable war-time propaganda, and 20% commentary, also potentially unreliable given the slant of the publisher. The book was published by Verlag Siegfried Bublies -- de:Verlag Bublies, "a small, extreme-right publisher from Beltheim". K.e.coffman (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

He doesnt have a biography here, but from what I can google online he probably passes muster as a reliable source. Ex-military, ex-history professor, current historian and consultant for TV/Film on WW2. He is qualified in the area, has been published on the subject as well as earning a living from it for a significant time. If the only thing being held against him requires second-guessing him, thats not how WP:V works and is bordering on original research. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

As to the argument that Heaton is "qualified in the area": According to Heaton's own CV on his own commercial website he holds a BA and two MA degrees in history, was consultant and adjunct professor to the online American Military University and guest historian for a single episode of a History channel programme. That's not very impressive. What is more, I looked for reviews of his works and could not find much. It seems, however, that Heaton regularly uses "oral testimony" from people involved. That is stressed by Stephen M. Miller in a recent review of Heaton's Four-War Boer for the Journal of African History (2016), commenting that the information of the interviews are not substantiated in the text or in the notes ("unfortunately") and Horst Boog, reviewing Heaton's Night Fighters (which is his MA thesis at Temple Univ.) for the Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift (2010). Boog also points to numerous errors, for example Heaton's estimate of 1.2 million civillian German bomb victims. (The highest estimate is actually 635,000 victims, recent research (Richard Overy) estimates 353,000 victims.) I might add that by now I am challenging the reliability of the book for a certain, controversial characterization of Jochen Marseille. Thus one does not need to read the whole book (which I did), because I refer to a couple of pages which are cited at length in the article, I point to the sources and how they are used and I point to the language.--Assayer (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The above is a combination of original research which we dont do and actual genuine concerns. If multiple reliable sources have cast doubt on his credibility (critical reviews, peers countering his claims etc) then that does shed doubt on his useability in an article. Could you make a list of the sources critical of him/his book? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've looked. Nothing. I did say earlier in this thread, this claim of unreliability is just an opinion of one editor. This type of personal attack on sources has been made across multiple threads and articles with the same old result. Heaton qualifies as reliable. Dapi89 (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to add that you could find critical reviews about facets of any one of these academics work, even Overy and Miller. Using the differentials in casualty figures, which vary among all academics is a weak argument (never mind what the latest, supposedly new, research has to say, which doesn't automatically make it accurate anyway). And can you define victims? Anyone who suffered a gash from an air attack can be considered a victim. Such vague descriptions are unhelpful. Opinions are also unhelpful. Assayer is well aware of what is required here. Does this editor have reviews that are directly critical or not? Dapi89 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: Could you please elaborate where you draw the line between OR and "genuine concerns"? Neither do I use unpublished sources nor do I come to a conclusion on my own. I simply hold what Heaton says against what other published sources say. Isn't that what User:Sturmvogel 66 asks for, if we don't have biographical works by academic historians at hand? How else could we evaluate the reliability of a publication, that is ignored by historiographical works? Please do also take into account how the material sourced to Heaton's biography is presented in the article, namely as factual accounts. Of course this is what Heaton does in his work: He weaves lengthy quotations of various anecdotes related to him through interviews into a coherent narrative. These anecdotes are not supported by third party sources and Heaton does not discuss their reliability. Thus many of the information can only be traced to oral testimony. Do we have to accept that as reliable, simply because Heaton does?

@Dapi89: Although I chose to ignore your continuous personal attacks I have to say that remarks like "Anyone who suffered a gash from an air attack can be considered a victim" are highly inappropriate. And the literature on aerial warfare in World War II is not that "vague".--Assayer (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not an attack it is an observation on your behaviour. Those comments are entirely appropriate unless you feel the wounded don't count. I didn't say it was vague. I said you're vague. All this is hot air. You're trying to use discrepancies and differentials in accounts and figures, and unbelievably spelling differences (!!), to try and have an author discredited. OR is being kind. You're views are personal and tendentious. You're a polemist. End of story. Dapi89 (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If Horst Boog, one of the most respected German authorities on aerial warfare during WW II, devotes a whole paragraph of his review to a list of errors, concluding that there were even more errors, then this does not add to an author's reliability as a source. I take notice that this biography is predominantly cosidered to be a "very weak" source, to say the least. One editor questioned the applicability of WP:HISTRS in cases such as this, while yet another considered the evaluation of certain claims against the background of other published sources as OR. The contradictions between these different approaches were not resolved. One editor rather commented on me than on the content, so that my evidence remains unchallenged. Maybe, as a piece of WP:FANCRUFT, the article in question is fittingly based upon anecdotes told by veterans and former Nazis. I find it troubling, however, that this is a GA by Misplaced Pages standards and short of FA status only because of the prose, not because of dubious content or unreliable sources.--Assayer (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I've previously raised concerns about Heaton on the Talk page (Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Unreliable sources tag) as a WP:QS source, due to problematic POV he exhibited in one of his articles. He has called an action of a German commander an "act of humanity". A "daring raid" or "skillful military ruse" would be okay, but "an act of humanity"? That is just bizarre. (See: Talk:2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich#Heaton. Comment from another editor was: "Heaton removed as biased pov and non WP:RS").

A related question, does Heaton indeed cite Franz Kurowski in his work? If yes, how extensively? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"the applicability of WP:HISTRS" Assayer, what applicability? The link leads to Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (history), which is an essay, neither policy, nor guideline. Per Misplaced Pages:Essays: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Misplaced Pages community as they may be created without approval. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. There are currently about 2,000 essays on a wide range of Misplaced Pages related topics."

And this particular essay does not discount works of popular history: "Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used." Dimadick (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: I did not bring WP:HISTRS up, but User:Itsmejudith. I did find that comment more helpful than others, though, because it provided at least some kind of guidance. I did not argue, however, that "highest quality commercial or popular works" should never be used. In general the comments during this discussion were contradictory. But how would you determine the quality of sources?

@K.e.coffman: Heaton considers Kurowski's bio of Marseille to be "very good" (p. xiv). Given the number of Heaton's footnotes I would say about a third of them refer to Kurowski. I did not check every footnote, what and how much material he borrowed. Heaton's main source are his interviews. In chapter 4 "Learning the Ropes", for example, there are 21 references, six refer to Kurowski, the rest refer to interviews.--Assayer (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Does the editor consider Heaton to be high quality commercial / popular work? K.e.coffman (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

If you mean me, I am not particularly convinced of Heaton's quality. I just noted that the discussion was using an essay to ban popular history works. Dimadick (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Assayer and K.e.coffman have used Misplaced Pages to attack sources about any German serviceman who served in World War II if it dares to complement their personal bravery or service record. Coffman has opposed the advancement of these articles, namely the Knight's Cross lists and has deleted hundreds of articles about these recipients. It should come as no surprise that their singular agenda here is to degrade and delete portions of the article that doesn't fit with their opinions. Assayer in particular has scoured the internet for anything he can find that is critical of Heaton. The tiny and weak tidbits of those academic(s) (just the one?) that are critical of small aspects of his work is nowhere near enough to decry Heaton. Virtually nothing else.

This attack on Heaton should be treated for what it is: OR and opinion by a pair of anonymous internet users. And they don't get to decide who is admitted to Misplaced Pages and who isn't. I'm glad at least one other editor can see that. Dapi89 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: "at least one other editor can see that" -- Which other editor is that? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I found a review of Heaton's book on Marseille from Aviation History. Mar 2013, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p62-62. 1/2p.. It reads in part:

• "Writing the biography of a 22-year-old, most of whose life remains undocumented, isn't easy. The only way to turn it into a book is lots of photographs (Kurowski's method) or this husband-and-wife team's choice, spending way too many pages reciting the exact details of 158 aerial combats…which in turn requires suspension of disbelief on the part of readers. How, exactly, did the authors know which rudder Marseille kicked and what the airspeed read, whether he pulled full flaps or skidded to avoid a pursuer's rounds, just what Marseille saw through his windscreen and exactly when he saw it?"

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Which editor do you think? Or do you ignore posts you don't like?

So? If K.e.Coffman knew anything about Marseille, he'd know that through interviews with his commanding officers, and pilots in his units, Heaton is able to understand how he approached air combat. Marseille shared his knowledge with all those around him. I've seen interviews with Korner and Neumann that explicitly discuss Marseille's unorthodox tactics, some of which are sourced in the article. Simple really. Dapi89 (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps K.e.Coffman needs to remember (if he knew, which I doubt), that 109 of the 158 claims filed by Marseille are recorded which included many combat reports with short but vivid descriptions of how he engaged the enemy in successful combats. Dapi89 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor Dapi89 state that criticism of Heaton was "nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Misplaced Pages editor". I have provided a 3rd party review of Heaton's work on Marseille, which points out that the work is close to being historical fiction in its depictions of the areal battles ("requires suspension of disbelief on the part of readers"). Is this review also wrong? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That says what exactly!? I repeat; the reviewer and it's number one[REDACTED] fan don't seem to understand that actions, tactics and the subject's point of view are quite easy to record.

And even if this reviewer had something insightful and factually accurate to say, using it to attack and remove another source from Misplaced Pages shows the agenda driven nature of the attacking editor. It shows K.e.Coffman, you're not interested in researching the subject for its own sake, but scratching around for dirt you can throw at Heaton. It is absurd to contemplate labelling Heaton unreliable because he receives some form of criticism from someone who likely is not an authority on Marseille. Heaton is.

It should be obvious the reviewer, whoever they maybe, is too ignorant to be entertained. Dapi89 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: please see: WP:no personal attacks.

The review is of the work under discussion, it's by "Wilkinson, Stephan" from the Aviation History magazine. Unless the magazine is not reputable, I don't see how a 3rd party review can be dismissed on the grounds that (in the opinion of one editor) it's been shared by "agenda-driven" contributor to "scratch around for dirt throw at Heaton". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It isn't an attack. It's an observation. Understand the difference. I've lost count of the number of editors that have said the same thing.

Once more, you are using a non-expert source to attack the credibility of biographer. That is OR and Tendentious. You can see why a score or more of editors regard you as agenda driven. You've spent the last few months doing this type of thing. Your efforts to destroy the article on German personnel won't be tolerated without exceptionally good reason. Dapi89 (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary on Heaton

Summarising, as the discussion has been long and involved:

• this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure via Itsmejudith
• It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliable via Richard Keatinge
• He doesnt have a biography here, but from what I can google online he probably passes muster as a reliable source. Ex-military, ex-history professor, current historian and consultant for TV/Film on WW2 via Only in death
• I've never read Heaton so I really don't know if I'd consider him RS or not via Sturmvogel 66
• I am not particularly convinced of Heaton's quality via Dimadick

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

How many times do you have to be told, that you don't get to decide whether a source is reliable. Neither does anybody else, unless they can provide good cause.

The personal opinions of Misplaced Pages editors are useless. Dapi89 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: I was able to clarify that evaluation of sources is not original research; please see this discussion: Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#Evaluation of sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You were not evaluating a source. You don't like it. You made a decision it had to go, then scoured the internet for anything that would support your pre-existing prejudices against sources that write about German military personnel and that don't label them Nazis or falsifiers of their own records. Using anonymous reviews, from non-experts to ban sources about which they offer only the very slightest of criticism is tendentious AND OR. Dapi89 (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please visit Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#Evaluation of sources and engage with the editors there. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to. You're behaviour encompasses more than OR, also Tendentious and selective editing. Dapi89 (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The above comment incorrectly identifies historian Horst Boog as a "non-expert". He was the pre-eminent expert on the Luftwaffe operations during World War II, having contributed to three volumes of the seminal series Germany and the Second World War.

General note: this is a noticeboard to discuss reliability of sources, not user behaviour. For the latter, please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• This discussion has been going on for more than a month now. It is fair to say that no consensus has developed that this source is unreliable. Let's close this discussion per WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Nug (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I do not see it this way.

• Three editors expressed concerns about the source (see above).
• The nom expressed concerns.
• I've not considered Heaton to be reliable since encountering content cited to him at SS Division Das Reich.
• One editor stated that Heaton is probably RS and expressed concerns over OR in evaluating the source, but have not come back to the discussion.
• One editor has expressed an opinion that Heaton is RS.

Thus, the rough consensus seems clear to me that Heaton is not a suitable source for the claims in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Expressing a concern isn't the same as declaring it unreliable. You have misrepresented what the various editors have said in your summary. For example you quote Itsmejudith: this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure but omit her next sentence: I wouldn't have a problem with it being ... carefully attributed. Only you have openly stated this source is unreliable, but two stated it is RS, well make that three since Itsmejudith thinks it okay if properly attributed, actually make that four as I think Heaton is a reliable source for his own opinion that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." --Nug (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

He's a reliable source for the decades-later reports of people with a strong point of view. This does not suggest that his interpretations are reliable for the sort of judgements that are being made about "anti-Nazi" attitudes in the early 1940s. He is on the margins of usability, and then only when appropriately framed and very carefully used. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I started this debate to get some additional input whether this particular source is reliable for the content it supports and I would like to thank you for the input. As a reminder: In the article in question Heaton's biography of Marseille is not simply used to present Heaton's opinion. Instead numerous anecdotes and stories related to Heaton through interviews and quoted by him at length are presented as facts.(Perma) It seems fair to summarize that Heaton is a reliable source for his own opinion and for the decades-later reports of people with a strong point of view. Thus the consensus of this debate is that these opinions and reports are to be carefully attributed.--Assayer (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No I don't think that is a fair conclusion. While Heaton's opinion with respect to Marseille's anti-Nazi sentiment should be attributed, there is nothing to suggest that the numerous anecdotes and stories related to Heaton through interviews and quoted by him are unreliable. In fact a review of his book by the journal Military Review in the March-April 2015 edition states "A well-written, insightful, quality book, it entertains while it educates; it is highly recommended." --Nug (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: Since you seem to offer dissent to my conclusion that opinions and "decades-later reports" were to be attributed, please clarify: Do you argue that the anecdotes and stories that can be found in Heaton's bio are to be accepted as fact and presented as such in a Misplaced Pages article? Because my argument is that anecdotes and "decades-later reports of people with a strong point of view" are in general biased and opinionated and thus should be dealt with according to WP:BIASED, i.e., with WP:INTEXT at the least, although in regard to the details I would point to WP:ONUS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. That anecdotes by former Nazis and comrades are quoted at length by Colin Heaton may add color to the picture, but does not transform their anecdotes into truthful, objective, reliable, and accurate representations of historical truth. I have specified my concerns on the talk page of the article, so you might look for examples there.--Assayer (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source that backs your conclusion? I've provided a review published in the journal Military Review that highly recommends the book. I see you have ignored that. This discussion has been going on for weeks here, perhaps time to accept there is no consensus for your opinion and WP:DROPTHESTICK now? --Nug (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. So I'll take notice, that because of a review by Major Chris Buckham, a Logistics Officer in the Royal Canadian Air Force and graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada with a BA in Political Science and an MA in International Relations, you think that "first-person anecdotes and interviews with many of former commanders and colleagues" (Buckham) conducted by Heaton are to be considered factual accounts and can be presented accordingly. Since you are asking for sources, please take note of the extensive material I have presented here and on the talk page of the article. I may remind you, moreover, that Dapi89, who is also very much in favor of those anecdotes, has already thrown out a slightly less favorable review of the book in question by stating, and I am quoting only his more civilized words, It is absurd to contemplate labelling Heaton unreliable because he receives some form of criticism from someone who likely is not an authority on Marseille. He considers this as OR and Tendentious. By that logic Heaton cannot be labelled reliable because of some praise he may have received by a non-expert, or can he? Unless, of course, this is not about sorting reviews by pre-existing prejudices in favor of Heaton. Consensus does not necessarily mean that every editor agrees on every issue. It is the quality of the argument that matters.--Assayer (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

So to clarify, are you saying that the opinion of an anonymous Misplaced Pages editor of unknown academic qualifications, self-published on this notice board, carries more weight than the opinion of an identified academically qualified military officer published in the leading professional journal of the US Army? Seriously? --Nug (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't say that Dapi89's opinions carry a particular weight, in fact, I find most of them unsubstantiated and focused on personal attacks rather than content. I would not summarily label any reviewer as unqualified, but wanted to point out, that you cannot choose reviews to your liking. I have done what is essential for any historian as for any Wikipedian, namely checked the source against other research sources. In view of the expertise by the MGFA and other evidence I consider Heaton's narrative to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It is almost exclusively based upon anecdotal evidence, which, as any textbook on the methods of oral history will tell you, is factually unreliable. As Marc Bloch has famously put it: "The most naĩve policeman knows that a witness should not always be taken at by his word, even if he does not always take full advantage of this theoretical knowledge". (The Historian's Craft, 1954ff.)--Assayer (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to your opinion, you seem to be saying that we should place more weight on your opinion than the opinions published in reliable sources like Military Review. Indeed, you cannot choose reviews to your liking, but you have not provided any other review of Heaton's book. MGFA does not mention Heaton's book, so where are you sourcing these reviews you claim call Heaton's work into question? --Nug (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all, in his short and broad review Major Buckham does not address the specific issues I have raised. (I might add that he finds nearly every book that he reviews to be "insightful". See his blog, The military reviewer.) Second, above you'll find another reviewer being quoted, who asks how exactly the authors found out about all the details. That review has been discarded by Dapi89 as non-authorative with an argument which basically discards any review as non-authorative. Third, it remains undisputed that Heaton's evidence are anecdotes and interviews. He has somewhat routinely used this "oral history"-method in other books, too, and reviewers have been critical of the reliability of those interviews. And rightly so because, fourth, as of January 2013 the MGFA has denied that any serious historiographical study of Marseille existed, and did not bother to even mention Kurowski's, Tate's and Wübbe's earlier works either. It noted, however, that attempts by popular literature to suggest an ideological distance between Marseille and Nazism are misleading. Thus Heaton's claims are exceptional and should be backed up by multiple high-quality sources, before they are being accepted as plain facts. But I keep repeating myself and would suggest to take further discussion to the talk page.--Assayer (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we have clearer guidance on what sort of sourcing from the Mail is and isn't OK?

I realize all that will really be happening is that an edit filter will be in place letting editors know that the Mail is extremely problematic as a source. But ... the practical effect will be as the media worldwide has been reading it: no use of the Daily Mail whatsoever. So there will be editors who apply this overbroadly, much as the caveats on linking to YouTube have been understood by too many editors, even established ones, as a blanket prohibition (I have made that link more times than I can remember to explain a reverted edit).

To be perfectly clear I have no objection to this decision. We need not explain it in our own words; all that is necessary is this quote from the Gawker exposé cited multiply in the discussion that led to it:

In August 2013, a few months after I started work, the Mail was sued by a woman whom the Mail had identified as a porn star with HIV. The only problem with that was that the woman was not a porn star and did not have HIV.

You can't serve that one any drier. One is reminded of the Soviet-era Armenian Radio joke with the long punchline that ends "But in theory, you are correct" (or begins with "in principle, yes", as Armeniapedia has it).

I was aware, even from the other side of the ocean, of the Mail's issues, and from discourse here in the past I had frankly thought this decision had already been taken in some form (I just could never find where, although I thought this 2011 discussion was enough. And that the Mail's sports coverage was excluded from such disfavor for some reason (not that it affects any editing I do, to be honest). I have not hesitated from enforcing this myself in the past.

However, some articles I've developed do have some reliance on sources from the Mail, and in one case I would ask that the source be kept.

I started, years ago before the movie even came out, and have done most of the work on the article about the film version of The Devil Wears Prada. One of the sources I found (footnote 17), some time after the movie's initial release, was a piece in the Mail by Liz Jones about her time as editor of the British edition of Marie Claire and the perspective it gave her on the movie's depiction of fashion journalism (Shorter version: it's a lot easier to become Miranda Priestley than you might think, even if you have no prior experience in fashion and don't think you're all that and potato chips). I would argue that in this case it should be kept, since it is a)the first-person perspective of a notable person who verifiably had the experience she described and b) is undeniably relevant to an aspect of the article subject.

Can things like these be considered before we unleash some of our more obsessive editors on the 12,000+ reported citations of the Mail in our articles? I would argue that we need to view the Mail decision as not a prohibition but a stricture, with content from that source evaluated on a spectrum of credibility.

At one end would be things like, in declining order of skepticism-worthiness:

• Controversial allegations about an otherwise non-notable living person that paraphrase the alleged source rather than quote them directly, and/or neither identify the source or sources or even give some good context as to how the source might know what they're not talking on the record about (For instance "a source in a position to know" should not be good enough, whereas in sports stories "a source close to PLAYER", which is widely understood to mean the player's agent (or, less commonly, a spouse or other family member), would be)
• As above, but about notable living people whom we have, or otherwise would have, articles on regardless of whether the Mail (or any other otherwise facially reliable and mainstream source we might wish to subject to this sort of strict scrutiny) has reported on their alcohol-fueled fits of temper and/or sexual indiscretions with staff (well, not exclusively those things, but you get the idea).
• Per the first bullet point, but allegations either (or preferably both) sourced to named individuals, again with the context as to how they would know this, or directly quoted.
• Above, but about notable people.
• Allegations sourced to documentary sources (including audio and video) rather than, or in addition to, individual people's recollections (An exception would be things alleged in affidavits in withdrawn lawsuits, since that's basically a perfectly legal way to smear someone in the media without having to worry about being held accountable for doing so; of course they're going to report it since well, the affiant said it in a document which they swore to under oath, so they're off the hook for its veracity. But we can hold ourselves to a better standard).
• Allegations sourced to documentary sources that the news outlet shares with readers on its website to allow them to independently judge the credibility of its interpretation (A practice I'd like to see more of).

At the other end would be things like the sort of first-person pieces I discussed above, and matters of pure opinion like reviews of artworks, editorials and op-eds (as long as those are based on real facts).

Another suggestion I have might be that reportage from certain publications about certain things be required to be attributed to those sources inline rather than stated as if they were established (i.e., "The Daily Mail reported that X" instead of just "X"). Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Or we could simply say "no source is reliable for 'celebrity gossip' " and be done with it, of course. Collect (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Erm, avoid as much as humanly possible? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I do recall that a user had mentioned earlier that the DM does have some sort of review on theater performances. Those could be allowed on a case by case basis per the closing to the RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Just avoid it. If there is some reason you Absolutely Must Use it, you would be wise to post a notice at the article's talk page that you intend to use and provide a very clear reason as to why you Absolutely Must Use it. If your reasoning is great nobody should object. Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to the top of my post, where I did make that sort of justification for one use. But ... the sort of people who tend to do these sort of edits also tend not to look at article talk pages, as they sort of get in the way of their "I will obey my programming ... I will fulfill my Prime Directive" mentality. And then when you try to argue these points with them, they start throwing tantrums and this does no one any good (this already happens with YouTube links). What I would really like is some sort of central place where these exceptions can be catalogued and backed up by consensus, like this section, that I can point to in that instance. Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I see exactly the same problem. In particular when we get to situations, where people otherwise uninvolved with article topic start to remove content that was sourced by the Daily Mail without really bothering much to assess its veracity and appropriateness of the content or to look for alternative sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The Gawker story is slightly misleading. The Daily Mail published a story titled, “PORN INDUSTRY SHUTS DOWN WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AFTER ‘FEMALE PERFORMER’ TESTS POSITIVE FOR HIV.” The article says, "The performer was not immediately identified and officials didn't say when the positive test was recorded." They included a stock picture, which happened to be of a "soft-core porn actress" , with the caption, "Ban: The Adult Production Health and Safety Services is conducting tests to see if the virus has spread to more porn actors." Bad as that may be, it is not as if there was anything inaccurate in the story. TFD (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

That's the Mail's spin on it. Yes. the Gawker piece should have clarified that the issue was about the accompanying photograph and not the story itself, but the underlying point was unchallenged: that the Mail committed not only a serious breach of journalistic ethics but a textbook example of (at least under US law) false light defamation by so recklessly using the photo in its story to imply that the identifiable woman depicted was the HIV-positive porn star described in the text (because, of course, that picture got more eyeballs on the story). When you do that, the accuracy of the story is beyond the point. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not the Mail's spin, that's what the Court of Appeal said. I don't see though how a Misplaced Pages editor could use the article as a source that a specific person had AIDS. TFD (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

That was how the Mail suggested it should be interpreted in their response to the Gawker story (they focused on the story, completely avoiding their recklessness in using the image). Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested we ban all "celebrity gossip" material from Misplaced Pages in any BLP whatsoever. Collect (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Collect: But how would you define "celebrity gossip"? I can see not including items about possible relationships, but pregnancies and coming out as gay/bi are biographical details we always include, and those often begin as "celebrity gossip" stories. Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The history of Misplaced Pages is replete with "coming out" stories which ended up being not what was claimed, and worse. Misplaced Pages has no need to be a newspaper in the first place, and such "contentious claims" do not improve Misplaced Pages. If a story later turns out to be verified, then so be it - the deadline has been met. The possibility of damage is far worse than the damage done to our readers by not including such gossip, such as (for example) linking a person to being a cousin of a notorious killer, or calling a person a "Nazi money-launderer" where no such factual link actually existed. As long as it can be considered "gossip", or "anonymously sourced", we must and should be cautious in allowing its use. I commend you to read User:Collect/BLP to see how some editors abused Misplaced Pages in the past. Collect (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, point taken. I guess what I really mean to say is that there are some outlets which cover primarily the comings and goings of celebrities, but which do appear to be concerned about their reliability. Shall we define "celebrity gossip" by the outlet publishing it (no matter how much the outlet tries to be respectable in covering the story) or by the extent to which it shows its work, so to speak (see my bulleted list above).

And so there's no further confusion, I totally agree that we should not categorize people as LGBTIA until they themselves claim that identity (Lana Wachowski's gender transition was discussed on the article's talk page years before she confirmed it; only then did we put it in the article with all the backstory about how long it had been rumored, as it is now. I do not think we disserved our readers at all). Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've no wish to add very much to the acres of text about TDM expended already on this page, but I completely endorse Daniel Case's point that clarification is needed about this 'ban' (many high quality RS describe it as a 'ban'). Might I suggest that the scope of that discussion should also embrace the issue that the RfC closure avoids, namely other sources with almost equally bad reputations for reliability and (just as serious IMO) for tendentious reporting and trivis-philia. If all this ban achieves is pushing editors into using other low quality sources for the same garbage (see examples above of other papers echoing TDM content), and ignoring those occasions when TDM is 'high quality', (such as notable guest contributors), then it will really have been a waste of everbody's time. Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that we should in addition have some form of grandfather clause in this. For example, any DM sources that have been on an article for 6 months at least prior to the "ban" should be allowed to remain. It stands to reason that if they were unreliable, they would have been removed prior to the "ban". Or at the very least, limit the "ban" to BLPs and controversial subjects (with exceptions). I don't like the thought of an out-and-out "ban" giving licence to editors to take a Cromwellian WikiPuritanism approach to DM sources and be able to tear them out freely without considering the consequences without some form of limitation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Just because no one has noticed an unreliable source, doesn't mean the source is reliable. "When the source was added" is not a reliability criterion for any source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

How has Daily Mail affected accuracy of Misplaced Pages articles?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can anyone provide examples of where using Daily Mail articles has resulted in inaccurate information being presented in Misplaced Pages articles? TFD (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain that RSN is the right venue for that kind of discussion, this board is for discussing the reliability of sources, not if unreliable sources have ever wormed false information into wikipedia. In any case, what would it prove? If someone answers yes; well, they print inaccurate and in many cases fabricated information, why should it be a surprise that some of it ends up here? If nobody that visits here has specific examples that doesn't mean it hasn't happened, nor that it won't happen in the future. If your point is that[REDACTED] editors are pretty good as sifting through mixed bag sources, and that because of this we don't need the restrictions on the daily mail, that is a poor argument indeed, and in any case that ship has sailed, the RfA is closed.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• While cleaning up DM citations recently, I found a cite that used a chart from it to say that the US had the lowest underage drinking rate in the industrialized world. I didn't spend a huge amount of time researching it before removing it (because the source itself didn't actually say that, it was someone's original research from the chart), but from my quick searches it looked like that was untrue, depending on how you quality "underage" - the US is on the low end due to its legal minimum of 21, but many countries are lower, including Iceland, Italy, and Belgium. This is only a partial example (again, the DM itself didn't actually explicitly say what it was being cited for there), but it's the most recent one that comes to mind. --Aquillion (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the reliability of that pdf, but I just wanted to point out that the second page is titles "Dartmouth in the 1970s..." and consists of a single photo with a 2000's model car in it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Presumably the reason for banning the Daily Mail is that it is not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages articles, i.e., that there is a chance that its use as a source has led to inaccurate information being added. We need to establish to what extent if any that has happened in order to determine the urgency of the mission to change 12,000 citations. And going forward, it would set a benchmark so that we would have good reason to ban even less reliable sources.

Here is your edit. A chart in the DM article, "A nation of bad parents: Britain's youngsters amongst world's worst for drinking, smoking and teenage pregnancy, warns the OECD," accurately reflects chart b in Figure 2.16 on p. 54 ("b. Percentage of 13- and 15-years-old children who have been drunk at least twice, 2005/06") of the OECD report, "Comparative Child Well-being across the OECD". At the highest, 33.0% of 13 to 15 year olds in the U.K. had been drunk at least twice, compared to 11.9% in the U.S. which was the lowest. The Daily Telegraph also covered the report in "Britain leads the world in under-age drinking, OECD study shows."

So the DM accurately reported a study by a prestigeous organization, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, as did at least one other news organization. The Johns Hopkins report uses a different year (2007) and different age group but provides similar information. In its chart on 15-16 year olds who had drank in the last year, the U.S. ties for last with Iceland. I am rating the DM story "true."

TFD (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Any responses that you get here are going to be inherently anecdotal in nature. The only way to get the information you desire would be to examine all of the Daily mail citations that have ever been attempted and then gauge them on truthfulness, and then thats even if you can verify that what they have written is true rather than a fabricated story that nobody caught. I don't care a wit if this story above is true or not, or any other that may be dredged up, the fact remains that this is not the place for such a discussion, nor is such a discussion likely to bear any fruit due to the anecdotal nature of any examples that might appear. The urgency of the 12,000 citations is up to whoever has the time and inclination to go after them, but they need to be assessed per the closing remarks of the RfC in any case.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It should be more than anecdotal because it was the basis for banning the Daily Mail. We should be able to identify the damage that using this source has caused in order to determine the urgency of addressing the problem. While each editor will make their own decision on what effort to expend on this, it would be helpful to them in making this decision to know the extent of the problem. TFD (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that we can take an action in order to prevent future damage instead of as a result of previous damage. And before you go claiming that we'd need to prove that the DM can damage the encyclopedia before we take preventative measures, note that most people don't have to shoot themselves in the face with a shotgun in order to be pretty certain that not pointing a shotgun at their face and pulling the trigger is good way to prevent oneself from being shot in the face with a shotgun. We don't need to prove that damage has happened to know with great assurance that damage can happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand your view, which was stated so eloquently by Donald Rumsfeld: "evidence of absence is not evidence of absence." But that's not what editors argued. Anyway, as delightful as it is to discuss why you do not want to answer my question, I posted in the hope that someone would answer it. TFD (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

NO this isn't why people argued against the daily mail, they argued against it because POLICY is against it. Specifically under WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY the DM disqualified itself due to the willful inaccuracies that it has printed (not accidents). Again, this section is inappropriate, as this board is not the correct location for such a discussion and the RfC on the Daily Mail is closed. Can I please request that an uninvolved editor or admin close this section please.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

And you've been given a perfectly reasonable response: Your question is unlikely to be answered, and the answer doesn't matter to anyone but you, anyways. So if you want answers, go find them. Do a search for edit summaries that mention removing DM sources and a search for edits that included references to the DM and start pouring through them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Apparently nobody can/will come up with examples, but, to be fair, if your question had said "using anything on dailymail.co.uk" rather than "using Daily Mail articles", there was one example in the RfC: an error caused by a headline about a Brexit vote. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that is clearly a misleading headline. I would point out that as Collect mentioned, that headlines are not reliable sources. A headline for Gary Gibbon on Channel 4 News says, ""Commons passes Brexit Trigger Bill". I have come across lots of cases where editors want to use headlines, or book or article titles because they use descriptions they want to put into articles. One of the best known headlines is "Ford to City: Drop Dead." Of course he never said that. TFD (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Call for close

Per WP:DEADHORSE. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. It is not normal practice to close discussion threads, while archive automatically after inactivity. If you think that no one wants to discuss the issue, then per WP:DEADHORSE, "If you have "won"‍—‌good for you. Now go about your business; don't keep reminding us that your "opponent" didn't "win"." TFD (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It isn't about winning or losing. It is about continuing to raise the same objections in multiple places after the matter has been definitively settled by an RfC with five closing editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've discussed above why anything brought up in this section under the OP's original premise is anecdotal and useless for any purpose beyond the purpose that TFD clearly intends; making some kind of point.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree entirely. While the contortions on display are entertaining, I watch this page for other purposes and find having to wade through the constant whining pretty irritating. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A closer of any discussion must be disinterested and uninvolved. Alas, the closer here has made specific and numerous posts here on this topic. Closing commented out as a result. Collect (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hold on, is this true that an involved ed cannot close a discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:Close states Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins. DrChrissy 18:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

paleofuture.gizmodo.com in Napoleon Hill

• Napoleon Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Novak, Matt, "The Untold Story of Napoleon Hill, the Greatest Self-Help Scammer of All Time", Gizmodo, retrieved December 10, 2016

Dispute over any use of this Novak source at all in Napoleon Hill.

• Information about his second wife and first child is sourced by Novak and the newspaper that Novak cites:

  The journalist Matt Novak writes that Hill married his second wife Edith Whitman in 1903, and that Hill's first child, Edith Whitman Hill, was born in 1905. Whitman's existence is not mentioned in Hill's official biography, but is corroborated by contemporary news accounts. Hill and Whitman divorced in 1908.

• This removal of all use of the Novak source consists of:

• Changing the lede from
  

  Hill made largely unverifiable claims to have personally met several prominent figures of his time, such as industrialist Andrew Carnegie and US Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt; however, according to at least one modern source, there exists little evidence that Hill had actually ever encountered any of these celebrities, with the exception of Thomas Edison.

  to

  Hill said he personally met several prominent figures of his time, such as industrialist Andrew Carnegie and US Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

• Removing the "Failed Busines Ventures" section heading, and information related to the Acree-Hill Lumber Company, partially supported by a newspaper that Novak cites. :

  After becoming estranged from Whitman, Hill moved to Mobile, Alabama in 1907 and co-founded the Acree-Hill Lumber Company. Novak accuses Hill of running this company as a fraudulent scheme; between 1907 and 1908, Hill took between $10,000 and $20,000 worth of lumber on credit, and then sold off the lumber at low prices without intending to repay his creditors. By September 1908, the Pensacola Journal reported that Hill was on the run, as he faced criminal proceedings, bankruptcy proceedings, charges of mail fraud, and warrants for his arrest.

  By December 1908, Hill had fled to Washington, D.C., seeking to reinvent himself. At this point, Hill started introducing himself by his middle name, Napoleon.

• Removing claims of Hill advising Woodrow Wilson :

  Later in his life, Hill would claim that he spent the years of 1917-1918 advising president Woodrow Wilson amidst World War I. However, the journalist Matt Novak denies that Hill ever met Wilson, noting that Hill's publishings at the time omit any reference to such an occurrence.

• Removing mention of divorce to third wife and marriage to fourth :

  In 1935, Hill's wife Florence filed for a divorce in Florida. In 1936, the 53-year-old Hill entered his fourth marriage with the 29-year-old Rosa Lee Beeland, less than 2 days after the two met at a lecture in Knoxville, Tennessee.

• Removing claim of Hill being "nearly broke" in 1939 :

  By early 1939, Novak claims that the "Hills were yet again nearly broke."

The majority of all talk page discussion is over the use of this source. So, is it reliable for any of this content, alone or when supported by the newspapers cited? --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

(I've modified my initial request above to include more quotes in response to feedback . Sorry for not noting it at the time. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC))

@Ronz: Your diffs are useless as they do not show editors removing the material and you and OMG reverting them. What's the point of posting them if we cannot see where editors are disputing the material based on questioned sources and you and OMG reverting them without justifying those sources. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The question is whether or not the blog article by Matt Novak that is being heavily cited is reliable per WP policy. Also, there are instances of violations of WP:OR that I removed but seem to have been restored. Having Novak make a claim that Hill married someone else without showing a source to that claim, and then an editor finding a source and appending it is OR since they are interpreting what the newspaper says. The person named in the newspaper article is Mr. Oliver N. Hill. There's no source being used that uses the newspaper as a source and identifies it's Napoleon Hill. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the bit on marriage, it's not original research: I cited the newspaper (Tazewell Republican, June 1903) because it was specifically cited in Novak's article. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

But where is the source that identifies that this newspaper mention of Mr. Oliver N. Hill is the Napoleon Hill in the Misplaced Pages article? You can't be the source because then it's WP:OR, which is why I deleted it. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what you're asking, but Novak's article is the source identifying the newspaper mention as Napoleon Hill. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and he fails to mention how he sorted that Mr. Oliver N. Hill mentioned in the newspaper is also Napoleon Hill. He seems to have come across this and assumed it is the same person, yet there doesn't seem to be a mention of this marriage in other sources on Hill. Sources that rely on their own original research are not reliable sources.SW3 5DL (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The material on Mr. Hill appears to be of an editorial nature ("Greatest Self-Help Scammer of All Time" appears to be specifically an article about "scammer" rather than a simple biography of a specific person - who was not apparently convicted of anything, as far as I can tell). , rather than a scholarly article about the person, and the "naughty bits" appear not to be supported by other sources about the person. The author is not an expert in the field, and thus I have sincere doubts about it being a "reliable source" for contentious claims. As a result, the desire is to obtain better sources for such material. Collect (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Collect on that. Even the blog's illustration suggests this is not a serious piece of scholarship. I'd also note that undue weight is being given to this blog article. I recently removed from the article the lede's very first sentence that called Hill a "suspected con artist" that cited this blog. Hill is not widely notable as a con artist, or for his marriages, or his failed businesses. He is widely notable for his book, Think and Grow Rich, which apparently is a bestseller and is widely notable as the foundation for all subsequent self-help books of this type including The Power of Positive Thinking and The Secret. If the claims about his marriages, and supposed life as a con artist are to be included, they need reliable sources, and this blog does not seem to be it. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

While we are here, the biography also includes cites for the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography which appears to use biographical information without citations and, in its Misplaced Pages article, is noted as "The entries in the National Cyclopaedia are unsigned and are largely based upon questionnaires and other information supplied by families of the biographees." A Google News Archive search which is a 404. Also several sources are used repeatedly as though they were separate sources. Biographies which include "The organization was headed by the check forger and former convict Butler Storke, who was sent back to prison in 1923." appear problematic on their face - sourced to used for ten "separate cites." In short, alas, a bit of a mess for a Misplaced Pages article. I had sought to clean it up a bit, but was insta-reverted. Collect (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Note also that "Oliver N. Hill" is not a unique name. shows one born in MI living in NM in 1940. Unless a newspaper gives stronger linkage to a specific person, the claim is not usable. Collect (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Also the due weight. Especially in the lede. Hill is not at all known for any association with the so-called "New Thought movement" it is in the lede saying he was. That is based on a passing reference in a book found on Google books. That is not sufficient. Any attempt to remove it gets reverted immediately. I agree with Collect regarding the name of HIll. That is very common, and RS does mention that Hill went by Napoleon starting from a very young age. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll just briefly reiterate my points from the talk page, and say that I think the concerns over the Paleofuture "blog" are a bit overblown. Paleofuture may call itself a "blog" on Gizmodo, but it's not self-published livejournal or anything. From a structural point of view, it's just a normal part of Gizmodo, a news website. Per http://gizmodo.com/about Gizmodo has an editor-in-chief, several editors, etc., as one would expect from a news organization. And Matt Novak isn't just some random guy-- he's a reasonably well-known journalist, and a "senior writer" on Gizmodo who is presumably subject to editorial oversight. And frankly, when it comes down to it, I trust Novak's work more than that of Hill's promoters, who seem to be the writers of most other secondary sources on the man. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That's all your opinion. And you seem to consistently insert into the article sentences that start with, "Matt Novak says. . ." as if this fellow is a Napoleon Hill expert, which he is not. It's a blog and can you call it what you want, but Gizmodo is part of the Gawker Media Group and has the same tone and tenor of Gawker. It's not a credible news organization, and Matt Novak's blog is not a credible source for the article. As for your dismissal of reliable sources, you're the one who is calling them "Hill's promoters," which is incredibly POV. Published biographies of Hill from reputable publishing houses are reliable sources. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Gizmodo appears reliable, is widely used across Misplaced Pages, and there don't appear to be any discussions to the contrary.

Whether this subsection of Gizmodo is under different oversight or not is a good question to settle, but we need evidence. Otherwise the assumption that it falls under Gizmodo's oversight is a sensible assumption. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I echo Ronz's comments. My impression is that SW3 5DL's disapproval of Gizmodo isn't exactly the consensus on Misplaced Pages. Although I'd be interested to hear some thoughts from other folks who haven't had prior involvement with Napoleon Hill's article. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The content of Matt Novak's blog post is the issue here. The question is whether or not it is reliable. You say Gizmodo is used widely on Misplaced Pages, but in what context? What content from Gizmodo is being used? This blog is being used to source a biography, and whether or not Gizmodo has been used as a source on Misplaced Pages in general, it is this particular blog post that is in question here. With its sophomoric sarcasm, it does not represent a reliable telling of the life of Napoleon Hill. Matt Novak has no expertise on the subject. He's not a biographer or a historian, and that would be okay if what he wrote was a serious piece of journalism, but it is not. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

In reply to User:OmgItsTheSmartGuy, I have had no involvement in the article prior to this post so while I'm no longer technically uninvolved I may be able to help.

I think User:SW3 5DL has already made some very valid points in reply. I'd like to expand on them.

While this web article does satisfy WP:RS, it's not an adequate source for all of its contents. Most of what it says is sensational, and it's heavily POV. So we wouldn't for example say Hill was a huckster just because Novak does, or even use the word huckster just because he does, and cite Novak as the only reference, this would not be encyclopedic. We couldn't say some authorities say Hill was a huckster, that's weasel-words, and Novak is not an authority anyway. Even Novak says Hill was a huckster isn't encyclopedic. Perhaps writing in Gizmodo, Novak claims Hill was a huckster with the appropriate reference might be NPOV and adequately sourced, but does anyone really care what Novak says there? It's still not encyclopedic. We can and should cite Novak for things that are verifiable elsewhere, such as the date Hill was born or married or left a particular place, but that's about all IMO (and if we find, as I suspect we will, that his research in even such matters is unreliable, then all these citations should be removed not just the ones we explicitly falsify... but that's a matter for the future, and I may be wrong). And the reasons Hill left that particular place would need better sources; We should not even repeat Novak's speculations. If he sources such statements we could in theory cite his source, but we'd need to add an original not sighted to the citation until and unless we can independently verify his source, and I doubt we want to do that either.

In summary Novak is technically citeable, but in a very restricted fashion. Andrewa (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just chiming in to note that a few months before the time of this article's writing, Gawker Media's assets had been sold to Univision Communications, so ultimate editorial responsibility for Gizmodo would have lied with them. - MrOllie (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa and MrOllie: It's the content of the blog that is at issue. Even if this were in the New York Times, it is opinion, and generally we don't use opinion. So the credibility of the website/source does not give cover to what is essentially a sarcastic, unsourced attack piece. The WP:RS is specific the biographies of living or dead persons must be well sourced. This is clearly not an acceptable source, especially when other reliable sources exist. I also agree that it is poor practice to insert Matt Novak's name into edits. One other thing to note is that the reliable sources on Hill have been labeled 'Hill promoters" by OmgitsTheSmartGuy. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

(The comments below were started in response to SW3 5DL's , Your diffs are useless as they do not show editors removing the material and you and OMG reverting them. What's the point of posting them if we cannot see where editors are disputing the material based on questioned sources and you and OMG reverting them without justifying those sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC))

The assumption that such information is needed here suggests a non-collaborative perspective.

The diffs you asked for have always been there. I've added quotes so that editors don't need to bother with any of the diffs. --Ronz (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: please don't move my edits. This particular edit was made on February 18th and I've restored it. Also please do not rewrite your edits after editors have responded to you. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree 100%. See Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. Some of my posts now look most enigmatic if you go by the sig timestamps. This is disruptive and in the extreme can lead to blocks and bans. We should not need to go to the page history to sort out a discussion string. Andrewa (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand either of your concerns, but placing a comment inside another's tends to be problematic. Placing it inside an initial request at a noticeboard, moreso. Moving a comment to the beginning of a discussion on a noticeboard without any indication that there were responses to it seems rather disruptive.

As far as how editing an initial noticeboard request in response to feedback could somehow be disruptive, you'll have to explain. In the meantime, let's not derail the purpose of this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: You need to stop this disruption of the discussion thread. As Andrewa notes, you can be blocked for this behavior. And refactoring my comment by adding talk quote and moving it again, is deliberate disruption. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

He didn't move it, he made a copy of it, in a talkquote, in his own comment so it was clear what he was responding to. Your original comment remained where it was. I'll also note that in your own refactoring, you just broke one of Andrewa's comments. - MrOllie (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Made a new attempt at restoring the context of my comment, and fixed the broken comment. --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Take my comment out of talk quote. I did not make my comments in green and I do not want them taken out and quoted by you in green. You can show a diff but you cannot quote me like that. Please revert that mess. ISW3 5DL (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Refocus

I would suggest we just hat the mess above, right back to the first disputed contribution (whatever that is), and start again. I'm happy to do it if someone will identify the earliest problem for me. Andrewa (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't suggest that. Ronz simply needs to revert his disruption. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem for me. The sig timestamps and page history don't match and we can't fix that. A little of such tangles is survivable and not unusual. The above is now too tangled to be worth untangling IMO.

However, if you would give the diffs of the specific edits you want reverted, they may be able to be undone, and if you and Ronz agree that this will settle the matter, I'll just have to go along with it.

A third alternative is to ask for another admin to close this discussion, and I'm seriously considering it. And we move on. Andrewa (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I originally hatted it and think it should be done again.

First comment about the diffs (after the same discussion ended at Talk:Napoleon_Hill#Adding_and_then_reverting_own_edits) (I'm going to refer to this as "first comment")

My attempt to respond to the concerns in the first comment by providing quotes, moving the first comment, and responding.

The first comment is removed and a note about it is made.

The first comment is moved to a new location.

I quote the first comment to provide context for the commenting, respond, and place hats around the discussion.

The quote of the first comment is removed, as well as half of my response to it.

A response is split in two and part is moved.

I restored the deleted half of my response.

I introduced the context of my comment

I restore the comment that was split in two

I believe I've cleaned it all up. --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

But User:SW3 5DL, you disagree?

Delinked at the user's request. Andrewa (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not prepared to hat it unless you both agree to it, and suggest you should not do it at all, see Template:Hidden archive top#Usage This template should only be used by uninvolved editors....

But I can't see any chance of a productive discussion here as it stands. I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Tazewell Republican. (Tazewell, Va.), 18 June 1903. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress. <http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn95079154/1903-06-18/ed-1/seq-1/>
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Novak was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. The Pensacola Journal. (Pensacola, Fla.), 17 Oct. 1908. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress. <http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn87062268/1908-10-17/ed-1/seq-3/>

Basriat

As the source says, "Basirat news and analysis website is an Iranian think tank based in Tehran aims to ‘scientifically and methodologically’ explore the international political developments and significant news stories, owend by IRGC political department."

My question is if we can use materials by this source in Middle eastern and political related topics? Specifically, how can this interview be used in those mentioned articles? Thanks --Mhhossein 13:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all you didn't followed the instruction for posting on this board but in general such sites are reliable for the interview(for the words of course not the facts) whatever its WP:DUE to include in the article its question for WP:NPOVN.--Shrike (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Shrike: Thanks for the reply. By "instruction", do you mean mentioning the "content" and the "Article"? I meant to have a general view on that, knowing that recognized RSs may be unreliable for citing some special contents. --Mhhossein 13:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Essentially the question is too broad. Interviews in general (unless there is some indication they are fabricated) are useable when correctly attributed for the interviewee's views/statements etc. Otherwise you would need to provide an article and the content you wish to include in order to give an accurate answer. The 'instructions' at the top state: Source, Article its going to be used on, and the material the source is going to support. The reason they request these three things is because its then a hell of a lot easier to give a satisfactory/accurate answer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Abebe Bikila: Accident

Source: Judah, Tim (2008). Bikila: Ethiopia's Barefoot Olympian. London: Reportage Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-955830211. OCLC 310218562. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Article: Abebe Bikila

Content: In 1969, on the night of March 22, Abebe was driving his Volkswagen Beetle when he lost control and the vehicle overturned with him trapped inside. According to Judah, it is possible he may have been drinking. However, Judah also quotes Abebe's own accounts of that night which contradict this and admits that it is difficult to know for certain what happened that night.

References

1. Judah (2008), p. 153
2. Lewis, Tim (July 26, 2008). "Triumph of the shoeless superstar". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-01-25.
3. ^ Judah (2008), p. 154

Is this appropriate? Should I include this? Relevant quotes in Judah (2008):

On his way back he was spotted in Debre Berhan, in a bar, at 9:00 pm.

Wami Biratu and Hailu Abebe both dismiss the notion that there was anything suspicious about the accident. Maybe the account in Tsige's book is completely accurate, maybe he had too much to drink. We shall never know...

Wami Biratu and Hailu Abebe (no relation) were friends of his and with him earlier that night. Tsige Abebe is Abebe Bikila's daughter who also wrote a biography on Bikila in 1996 which contains Bikila's account of that night. Tim Judah quotes her extensively in his biography. Judah never states who spotted him in a bar. And in the same paragraph he continues:

...maybe he had too much to drink. We shall never know. Nevertheless, rumours spread like wildfire. The gist of them was that an attempt had been made on the life of Bikila by a wronged and jealous husband. There were also stories that the car crash was a cover up and that Bikila had in fact been shot. Needless to say, there is no proof of any of this, but the fact that these stories were widely believed says something about Bikila's reputation.

Sorry if the patronymics make it difficult. I just wanted an opinion on this. Take a look at the guardian article too.—አቤል ዳዊት(Janweh64) (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Google News Search seems less useful for finding reliable sources.

Over at Israel on Campus Coalition, there were some recent edits which read like PR. So I tried Google news search to see if something better could be found. The top three search results in Google news search are Algemeiner (Jewish), Breitbart News (alt-right), and Mondoweiss ("progressive and anti-Zionist"). There's nothing on the first page of search results which can be considered a neutral reliable source. This is discouraging. John Nagle (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

GNews search has been crap for a while, partisan and bloggy sources are often returned as top results while higher quality sources (like major newspapers) often don't show up at all. No idea what changed or what causes this but it's nowhere near as useful as it once was. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I regularly use the following to exclude common fake news sites when I'm searching for political news stories:

-site:breitbart.com -site:abcnews.com.co -site:nationalreport.net -site:infowars.com -site:wnd.com -site:naturalnews.com

It wouldn't take much work to compile a similar line from all the sites in List of fake news websites. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Article published by David Publishing

At Social media, one or more unregistered editors are insisting that this article is a reliable source for the fairly mundane claim that "text was indicated as the most important reason among Internet users." I challenge the reliability of this source and any other source published by David Publishing. The briefest of searches turns up numerous reports and warnings (e.g., this post] from Leiter Reports, this post on an academic's personal blog, this post on another academic's personal blog) from academics, including librarians (e.g., this post from Syracuse, this post on the personal blog of another academic librarian]) who are experts in this area, that this is a predatory publisher. It was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory publishers; here is an archive of that list and here is a specific tweet from Beall about this publisher.

Given the overwhelming evidence that this publisher is predatory and a scammer, nothing it has published can possibly be considered reliable and should be cited in Misplaced Pages articles. ElKevbo (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"location" in cite news

This isn't exactly about reliability, but y'all know the MOS, perhaps. Please look at at this edit--this is the first time I hear that the location is somehow important in citing an article from a magazine: there are no different Car and Drivers or Auto Expresses for different countries, as far as I know. Pinging Stepho-wrs. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I would agree the location should only be needed if there's a potential conflict of location of the work, like Wired vs Wired UK. If there's only one well-recognized version of a work that doesn't mention it's location, I see no need to include the location= , since particularly as rendered it implies that there may be alternate works. --MASEM (t) 01:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

First off, it would have been nicer etiquette if you had raised the issue with me on my talk page before running off to the administrators. You'll find I'm generally polite on my talk page and I try to explore the issue from both sides.

I find the location parameter quite useful to show regional bias. Quite often we get references that either show large national bias or simply show something that is true within a particular region but not true on a global scale.

For an example of the first problem, the Hennessey Venom GT article often gets editors saying car has the record for being the fastest on Earth. Almost always, the reference is from an American source, claiming for the "American" car (note: it is British Lotus Elise modified by an American company). But the American source usually leaves out that the claim is for an unofficial run that was not done by the rules laid down by the Guinness Book of Word Record and hence not eligible for the record. Too much flag waving.

An example of the second problem is for the Toyota FJ Cruiser. American sources said that it would be terminated in mid-2014 calendar year (ie at the end of the US 2014 model year). Many editors took this as being terminated world-wide: end of story. Closer examination should that it remained on sale in RHD form in other countries until mid-2016. The original reference was written in America, by an American corporation (Toyota USA) for American readers. So it naturally gives data that applies to Americans and leaves out data that does not apply to Americans. That's a reasonable thing to do but for someone naively following references it is easy to conclude that the regional reference applies globally because the reference doesn't qualify it.

And lastly, if I go to the extra effort to put the location in, does it really hurt anyone? I don't force others to put it in. If I think it is needed or useful then I take the effort to do it myself. So it is only my own effort that is potentially wasted. Is it so evil that it must be removed no matter what?  Stepho  talk  07:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, this is not an admin board but a noticeboard where people can seek other opinions and wider input on sourcing issues. As for the substance of the issue, I'd tend to agree that location is not usually necessary, but it will sometimes be useful to know. However, I'd also agree that it doesn't really seem necessary to remove it once it has been added. N-HH talk/edits 10:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what major style guidelines say about it for certain, but my hunch is that location for periodicals is routinely omitted. Consider using ISSN to uniquely identify the publication. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources regarding Tsamiko and Osman Taka dances. Do they meet Misplaced Pages criteria for reliability ?

Over the past few days i made edits to the Tsamiko and Osman Taka articles which are about Greek and Albanian dances of the wider Epirus region. Editors at the talkpages , have expressed concerns the sources don't meet the set Misplaced Pages standards. They used at times Youtube videos as a point to question the sources, even though their use as sources is problematic, as per WP:YTREF. The first source is by Eno Koço (2015), A Journey of the Vocal Iso(n), Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Editors have referred to his works as "he recycles the typical ultranationalistic Albanian pov" regarding page 4, 78. For me however, i only based my sentences on pages 14-16 which were relevant to the two articles. In those Koço also cities chunks of a Greek scholar Chiani's work. Does it invalidate that as well? The editors did not give a response on that. I ask because Koço is a Professor at the University of Leeds in Britain and his book was published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing , meeting i thought the requirements of wp:reliable and wp:secondary. The other source is a chapter by Dr. Eckehard Pistrick (from the Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg) "Whose is the song? Fieldwork views on multipart singing as expression of identities at South Albanian border", contained in an edited book Balkan border crossings: First annual of the Konitsa Summer School compiled by Vassilis Nitsiakos and published by Lit Verlag. Editors have said on the talkpage that the source does not meet the requirements while on my part i thought the source meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary. I have said to editors that Pistrick only notes that the reference of Tsamiko to the Osman Taka dance relates to it being an additional name, not to it being the Tsamiko dance itself. Somehow that has become an issue of contention. Advice on the sources would be most appreciated and welcomed by editors. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources provided for The Russian Bride

With several users claiming that none of the nine sources used in The Russian Bride is in any way reliable, but unwilling to explain or discuss, I'm asking for input. Note that this still remains relevant even after the article is deleted, (a) for my and everyone's understanding and (b) since in that case the article may well be resurrected in the nearby future, as development of the topic is ongoing. The following sources are used.

1. The topic's official website, for existence, company, plot summary, cast and crew.
2. The topic's crowdfunding page, for existence, purpose of its crowdfunding, and mention of premiere and DVD.
3. A preview in Decay Magazine, quoting a comment on the topic's theme.
4. An interview in Posh Kids Magazine with one of the lead actors, a model, to indicate her career move.
5. A preview in Horror Movies CA, for a quote about her talent.
6. A casting call in Backstage, for roles and filming location.
7. The topic's official newsletter, for info on funding and planned start of filming.
8. The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, for the existence of the topic's LLC.
9. The topic's official Facebook page, for the existence of its trailer.

Thanks in advance. Lyrda (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Material which is essentially from any "self-published source" is generally deprecated on Misplaced Pages. The sources listed are either SPS (including press releases), tangential, or en passant entirely. Please find strong third-party sources. Collect (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE says different. A press release is not a WP:SOURCE, the party publishing about it is. Unsure which ones you call tangential or en passant, or why that matters with regard to reliability. Lyrda (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: at the moment these seem to be the best sources available. They may not be enough to establish notability, but that isn't the question. Lyrda (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Citation included for BLUE material that may also include COPYVIOs?

Article: Li He Diff:

I wasn't sure if this should go here, ELN or CP, and basically decided on RSN because I'm more familiar with this venue. Basically, individual romanizations for each character in the text are WP:BLUE so I could include them inline without a source, but I didn't want to look them up individually and copy-pasted them from some random blog (I checked several of them in a reliable source and the random blog, Poetry Nook, seems to be accurate), and I inserted a citation of said blog. It's my understanding that for BLUE material, no citation and a citation of a generally unreliable source are equally acceptable (or in other words, the generally unreliable source is adequate for extremely uncontentious information), but...

I worry that several other pages on Poetry Nook (not the one linked) might violate copyrights and so would fall under WP:ELNEVER. Specifically, I found unattributed translations of works of the same poet. I have no reliable way of knowing one way or the other whether the translations were stolen from someone, the unnamed contributors who uploaded them were the original translators/copyrightholders, or Poetry Nook's short quotations would fall under fair use and so us linking them would not be us linking a COPYVIO page.

Should I:

1. remove the citation as redundant and not worth worrying over, or
2. leave the citation since the specific page linked does not violate copyright?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution