Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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. Additional notes: 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. Start a new discussion

Sources used in Iranian presidential election, 2013

I would like to ask a question about reliability of the sources used in the opinion polls section of the article on Iranian elections. The sources are all in Persian so I present them for non-Persian speakers.

• This source is Rasanehiran.com and the opinion polls cited here is conducted by IRIB, State TV -which is not independent. About section of the website is empty.
• [1] cites a polls conducted by Tebyan.net. Tebyan is one of the website of the Islamic Ideology Dissemination Organization which is officially under the control of the Supreme Leader of Iran.
• ie92.ir an unknown website. Here the website claims that it supports "the interests of the Islamic Republic".
• this one: Nothing about the website. Who is behind this website?
• iranelect.ir is not an official website and again nothing in the about section. Online survey.
• Tebyan see above.
• a forum.
• alef.ir is the website of Ahmad Tavakoli, a deputy of the Parliament. The polls here is conducted by "a reliable organisation" as is presented in the news article. The name of this organisation is not mentioned.
• Fars News Agency is another source.

No editorial oversight has been presented in the "about" section of these websites. Noted that all of these polls were conducted online and their methods is unknown.

Here is the disputed section:

Poll source	Date updated	Ghalibaf	Jalili	Rezaei	Rouhani	Velayati	Aref	Haddad-Adel	Gharazi	Others	Undecided
Rasanehiran	11 May 2013	21%	10%	9%	7%	7%	5%	2%	1%	37%	1%
Akharinnews	12 May 2013	39.54%	7.21%	–	1.75%	24.74%	2.75%	7.68%	17.39%	–
Alborznews	13 May 2013	15.08%	1.00%	5.07%	0.05%	8.07%	1.03%	7.06%	18.06%	17.08%	9.03%
ie92	14 May 2013	18%	7%	12%	8%	7%	1%	1%	4%	40%	2%
Arnanews	15 May 2013	8.8%	9.3%	3.9%	0.2%	3.3%	0.4%	0.3%	0.3%	70.5%	3.1%
Iranelect	15–16 May 2013	47%	21%	14%	10%	–	–	7%	–	–
Kashanjc	16 May 2013	43.25%	1.25%	5.81%	1.97%	24.04%	2.21%	6.46%	4.17%	9.43%	–
ie92	17 May 2013	16%	7%	11%	7%	6%	1%	1%	5%	44%	2%
Iranamerica	18 May 2013	33.33%	11.11%	22.22%	11.11%	–	–	–	11.11%	–
ie92	19 May 2013	15%	7%	10%	7%	6%	1%	1%	5%	47%	1%
AleF	20 May 2013	19.8%	11.6%	4.6%	12.5%	13.2%	12.5	4.7%	1%	19.1%	1%
Farsnews	21 May 2013	20.1%	13.5%	10.9%	6.6%	7.4%	3.3%	3.1%	0.2%	31.9%	3%
ie92	22 May 2013	31%	17%	22%	13%	12%	1%	1%	0.1%	–	4%
Fararu	23 May 2013	18.84%	9.56%	7.49%	24.36%	3.86%	30.96%	0.93%	4.01%	–	–
Ghatreh	23 May 2013	17.57%	16.83%	6.38%	17.32%	6.9%	30.87%	1.16%	2.92%	–	–
Seratnews	23 May 2013	22.96%	40.47%	4.84%	10.14%	6.93%	9.97%	0.84%	3.84%	–	–
Ofoghnews	23 May 2013	20.00%	19.00%	6.00%	20.00%	8.00%	23.00%	0.1 %	4.00%	–	–

added section of Uttarakhand controversy in BLP of Narendra Modi

In the article about Narendra Modi, There is a section "Uttarakhand Controversy". This section has neither any verifiable authentic primary source nor citation about any authentic claim by the party concerned. It clearly violates the policy about BLP.

The Uttarakhand controversy is poorly sourced, includes unverified statements (unreliable sources of Times of India which mentions as "sources in BJP"; name of no big leader/ press statement cited), without any original reserach/investigation. This was even clarified by the newspaper later.

Hence this section needs to be deleted as it is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies(policy no 2, 3 and fourth core content policy) of BLP.

Apart from being poorly sourced, the section is an act of vandalism.

And since the article is protected, one cannot edit it The sources linked to the article are [2] [3]

Acceptable self-published source?

Source: [4]

Article: Human skin color, recently added to International migration, French Uruguayan and Immigration to Argentina as well

Content: File:Human_displacement_map_of_the_world.jpg

"In this map the average skin color of each country is used as way to highlight the effects of the migratory trends in the last century"

I have been involved with User:Czixhc over the last few weeks about whether this map meets the reliable sourcing requirements of WP:V. The only source provided is self-published and the discussion is whether the author meets the extra requirement of WP:V#Self-published_sources - "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The discussion can be found at Talk:Human_skin_color#Discussion_about_the_Human_displacement_map_of_the_world

The source claims that "In this project the (von Luschan) scale is transposed on to the surface of the Earth, in accordance with data from the latest national census and includes an inset of Renatto Biasutti's infamous map[5] showing the skin colour of "native populations". On the surface this sounds reasonable but there are same seriously major issues here:

• Census data doesn't report skin colour, it reports self-identified ancestry which often covers a range of skin colours. For example "African American" from the US census includes people with skin colour ranging from lighter than Halle Berry's to darker than Samuel L Jackson - which skin colour did Hagos assume for "African Americans"?
• Some census categories don't appear on Biasutti's map at all, eg "Hispanic/Latino" from the US census. This is a post-migration admixed population and so doesn't appear as a "native population" anywhere on Biasutti's map - what colour did Hagos decide to use for "Hispanic/Latinos"?
• Some censuses don't collect ancestry information at all, such as the Indian census. Biasutti's map has 4 different colours in India, so how did Hagos come up with an average for this country?
• The census categories aren't always represented by a single colour on Biasutti's map - like with "African Americans", where there are 5 different colours that Biasutti used for Africa. Even if all "African Americans" had the same skin colour (which is not true) how did Hagos decide which of the 5 "African" skin colours to use?
• Biasutti's map is not considered accurate for modern use - it was made using obselete methods and is known to contain inaccuracies (both Hagos and the description on File:Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.png acknowledge this)

It is quite simply impossible to accurately transpose the colours from Biasutti's map to the average skin colour of various countries today - the census categories and Biasutti's "native populations" aren't measuring the same thing and they just don't align in any meaningful way. This map is heavily based on the authors personal interpretations and previous assumptions, not on accurate scientific data.

The creator of the map is Jonathan Hagos of the Architecture faculty at Oxford Brookes university. Data from the author's personal webpage [6] and his staff page at Oxford Brookes[7] show his education, qualifications, employment and publications are all in the field of Architecture, and while he is a professional in that area, there's probably not enough evidence to qualify him as an "established expert" in that field. In addition he has made a number of artistic design works including other maps (eg [8], [9]). These works are clearly interpretive and not scientific documents, and are described on the site thus: "Jonathan's work focuses on the ‘re-illustration’ of post-colonial themes such as freedom, identity and migration executed through diverse media such as cartography through to film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions."

Czixhc initially claimed that Hagos was an expert in human skin colour, but has acknowledged this is not the case (or at least given up on it) and is now claiming Hagos is an expert in migration instead. Firstly, there is no evidence that Hagos is in fact an expert in migration - he has zero education in migration, zero qualifications in migration, zero experience in migration, zero reputation among other experts in migration and zero publications in migration. Secondly, I'm not sure that migration is a field "in the subject matter" for this case - while migration might be related, the map is clearly saying "country X has an average skin color of "Y" not that it has Y amount of migration. I would expect the maker of such claims to be an expert in Anthropology or Genetics, not in Migration (and certainly not in Architecture).

Czixhc arguments for Hagos being an expert in migration are basically: 1. The sentence "Research Interest and consultancy expertise: My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions." on the Oxford Brookes page, which he insists proves that Hagos has worked as an expert consultant in migration, and 2. "Examples of recent projects: Production Designer on the feature film 'Simshar', exploring recent trends of illegal immigration in the Mediterranean and the impact on local communities on the islands of Malta and Lampedusa." which he insists means Hagos has been published in the field.

The problems with his arguments are: 1. "Research interests and consultancy expertise" allows for listing of one or both of his interests/expertise and doesn't mean that everything under it is "consultancy expertise". The text used is almost identical to the text use by Hagos to describe his artistic works on his personal site so it's clear that he's talking about this design work, not work in the sense of employment. 2. A Production Designer (another name for "Art Director") "supervises set designers, model artists, computer designers, graphic designers, set and storyboard illustrators, and assistant art directors" (from Production_designer#Responsibilities) meaning it's Hagos's artistic, design and creative work that has been published, not his knowledge in migration (if indeed he even has any).

To me this is a straightforward example of an unacceptable self-published source - it is clearly a creative work by a non-expert not a scientific document by an expert. Czixhc disagrees and has starting adding the map to any page with "Migration" in the title so I'm asking here to help end the discussion - is Hagos's map a reliable source as per WP:V?

Tobus2 (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and thanks for your well-detailed case here. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've noticed that an administrator said that the file of the human displacement map of the world isn't reliable, however, that might have been decided based only on tobus2 claims without having considered my point of view in this discussion, so i will present my side of the case and will adress every complaint made by tobus2 (because better later than never) before starting i have to say that all the points and concerns that tobus2 wrote where already adressed in the talk page of the article where we've been discussing all this time, however regardless of that tobus2 came and wrote all that he wrote in this section pretending that nothing of that happened. With no more delays here I go: the image is reliable because it is done by an stablished expert on the field: Jonatahan Hagos, you can verify it here on the website if the Oxford Brookes University: [10]

• Research Interest and consultancy expertise:

My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions.

The first thing i notice is that tobus2 uses a reasoning similar to the one he used in the talk page before: That it can't be valid because the site allows to mention both things "consultancy expertise and research interest" so it can be only one because the site doesn't specify on a implicit way which is which, however, that's false, because at the beginning of the quote the phrase "My work and research" is used, leaving clear that it's both, the only thing he does in that part of his post is to make assumptions based only on the bio found on his site, however the sections don't match at all, they aren't identical. what tobus does is to put in doubt the credibility of an institution such as the Oxford Brookes University without any real back up. He also ignores that researchers backed up by prestigiousuniversities are well reliable.

In another part of his post he mentions that Hagos isn't reliable despite being working as a production designer on a film called Simshar, whose main topic is migration, it's causes and it's impacts (he conveniently didn't mentioned this), with he quoting this from the production designer article: (another name for "Art Director") "supervises set designers, model artists, computer designers, graphic designers, set and storyboard illustrators, and assistant art directors" however he didn't mention that accord to the same article, the production designer isn't considered an art director anymore (he conveniently only says that is another name for art director) and that has multiple responsabilities on different fields in the production of a film. Another con on this part of his argument is that accord to [[11]] "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, (hagos is backe up on this part by the Oxford Brookes University) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" The second criteria is meet for him directly designing a film whose main topic is migration (thing that again, tobus conveniently left out of his post in the reliale sources noticeboard) with that film actually receiving coverage from another third parties [12]), Again the assumptions he is doing aren't supported by any source, and he have admited to not be able to found sources or cite policies that agreed with the assumptions he is using in our discussion before [13].

Another of his arguments is that the map isn't situable because census data does not collect skin color information, however that's false because the census do consider ancestry and country of origin (whit that information you can determinate what would by the approximate color based on a map that states which are the distributions of color for native popullations, and Hagos happens to cite exactly that map [14] it's at the left side, in the bottom), he also says that biasuttis map is obsolete [15] However it is used on multiple articles (see file usage section) and have an article dedicated to it's methodology, and in fact, Hagos uses that map as a source and attemps at modernize it. He finally says that is impossible to get an exact representation of what skin color would be for each country, however the map doesn't attemp to be exact, the map strictly works with averages, and by the logic he is using the "completely accuracy" thing would be an issue on dozens of maps being used on wikipedia, icluding the ones already up on the human skin color article, isn't sensate neither objetive to ask so much to a particular map but let the other ones pass without any problem. He complains about the map being heavily based on personal interpretations and previous assumptions, not on accurate scientific data when the map bases itself only on scientific and governamental information, there is nothing that he is making up by himself, unlike tobus who uses oly baseless assumptions and intentionally half writes my arguments. And he have accepted his assumptions to be baseless before [16]

Now, besides tobus2 writing incomplete information and intentionally misinterpreting my posture another problem that i've found while discussing with him is that he bases his postures almost totally on assumptions, his own post on the reliable sources noticeboard contains various examples of this, like the second part of this one: A Production Designer (another name for "Art Director") "supervises set designers, model artists, computer designers, graphic designers, set and storyboard illustrators, and assistant art directors" (from Production_designer#Responsibilities) meaning it's Hagos's artistic, design and creative work that has been published, not his knowledge in migration (if indeed he even has any). - There is no policy that states that what he is saying about "only artistic knoledge being published" is correct, what the policy on verifiable sources say is that the expert in question must have work on the relevant field, and the movie's topic on which he is the production designer is on the relevant field on this case (migration and issues related to it). Here is another blatant example: Firstly, there is no evidence that Hagos is in fact an expert in migration - he has zero education in migration, zero qualifications in migration, zero experience in migration, zero reputation among other experts in migration and zero publications in migration. - This makes clear that he deliberately ignored my source (the Oxford Brookes University) that actually considers him a researcher and a consultancy expertise on the topic [17], another blatant lie: I'm not sure that migration is a field "in the subject matter" for this case - while migration might be related, the map is clearly saying "country X has an average skin color of "Y" not that it has Y amount of migration. - Apparently he forgot that the name of the map is Human displacement map of the world" and that on it's description is stated that it wants to highlight the effects of migratory trends [18], finally, here is another one: I would expect the maker of such claims to be an expert in Anthropology or Genetics, not in Migration (and certainly not in Architecture) - The main topic of the map is migration and it's effects, and for the other factors included he uses information that is already accepted and included on wikipedia (like Biasutti's map and national census data) he is not "making up everything by himself" as tobus claims. In fact Hagos isn't doing anything for which he isn't qualified for. What tobus is doing is the old technique of "saying a lie as much times as possible, enough to make it pass as a truth" Here in the talk page are more examples of him making baseless assumptions again and again if anybody is interested on seeing more of his ways [19].

In short while his post above in the reliable sources noticeboard might have looked convincing, he only wrote half of the discussion (the elements that were on it's side) while leaving out, half-writing and misinterpreting all my arguments (he also wrote the section at an hour he already knows i'm not up on wikipedia, so i couldn't defend myself, he also used the same technique yesterday to attemp to get me blocked [20] but failed, this makes very clear that he is in no way a fair player). I understand that people here might have though that he was right for how he write it and what he write, but he intentionally ommited and misinterpreted all the things on which i'm basing my posture of this map being reliable and i have to ask to the administrator in question, and other people reding this to reconsider the decision after reading the full problematique, not only what tobus conveniently wrote to make me and my map look bad. Thank you all for your time. Czixhc (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In his university profile, Brookes writes that "My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions." He isn't claiming to be an expert on any of these and he clearly isn't (if you think he is you'll have to provide citations to his work in publications written by people who are obviously experts). This map is being used to illustrate skin color, and he isn't an expert on that either. He's using what he says is a problematic and obsolete method[21]. And you say "the census do consider ancestry and country of origin (whit that information you can determinate what would by the approximate color based on a map that states which are the distributions of color for native popullations, and Hagos happens to cite exactly that map" but the map isn't reliable and it is certainly true that you can't determine skin color from a census. What you've written further convinces me that it isn't reliable - and I'm speaking not as an Administrator but as an editor with over 100,000 edits and a lot of experience in dealing with sources. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• He indeed isn't calling himself an expert, the university site is the one that is doing it. While in his own site he calls biasutti's map troublish (and it is called that in other sources on wiki) that doesn't prevent it's use on wikipedia, wouldn't it have to be taken down too? or to be used only on the article about the "von luschan method" rather than on articles regarding skin color?. Finally (and i believe the most important issue) does he working as a production designer on a film whose main topic is migration give him credibility for wikipedia standards? because the policy says that a person is reliable if has published work on the respective field. Czixhc (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What university site? I presume you aren't referring to [22]. And working as a production designer might just give him credibility for production design, but definitely not for migration. You're right about the von luschen map, it's probably only useful for an article on skin color to exemplify an obsolete method. For issues such as migration and skin color, we'd expect an expert to have published in peer reviewed sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that production design is a wide field though. And then here is the detail of the movie that he is producing being about migration (illegal inmigration to be specific) it's effects and causes. I believe that this is a credit for him for migration-related issues, because a film is a "published work on the relevant field". However, I agree that a remark on the Biassutti's map must be done to make clear that it's a troublish method. Czixhc (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I would think he might well be considered an expert on techniques for making maps to illustrate skin colour, and suchlike subjects (e.g. see his October 2012 exhibition), but that doesn't make him an expert on the underlying issue of the actual distribution of skin colours. Barnabypage (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• What about using the map on migration or cartography related articles? Czixhc (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The 2012 Exhibition was this one[23] and there is a gallery of the posters submitted here[24] (scroll down a bit). I think you can see this exhibition isn't showing maps or cartography in a literal, scientific or expert sense, it's a art exhibition where the artists have used interpretative maps as the medium for their subjective political expression. I can't see how being in this exhibition would qualify the participants to be considered experts on map making techniques. Tobus2 (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• I already know which your posture towards this map is, i'm interested on hearing what other people believe, there seem to be some progress on this. Hagos seem is be acknowledged as an expert at ilustrating maps for skin color and other topics, and he working as a production designer in a film whose topic is migration seems to be a credit for him on migration fields. We stil have to decide where to use it though. Czixhc (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly not! This is an art project by an artist, not a scientific source of any kind. It's of no more probative value than an ordinary blog posting by a novelist who is interested in these themes. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Orangemike. This is not RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• For the two who replied above me: Certainly not, he is not an artist, he is a researcher and a consultancy expertise on migration recognized up by the Oxford Brookes University [25], please examine the full case before coming to conclusions. Czixhc (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Not RS. And am I missing something here? The author of the map is stated to be Czixhc, not Hagos - Czixhc appears to have copied the colour shading from Hagos's map onto a new one, creating a derivative work that to my mind might well be a breach of copyright... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the text accompanying Hagos's map ([26] top left) it appears that Hagos himself is not claiming that the data is accurate anyway - he makes it clear that the 'von Luschan scale' is problematic, and has been superseded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Andy, if you don't even know how wikipedia's copyright policies work why are you even comenting here? seriously, also note that he is calling the old Von luschan scale imprecise, not his map, and there are works based on that same scale that are already being used on wikipedia. Any other doubt? Czixhc (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Given your evident lack of understanding of WP:RS policy, I see no reason to assume your understanding of copyright is any better. Any more questions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Given that you are the one who was unaware of the copyright policy until now i don't think that you are on position of assuming things about me. Czixhc (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Neither the original map nor your copy are WP:RS for what is being claimed. As for whether your copy violates Hagos's copyright, I'm not entirely sure - I should probably raise this on commons, and let them decide. Meanwhile, I suggest that you stop wasting people's time with nonsense like this, and read up on WP:RS policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• The map was already featured on the copyright questions noticeboard and was found valid [27], as for "RS", i will cite it here as it is written in the respective section [28]: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, (This is coverded by the Oxford Brookes University [29]) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" The second criteria is meet for him directly designing a film whose main topic is migration (thing that again, tobus conveniently left out of his post in the reliale sources noticeboard) with that film actually receiving coverage from another third parties [30]. see? all the issues you are bringing up were already cleared up, the question here is where on wikipedia the use of this map would be more appropiate. Czixhc (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have asked about the copyright status on Commons - they tend to be more familiar with such issues. As for the question of WP:RS, repeating the same arguments isn't going to alter the fact that you have entirely failed to show that Hagos has any expertise in the subject matter under discussion. To do this, you would need to show that he had published recognised academic works on the subject of skin colouration. Which he hasn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• The main issue here is migration, and he have worked on that topic before. Czixhc (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• The only issue here is whether Hagos is WP:RS for the map being an accurate portrayal of skin colouration. Which he wouldn't be, if that was what he claimed. Given that he apparently isn't claiming that the map represents anything beyond "a way of highlighting (when compared to maps utilizing population data from earlier centuries) the effects of colonisation as well as migratory trends in the last century" rather than anything based on objective data, this debate is actually rather pointless - the map isn't 'RS' for 'skin colour' because the creator doesn't claim that it is - and accordingly, it cannot be used on Wikipedia to supposedly show skin colour, obviously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Didn't you saw my reply where i satated exactly that the issue here is migration? Czixhc (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hagos doesn't claim that the map is an accurate portrayal of migration either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• So a source must only be used on wikipedia if the maker explicitly states that is "accurate"? because that throws off the board 90% of the sources currently used on wikipedia. Czixhc (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop this Czixhc, you don't seem to be listening. And I simply can't understand why you think his university is calling him an expert (not that that would matter if clearly recognised experts in the field ignored him(. His profile page at [31] is his page. He says "My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions." He's written that, and such pages can only be used to what an academic does, not whether they are an expert. And note it is 're-illustration', not 'My work and research focuses on subjects such as migration.." Please drop this. Dougweller (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't get it, why do you focus so much on what his personal page says?, nonetheless what the site of the University says is "research interest and consultancy expertise" how could it be possible that Hagos fools an entire university? it doesn't make sense, i also don't know from where you get that he has been ignored, neither i see the difference from he saying that his work focuses on the "re-ilustration of themse such as migration" of he saying "my work is migration", and above all this he is working as a production designer on a work inside the relevant field. Czixhc (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Alright, thus far it was agreed that he was an expert at ilustrating maps that demostrate skin color among other subjects [32] and Dougweller said that he is a valid production designer [33] since the field of the proyect on which his valid work is taking place is a field that is pertinent to this discussion, per wikipedia´s self published sources criteria [34] he (or better said, the map) is reliable for migration topics. That's it. Czixhc (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it was not agreed he's an expert at illustrating maps that demonstrate skin colour among other subjects. Barnabypage suggested he might be, but this what disputed (not agreed with!) because the evidence shows that his maps are artistic interpretations, not serious cartography.

No, Dougweller said that "working as a production designer might just give him credibility for production design, but definitely not for migration". This is the exact opposite of what you are saying.

One thing that has been agreed to by all contributing editors thus far is that Hagos's map is not a reliable source.

Tobus2 (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Tobus, if you want to discuss this here, let's avoid the mistakes that extended the discussion to insulting proportions on the original talk page, this is:
  
• 1- Please don't make baseless assumptions.
  
• 2- ALWAYS beck up your arguments with sources (like i've done)
  
• 3- Adhere to solid facts

Firstly, it was agreed that he is an expert at ilustrating maps, it really doesn't matters if you subjetivelly consider the exhibition to be misleading or whatever by a cryptic reason that only you can understand (and that is sourceless by the way). Second, Dougweller clearly accepted his work as a production designer to be valid, this is unquestionable. And the policy for self-published sources states that an expert is reliable for the topic at hand if has work on the relevant field, which in this case is migration, in short, somebody producing and designing a piece of work whose field is migration is valid, if you scroll up you'll see that i let dougweller know about what the policy states, he then avoided this issue in the following days. Finally, wikipedia is not a matter of votes [35] but of references, if the users in opposition haven't had a solid base on their claims and haven't been able to prove my posture to be wrong (such as the user who insisted that the map was a copyright violation when it clearly isn't) really their numbers aren't of value. Czixhc (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Your own arguments don't meet those critera - nobody has agreed with the suggestion that Hagos might be an expert in map making and Dougweller clearly says that being a production designer doesn't mean that Hagos is an expert in migration. Five independent editors with much more experience than you and I put together have looked at this and all five have decided that Hagos's map is an unreliable source. I suggest you listen to them, they know more about what's acceptable here than you or I do. Tobus2 (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Let's give a revision to who these 5 editors are and what they've done on the discussion:
  
• Barnabypage: He considered Hagos to be qualified as a map maker and his map to be well done, whoever the question of where the map fits better stills unresolved.
  
• Dougweller: He accepted Hagos role as a production designer to be valid, however he personally says that he don't considers Hagos an expert on migration (despite the Oxford Brookes University labeling him as such, and he working on a film that is inside the field of migration). On response to his statement i cited him wikipedia's policy for self-published sources [36] which states that the work of an expert is reliable if the expert in question has work on the relevant field, therefore Hagos working on a film whose field is migration makes him reliable for migration topics according to the policy. I'm aware that Dougweller personally don't considers Hagos an expert of migration, but Hagos is lawfully an expert according to wikipedia's policy for self-published sources. After i pointed this he tends to avoid the topic.
  
• Orange Mike & Capitalismojo: The contribution of this users is minimal and was limited as them saying that the map wasn't reliable despite them not being aware that Hagos is recognized as an expert by the Oxford Brookes University, once I pointed this out they went away.
• AndyTheGrump: The participation of this user was to claim that the map violated copyright policies, he was proven wrong and then went away. This editor wasn't aware of how copyright policies worked on wikipedia, i wouldn't consider him (neither the other two) to have more knowledge of the policies than i do, maybe more edits, but that's not relevant here.

I have to point out that Tobus2 commited the mistake of misinterpret policies various times previously in our discussion: for one he though that the map was a copyright violation too, so i wouldn't consider him to have more knowledge than me either, this leaves only two users with notable real experience: Barnabypage & Dougweller, with the former being rather neutral (if not favoring me) and Dougweller, being in subjetive opposition. Now that this of the "5 users" was cleared up we can continue the discussion. I really have to ask, what's up with my map that upsets some people so much? There are way more controversial and unconfirmable documents up on wikipedia. Czixhc (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You can not assert that an editor agrees with you simply because they did not comment further after making an initial observation. I stand by my initial observation. None of the subsequent discussion has, so far, changed my initial view. I would imagine User:Orangemike can make his own statement, but if you had changed his mind I suspect he would say so. Additionally, User: AndyTheGrump did not just discuss copyright, he strongly expressed his opinion on Reliable Source and User:Dougweller rejected the suggestion that the creator is an expert in the Wikipedia sense. You are mischaracterizing the opinions of every other editor on this page. Everyone so far has problems with this source but you. I suggest looking to WP:HEAR Capitalismojo (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• You can't assert that it doesn't either. I know that, as you've said, everyone of you could bring arguments to this discussion, but at this point i've heard and replied to almost everything. One thing is to be able to keep discussing and another different is to bring sources or cite policies (this is what really is useful, not thousands of words of baseless assumptions). As i stated above, the map meets the criteria that the wikipedia policy asks for, that's what matters the most here. Czixhc (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the consensus is that you are wrong. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

We know what you keep saying Czixhc (you keep saying it!), but it's just not true - it doesn't meet the criteria that WP policy asks for. Your map is stating that the average skin colour of country "X" is von Luschan skin colour "Y" but the only source you've provided is a single WP:Self-published source whose creator, Jonathan Hagos, is not an established and published expert in determining the average skin colour of various countries. If you want to use your map on Wikipedia you need to provide a WP:Reliable Source that can verify that the skin colours you've used for each country really are the average skin colours of those countries. As I've explained in great detail in the original discussion, and as confirmed by five experienced and uninvolved editors here, Hagos's map is not a reliable source for this kind of statement. Tobus2 (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Capitalismjo, consensus is not a matter of votes [37] see what i mean when i say that most people arguing here don't have enough notion or forget about wikipedia's policies? Tobus2, how come that you just ignore my responses and all that has been written in the last weeks and return to the posture you had 6 weeks ago just like that? How come that after i fully explained wich was the contribution and flaws of every editor here and why most of them aren't experts you just pretend that nothing happened and keep repeating the same lies? do you even bothered to read my response here [38]? why are you starting to lie again? The map is done by an stablished expert with work in the relevant field, according to wikipedia's policy for self-published sources the map is reliable, that's it. And as i stated above, your knowledge of policies isn't nowhere near to mine either, with you misinterpreting policies and being unaware of them various times, and now you lie to attemp to throw all the progress through the window, but no, that's not going to happen. Czixhc (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't call me a liar.

I didn't respond to your comments about the other authors because they are ad hominem attacks to discredit people who disagree with you, they misrepresent what the editors actually said and you added nothing of relevance to the discussion. I wrote up a response and decided not to post it because it didn't contribute anything useful and would only lead us away from what really matters here - the clear consensus by the non-involved editors that Hagos's map is not a reliable source.

All your arguments have been answered by the 3rd party editors here - the University site doesn't say Hagos is an expert, and working a production designer on a movie about a group of illegal immigrants doesn't mean that Hagos has been published in the revelant field. All editors have agreed that this is not a reliable source, if all you have left to discuss are the "flaws of every editor" then I suggest you drop it before your own flaws are brought to the surface - no good can come from a discussion like that.

Tobus2 (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• 1. My argument isn't mere ad hominems, i've said that most of the editors disagreeing with me aren't fully awared of how policies works because that's the truth, i've already proved with solid bases which were their mistakes. You denying this again and again certainly qualifies as a lie.
  
• 2. Consensus is not about votes [39], your argument of "X number of editors disagreeing with you" is pointless, even moreso after i proved that most of them aren't well aware of wikipedia's policies.
  
• 3. Thus far you've failed at providing a reasonable explanation to why, despite the Oxford Brookes University claiming that Hagos is a researcher and a consultancy expertise on migration among other topics in reality the institution doesn't mean to say that, the best you've could come up with is that "his personal site has a text that is similar" however that has nothing to do with anything and realisticaly speaking proves nothing, because an institution such as Oxford Brookes University has an strict editorial control, and what you do is to put it's reputation in doubt without any real reason or source.
  
• 4. I'll cite you here and working a production designer on a movie about a group of illegal immigrants(sick) doesn't mean that Hagos has been published in the revelant field. - The problem being that according to WP:Self-published source it does.

Now again, with so many troublesome, controversial, harmful and actually poorly sourced documents (not like the case of my map, on which the way of Tobus2 attacking my sources basically is "The site clearly says "X" but i say that is "Y" without any backup other than me knowing better when i didn't even knew how copyright policies work") up on wikipedia, why my map is the one that raises so much concerns?. Czixhc (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Ironically, this point is exactly why discussing flaws of individual editors is couterproductive - it just leads to this "no I'm not", "yes you are" attack/defense cycle instead of resolving the issue at hand. For the record you should note that what you said is a contradiction - ad hominem means attacking the person not the argument, and dismissing their arguments by saying "most of the editors disagreeing with me aren't fully awared of how policies works" is attacking the person not the argument. You've just denied using an ad hominem attack and then immediately used one!

2. I came here to get a 3rd opinion and every single editor not involved in the original disucssion has said the same thing: Hagos's map is not a reliable source. If that's not a consensus I don't know what is. The opinion of the group is clear and WP:NOTUNANIMOUS says "after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best". This policy is for cases like this where an individual refuses to WP:LISTEN to the group and attempts to WP:STONEWALL the discussion by "repeatedly pushing a viewpoint that the consensus of the community has clearly rejected". There is clear consensus from a number of experienced editors and two admins that Hagos's map is not a reliable source. Your refusal to accept that consensus amounts to a form of WP:Disruptive editing.

3. The Brookes University does not say that Hagos is an expert in migration. Your source has been looked at by other editors they have all rejected it - Dougweller explicitly said that it doesn't say Hagos is an expert and this is implicitly confirmed by the other editors when they state that Hagos's map is not a reliable source. It is also very obvious by looking at the source that it is written by Hagos himself, that it doesn't say he's an expert anywhere and that it shows zero education, qualifications, experience or recognition in migration. You've clearly misunderstood what the word "work" means on that page and have made unsupported assumptions based on that.

4. What you are saying makes no sense - the WP policy doesn't mention Hagos or production designers so how can it say that working as a production designer means that Hagos has been published in migration? I think what you meant to say was the working as a production designer satisfies the "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" part of WP:SPS, but again you appears to have misundersood - "work" here refers to scholarly work (papers, studies etc.) not to employment.

You keep asking what the problem with your map is, and that's obvious - it makes sweeping statements about skin colour that can't be verified by a reliable source. Perhaps though we should be asking you what's so important about your map that you won't give up on it being on WP? Perhaps it took you a lot of time, you are really proud of it and you don't want your good work to be wasted? Perhaps it says something you feel passionate about and want the whole world to know (the average Mexican is whiter than the average US citizen maybe)? If you tell us what is it about your map that makes you keep arguing when everybody else is saying it can't be used then perhaps we can find a way for you to contribute the same information/skills without breaching policy.

Tobus2 (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Gene-callahan.blogspot.com

FYI

 – A related discussion is underway below at consultingbyrpm.com.2Fblog – personal blog of economist Robert Murphy 16:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is continuing below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stuck  – No substantive problem has been presented for uninvolved editors' review or comment. SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Commment: I don't think highly involved editors are supposed to "Close" discussions, are they? User:Carolmooredc 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC) The "Stuck" tag does not mean the discussion is "Closed", but it may serve to divert attention. As mentioned below, I do not think adding it serves resolution. I suggest you remove the tag, in which case I will hat my comments below. – S. Rich (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC) I am hatting hatted this "Stuck" tag and comments. Questions regarding the substantive problem have been presented, but not answered. The "Stuck" tag only serves to deflect attention from the discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Hat was reverted by User:SPECIFICO. This comment has been restored and revised.21:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Source: Callahan, Gene (January 2, 2012). "Murphy on LvMI"
2. Article: Ludwig von Mises Institute#The Institute as a cult
3. Content: "Gene Callahan has implied that the Institute is a cult and compared it to Scientology." (Later modified to read: "Callahan rejected Robert's Murphy's denial that the Mises Institute is a cult, and compared it to Scientology.[39]" (Footnote 39 "Murphy on LvMI" remains))
4. Article talk page thread: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Former Mises scholar repudiates Institute as .22cult.22

– S. Rich (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the only assertion I am arguing Gene Callahan's blog should be used to source is: in the opinion of Gene Callahan, a former Mises Institute Scholar, the Institute is a cult. This assertion is presented specifically as the opinion of Professor Callahan in the article; the opinion is notable because Callahan is a notable academic who for years worked closely with the Institute. I submit that his blog is a reliable source for presenting his view of the Mises Institute. Steeletrap (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• No. We aren't a gossip rag, and his expertise does not relate to the sociological study of cults. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Steeltrap; what you need is a RS that identifies the fact that Callahan's opinion on this is notable. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • FYI, Callahan did not inititate the "cult" label. He is commenting on statment by Mises employee Robert Murphy, who wrote a blog post which denies that Mises Institute is a cult. I have no idea why Murphy denied it, presumably others uncited by Murphy asserted it. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • (By OP): Thus we have a blog by Callahan commenting on another blog, by Murphy, who is SPS and an expert commenting about third parties (the Mises Institute and the members of the Mises Institute "cult") in a subject outside of his area of expertise. – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, the "non-expert" bit is a straw man. These are ordinary English language opinions. Neither blogger presents an academic theory as to the sociological structure and functioning of a cult. Please drop it and concentrate on the matter at hand. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reply by OP: Non-expert goes to the heart of the matter. If Murphy or Callahan are experts, they can comment as experts in their field of expertise. Either way their blogs are subject to the restrictions of WP:SPS. In this regard they are commenting about third parties and their opinions are not acceptable RS. (Are you defending the use of the Callahan (or Murphy) blog in this context? If so, say so. If not, please render an opinion and say the Callahan blog is not acceptable RS.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Unreliable. The assertion should be picked up in a more reliable source to be repeated by Wikipedia. Let's see if it appears in a magazine or newspaper article. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Added Time Magazine and National Review. SPECIFICO talk 02:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

By OP: So?? Are you saying Time & National Review somehow justify usage of the Callahan blog as RS? Or perhaps the Callahan blog is no longer needed? Please clarify. – S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unreliable per Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources. User:Carolmooredc 02:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment by OP: It is quite extraordinary that User:SPECIFICO should tag this RSN as "stuck". Specifico has been asked to render an opinion, and not done so. Specifico has been asked to clarify the issue as to added references, and has not done so. If there is "No substantive problem", why do we have editors/admins commenting, and opining that the Callahan blog is not RS in this context? Editors are encouraged to take another look at the article talk page (linked above). If I was not the OP, I'd remove this ersatz "stuck" tag. – S. Rich (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@srich Please comment on content and not your feelings about me or other editors. I am an involved editor in this matter, having stated my comfort with the Callahan reference on the article talk page.

The purpose of this RSN thread is to hear from uninvolved editors so as to broaden the discussion. If you still believe, in light of all the additional material that's recently been added, that it's problematic for PhD economist and former senior Mises faculty member Callahan to question Murphy's statement that Mises Institute's pursuit of its "economic theories" couldn't possibly be cultish, you need to present a well-formed theory as to why the reference should be impeached. I've already responded above to your straw-man "non-expert" denial, which fails on its face because the question is the manner in which the Institute purports to discuss the area of Callahan's academic and professional expertise. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BLPSPS says 'no' to Callahan's blog used to demean the easily identifiable individuals of an institute. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That fails the "judge judy" test. No person has been impugned by Callahan's rejection of Murphy. Murphy states that to no group which solicits dissent can be a cult. GC disagrees. So what? No statement about any individual behavior. Misesians know that such a statement does not entail any implication about any individual. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by OP. SPS says we cannot use blogs that talk about third parties. This restriction is not limited to individuals. – S. Rich (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@srich That is a direct misrepresentation of the SPS policy. The policy says SPS should not be used "as third-party sources about living people." Please be familiar with policy and take care to cite it fully and accurately. The policy you claim to cite has nothing to do with "talk about third parties" who are not living people. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason this thread remains stuck is that there is no identified policy violation related to the disputed content. When a series of inapplicable policies are raised, whack-a-mole style it doesn't lead to a convergence of interpretation one way or the other. Callahan states that just because an organization solicits dissent does not mean that it's not a cult. He's responding to his colleague Murphy. No party person or any other entity has been disparaged. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The disputed content is stated above – #3 Content: "Gene Callahan has implied that the Institute is a cult and compared it to Scientology." (The new mole appeared when this sentence was modified, without any notification in this RSN. A note was added to the effect that Time and National Review had been added, and I asked for clarification – but no clarification was posted here.) In any event, the basic issue is whether or not the Callahan blog is acceptable as SPS. Since Callahan seems to be addressing (according to this new rationale) the question of cultishness raised by Murphy, perhaps both the Murphy and Callahan blogs should be removed. (Moreover, this assertion by Callahan is the first sentence of the "cult" section and is not put into context as "refuting" anything other than (now) alluding to Murphy (who is mentioned in the earlier section – without using the term cult). Whether or not the language is disparaging is not the issue. Any SPS which references third parties/persons/entities -- praising them or burying them -- is not acceptable. There is no misrepresentation of policy. See: WP:SELFPUB #2 "it does not involve claims about third parties;" – S. Rich (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are claiming that it's acceptable for you to mis-state WP policy on this board, as I demonstrated that you have just done, you are mistaken. This thread remains pointless and stuck. If you believe that the content is inappropriate as sourced, you need to relate the content to the policy which it violates and to state the basis upon which you assert that the text violates policy. In doing so, you need to be sure that you are accurately citing and applying the policy. Going from one inapt citation to another to another is not constructive and cannot lead to any resolution here. Clearly you have editors engaged and eager to hear you out but there is no grist for the mill. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO refuses to acknowledge that the Callahan piece is a blog, and thereby comes under the guidance of SPS. At the same time SPECIFICO says "He's [Callahan is] responding to his colleague Murphy." But in so doing SPECIFICO refuses to acknowledge that by "responding to his colleague Murphy" Callahan is making a claim that involves a living third party – Murphy and whatever Murphy said elsewhere. (In other words, SPECIFICO does not seem to understand that the SPS claim does not have to be about a third party in particular. The policy applies if the blog seeks to refute or confirm something that the third party said or did.) SPECIFICO argues that the nature or issue of this RSN discussion was changed because he made a change in the article text – but SPECIFICO did not inform this notice board of the change, much less ask if a proposed change could resolve this discussion. (E.g., it would have been so simple, so open, so forthright to say "I propose that we change the content to read 'blah-blah-blah.'" And then ask the opinion of those who are following this thread.) Nor did SPECIFICO bring up the idea of a change on the article talk page. In the very line above SPECIFICO's latest notation I cite the policy about using blogs when making claims which involve third parties, but SPECIFICO says I am "mis-stating" policy. Just what policy am I mis-stating? Please state it correctly. Enlighten us. – S. Rich (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Note re ANRFC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request for closure posted at WP:ANRFC. – S. Rich (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC) The ANRFC was removed after discussion picked up again.16:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unreliable in general and for the proposed use. A representative survey of the relevant literature shows that the issue of whether the Ludwig von Mises Institute is a cult does not exist, so the subsection cannot be said to place the Ludwig von Mises Institute subject in context. In addition, the extraordinary claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult needs to be verifiable against high-quality reliable sources, which Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is not. Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is not produced by a reliable third party. Also, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. See Identifying reliable sources - context matters. Only one person, Gene Callahan, could be considered to have engaged in checking facts, there is no indication of whether Callahan did or is capable of analyzing legal issues related to the claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult, or that anyone but Callahan scrutinized the writing. There is no evidence that Gene-callahan.blogspot.com has received peer-review, has been vetted by the scholarly community, or has received any scholarly citations. Callahan's blog exist mainly to promote Callahan's particular point of view. The source fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Gene Callahan is an American economist, not an expert on cults or scientology. Callahan has no work regarding cults that has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Callahan is not an established expert on Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult. The blog makes an exceptional claim about third parties and is unduly self-serving since it does not express a viewpoint but instead uses unsupported conclusions regarding Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult. Gene-callahan.blogspot.com fails WP:ABOUTSELF. The source is unreliable for use within Wikipedia. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You wrote "A representative survey of the relevant literature" - Please be specific and describe what survey and what literature? Remember the text only presents Callahan's view, it does not state in WP's voice that any group is a cult. There are several RS cited in the article which either refer to vMI as a cult or address Murphy's statement. You are mistaken as to WP policy with respect to peer review and the use of a blog only for the author's opinion, because Callahan is a noted academician and expert on Misesian thought. Please provide the information about your survey. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The survey is my search and review of a database of print media that I have access to. The survey was to determine the wider issue of whether the cult subsection belongs in the article. It does not, which, among other reasons, makes 'The Institute as a cult' claim an extraordinary claim, requiring that the claim be verifiable against high-quality reliable sources. We both agree that Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is not a Wikipedia high-quality reliable source. The text presents Callahan's view on cult and Scientology, and we both agree that Callahan is not an expert on either one. You state that I am mistaken as to WP policy. However, that is just a conclusion not supported by an analysis whereas my post uses WP policy/guideline to review whether Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is an unreliable source in general and for the proposed use in Wikipedia. While we may come to different conclusions on that, what matters is the strength of argument and policy/guidelines, not posting opinion conclusion. Wikipedia's purpose is to place the subject in context through a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, fairly and without bias. The use of Gene-callahan.blogspot.com in the article does not do that. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The Time and National Review pieces by Justin Fox and Jonah Goldberg do not use the term/phrase "to a cult" or "cult". That material, lacking verification, has been removed from the article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those references are the subject of this thread. Did you mean to post this comment elsewhere? SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You said "There are several RS cited in the article which either refer to vMI as a cult or address Murphy's statement." Why not specify which RS supports the notion that LvMI is a cult? The two items were citations supposedly supporting a description of LvMI as a cult. If there is non-blog RS that describes LvMI as a cult, we might be able to use it without using the Callahan blog. – S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable for sourcing Callahan's opinions Respectfully, I must say I think a lot of my peers are misunderstanding what the source is being used to say. The sourced statement does not say LvMI is, as a matter of fact, a cult; it simply says that this is in the opinion of Gene Callahan. I believe Callahan's blog is a reliable source of what he believes. I also believe the opinion of a former prominent scholar at an institution (who is currently a notable and credible academic at Cardiff University) regarding the nature and work of that institution is relevant. Steeletrap (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee's excellent point that Callahan is not an expert in cults applies here. Even if he were an expert, the Callahan opinion is not accompanied by a description of what characteristics he is talking about, what made him come to the conclusion. The bit you wish to include is not encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So would your concern be addressed by including article text which specifies the issue to which Murphy and Callahan refer? The specific characteristics are in the cited sources but not in the current article text. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, you say the Time & National Review references are not part of this thread. But just what article changes are there that address the issue of Callahan's blog as an appropriate or inappropriate reference? – S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say/ask, but if this thread again goes off-topic, I fear that it will again become stuck. Consider moving your comment out of the area in which Jreferee, Binksternet and I are discussing Callahan or, if your comment did not relate to Callahan, removing it altogether. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, you added the comment to this thread that Time & National Review had been added to the article. But you did not explain how doing so resolved this RSN. And then you said Time & National Review are not part of this tread, but you alluded to other additions to the article, again not explaining how they impact the question of this RSN. It is regrettable that you have "no idea" of what is being asked. If Time & NR are not pertinent to the RSN, please help us out and explain: 1. what are "the cited sources" that are pertinent and 2. why the Callahan blog is acceptable RS as used in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't help you because I don't understand you. Consider dropping this thread and posting a fresh, more clearly stated, question for RSN assistance. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Steeletrap understands – seems to me that other editors do. But if Steele (or anyone else) does not post in the near future I shall request WP:ANRFC. – S. Rich (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Threads are generally left open for a month except in the case of withdrawal or obvious consensus, neither of which has thus far been achieved here. If you care about this matter, you owe it to your peers and to WP to make a clear, policy-based statement of the question you wish to raise, citing diffs to article text and WP policy. In any case, you need to read all the source references, which various editors have stated you appear not to have done. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The high horse attitude does not help your case. S. Rich made it abundantly clear that this thread is about whether the Callahan blog should be used in the LvMI article to say the Institute is a cult. Many have weighed in on the matter, and it looks like consensus is against the blog. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello binksternet, in case you missed it, I replied to one of your posts here a few days ago and asked your view on a way some of your concerns might be met. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I just found out about this chat here and I'm still trying to catch up, so could someone please help me out? I'm not sure what policy stops us from presenting Gene Callahan's views as Gene Callahan's views. I totally see why we can't state them as fact, but it doesn't look like anyone is trying to, so the objections aren't even wrong; they just miss the target.

If I'm wrong, 'splain it to me in small words. MilesMoney (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Is a list that is occasionally updated good evidence that everything on the list up to date?

Background: The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) declared their independence in 1976. Morocco objected to this and claims the territory as their own. Since then, numerous other states have recognized the SADR's independence, but many of the states that did so have since withdrawn their recognition. In dispute is whether Vietnam still recognizes the SADR's independence, and how they should be listed on International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

We have several Moroccan sources which claim that Vietnam has withdrawn their recognition: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. The most recent source is from June 2013 and states (from google translate): "The chairman of the delegation of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) visiting Morocco from 2 to 5 June at the invitation of the Party of Progress and Socialism (PPS) reaffirmed Monday, June 3, 2013 in Rabat, the position support of his country and his party to the territorial integrity of the Kingdom." This seems to pretty clearly state that Vietnam considers the SADR to be part of Morocco.

Contradicting this claim is a list available from Vietnam's Ministry of Foreign Affairs ([45]) of states with which they claim to have diplomatic relations. This list has been around since 2007 and has since occasionally been updated (to add new states to the list). The list claims to be accurate as of May 2/2013 (or one month prior to the most recent Moroccan source.) The list claims that they have diplomatic relations with the SADR.

So, the question is, is the fact that SADR hasn't been removed from this list sufficient evidence that Vietnam hasn't withdrawn recognition? To me, this is implicit evidence, and given that it is contradicted by explicit evidence (and the list has not been updated since the most recent Moroccan source) needs to be given due weight. A similar example, if we found a source which said Vietnam and Prussia established diplomatic relations on 1 January 2013, but Prussia was not listed on Vietnam's MFA list, I don't feel that this would be good evidence that they hadn't established diplomatic relations. As such, I think that Vietnam should be listed as having withdrawn recognition. Another user (Jan) argues that because the only sources claiming that recognition has been withdrawn are Moroccan, they aren't reliable and hence Vietnam should be listed as still recognizing. What are others thoughts on this? TDL (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Both views should be presented: "Moroccan sources [ref] state that ..., but the Vietnamese ministry [ref] still lists ... ". Your suggestion that a statement "seems to pretty clearly state that Vietnam considers the SADR to be part of Morocco" is just your opinion. It may of course be quite correct. But it may also be typical politician-speak, allowing them to say to Morocco "yes, of course Western Sahara is yours really" while at the same time denying anything of the sort to the Sahrawis, "but of course we weren't talking about your country". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course we can't rule out the possibility that they are saying different things to differ people, but that's true of any statement ever made, regardless of how clear it is. My point was that in the absence of contradicting information, the statement seemed to be clear enough to justify moving them from the "recognizers" to the "non-recognizers" category. Unfortunately, the situation is confused by the MFA list...

I completely agree that both views should be presented in the text, and I have no doubt that me and Jan can come to a compromise on that. However, due to the current structure of the list Vietnam needs to be classified either as a "recognizer" or a "non-recognizer". The key question is: do we colour and count them as recognizing or not? How do we depict them on the map? How do we give due weight to the sources presented above? Unfortunately there isn't a lot of room for a middle ground compromise on this issue without a complete restructuring of the list, it is one way or the other. Perhaps the only viable solution is to create a third category of states who's status is "unclear". TDL (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution until and unless the status of Vietnam becomes unambiguously clear. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Seconded! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an important debate for me. Soon I'll add a comment here, please be patient, I don't have free time. Jan CZ (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

globalresearch.ca

I would like opinions on the reliability of globalresearch.ca ([46]). To my eye it meets the definition of WP:QUESTIONABLE for the following reasons:

1. The website is a frequent publisher of fringe material. The website has a long history of publishing 9/11 and other conspiracy theory material. To see that, on any given issue, this website will take a fringe position, one has only to look at today's homepage, which includes items such as:
   1. Saudi Arabia’s “Chemical Bandar” behind the Chemical Attacks in Syria?
   2. Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?
   3. US and Allied Warships off the Syrian Coastline: Naval Deployment Was Decided “Before” the August 21 Chemical Weapons Attack
   4. Turkish Official: “Chemical Weapons Sent From Turkey to Syria”
   5. The US Government Stands Revealed to the World as a Collection of War Criminals and Liars
   6. The Murder of Dr. David Kelly. “A Symbol of the Blackness of the Tony Blair Cabal”
2. User-submitted content and a weak editorial policy. The website accepts submissions from authors and appears to have minimal editorial oversight. The about us page states: "The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be held responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in Global Research articles." If they decline to stand behind the work that they publish, why should we consider them reliable?
3. While the person who runs the website, Michel Chossudovsky, is a retired academic, there is no reason to believe that the website practices any form of peer review. or holds itself to any academic standards

globalresearch.ca was discussed on this forum back in 2007. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#globalresearch.ca. At this point User:DGG argued that the website was not reliable while User:Piotrus and User:Blueboar argued that use of globalresearch.ca required attribution. GabrielF (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually all DGG argued was that they were bias, but that is immaterial as all sources are. The reason for this RSN is this edit, [47] that Gabriel and friends, socks, keep on cutting out a source written by the article's subject because they dislike the organization hosting the source. As for the source for other cases, the author of the specific article being sourced to is of high importance, and any statement attributed to the website itself must be attributed, and also not refuted by other sources. Sepsis II (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is a highly questionable source, which does not appear to meet the requirements of reliable sources. There is no indication of any editorial oversight - the "about" page of the website does not even name any of the individuals associated with it, and has a disclaimer, as you note above, that dissociates itself from the articles it publishes. GoGoTob2 (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC) EDITED TO ADD: you misrepresent what DGG said back in 2007. He said " I do not consider it quotable as factual news unless otherwise supported".

This account is an obvious sock, engaged in blockable offenses. Sepsis II (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Globalresearch.ca appears to be devoted to WP:FRINGE editorials and its content clearly contradicts what reliable sources say. HAARP is a secret weapon, Big Pharma conspires with the WHO to cause pandemics, Kosovo was stolen from Serbia by NATO, Gaddafi was a philanthropist (and the USA committed genoicide in Libya), global warming is a myth, Srebrenica is a hoax to make Serbs look bad, the twin towers were brought down by controlled explosions, and so on. Globalresearch.ca should not be used as a source, and any attempt to use globalresearch.ca to support an editor's opinions should be considered a red flag. bobrayner (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles on Globalresearch.ca are certainly not a reliable source for factual unattributed claims, but that does not forbid us from adding:

• Faruqi, Shad Saleem (Nov. 5, 2009). Bush and Blair accused of War Crimes, Globalresearch.ca.

to, say, a bibliography section of the Shad Saleem Faruqi page (whether that meets WP:DUE will depend upon how may such articles Faruqi has authored etc). As an analogy, a self-published book, is (with some exceptions) not regraded as a reliable source, but it is still ok to mention on the author's page that he wrote such a book. The relevant policy for such use of questionable and SPS sources is WP:ABOUTSELF. Just be sure not to repeat claims made in that globalresearch article as facts. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Abecedare. The fact that they're a fringe publication means we shouldn't treat what they wrote as facts. It doesn't mean we can't mention that the article subject wrote for them - if that were the case, then we couldn't write that Alex Jones had a radio show, that David Icke ever wrote books, etc! --GRuban (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have certainly consistently said that no source is absolutely reliable for all purposes or unreliable for all purposes, and that every source is intrinsically subject to a greater or less degree of bias, being composed or compiled by humans. Not all sources, however are equally biased. In the earlier discussion,I did not say that they were only biased in the way other sources are, but that they were a frankly and openly politically motivated source, attempting to promote their cause, rather than attempting to be neutral. Sometimes they reprint outside material, but the true source is then the outside material which must stand on its own--that they quote it doesn't say anything about it being trustworthy or otherwise. The immediate source for this essay is http://www.criminalisewar.org/blog/, which published Faruqi's essay as Reflecting on the Law, and that is what should be quoted. Faroqui did not use the sensational headline: "Bush and Blair accused of War Crimes:" that wording is globalresearch's own wording, and is not a correct reprint of the original--indeed, the original does not even mention Blair. We can not say that Faroqui wrote for them, because he didn't. he wrote elsewhere, and they reprinted it. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell such "reprints" (reposts) are clearly signalled on globalresearch.ca, with the original post clearly linked. I can't see why the repost should ever be cited instead of the original. Podiaebba (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

globalresearch.ca doesn't claim editorial oversight, so as far as I can see it has no status beyond that of the author. It is worth pointing out that Project Censored has repeatedly highlighted stories published on globalresearch.ca (6 of the 10 in Michel_Chossudovsky#Project_Censored_highlights were published there; and there are other cases from other authors, eg this). I conclude that for authors with significant reputations, the fact that a piece is published on globalresearch.ca shouldn't immediately and entirely disqualify it from being mentioned, with appropriate "Author X said" attribution. Podiaebba (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• If Project Censored lauds Chossudovsky for his insistence that "the WTO is actually an illegal institution" &c, that counts against Project Censored rather than counting in Chossudovsky's favour. bobrayner (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The "illegal" phrasing sounds odd given the WTO's undisputed status in practice, and Project Censored's summary loses a bit of the wording that makes it clear why Chossudovsky used it - the way the WTO agreement contradicted and/or overrode existing international law. copy of the original Try not to be so quick to judge. Podiaebba (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Bhāwāiyā: Ethnomusicological Study

1. Source: Barma, Sukhbilas Bhāwāiyā (2004) Ethnomusicological Study by Sukhbilas Barma, Global Vision Publishing Ho
2. Article: Kamrupi dialect
3. Content: diff
4. Issues:
   • Barma uses the name "Kamrupi" to denote the Rajbanshi dialect (p97). This is non-standard because Kamrupi is already used for the dialect of the Kamrup region, much further to the east of the region Barma defines for Rajbanshi. Is Barma (2007) a reliable source for the definition of "Kamrupi"?
   • Barma further claims that Chatterji and Sen (in the next paragraph) calls the a language "Kamrupi", which is not true. Chatterji defines a dialect of Middle_Indo-Aryan Magadhi Prakrit "Kamarupa dialect", where Kamarupa denotes a much larger area that includes Kamrup region. Chatterji's use is given here: (https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/45743/33/08chapter7.pdf, Figure 7-3, page=302). Is Barma a reliable source for the usage of "Kamrupi" for the Magadhan dialect that Chatterji calls "Kamarupa Dialect", and imply it is the same dialect as modern Kamrupi?

Chaipau (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it seems this is too arcane an issue for general interest. So let me ask a general question instead. If author-one claims author-two said something, but if on scrutiny I find that author-two did not say such a thing, then how should I address this issue without WP:OR on my part? Chaipau (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry no one replied, Chaipau. But I don't think the question's difficult. Just cite author-two. There are any number of mistakes and misreadings in the world's academic history: most of them are best ignored and forgotten. If author-one is extremely influential, or very frequently cited by Wikipedians (Q: is that the same thing?) then author-one's error may need pointing out in a footnote. Does that work for you? Andrew Dalby 09:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew, for your comments. It is helpful. I could not find a citation template to tag this particular instance.

In this case Author-one (Barma) is not influential, but his work is available on books.google.com and searchable, so is widely used on Wikipedia. He is an ex-Bureaucrat and a current politician, and the book reflects his particular brand of politics. By no means is he a linguist. To push his political views, he uses non-standard terminologies not used in scholarship. There seems to be some serious problems with this work. Author-two (Chatterji), OTOH, is a very well regarded scholar, whose work is not searchable on the web.

Chaipau (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, this is the most difficult kind of case for us: we naturally steer towards sources that can be read online.

Since Chatterji is a reliable source, we can use him as much as we need to. It is a matter of Wikipedians' editorial judgment, and not a question of OR, whether we use Barma at all, and whether we point out that Barma's use of Chatterji is misleading (with all necessary quotations, if the matter is sufficiently important). In sum, I think you need not worry unduly about OR. Maybe others will now want to comment too ... Andrew Dalby 08:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I am ready to scan parts of these unsearchable sources and upload them on Wikipedia, if the need so arises.

A related problem I am facing is addressing cherry-picked quotes, especially when quoting scholars whose first language is not English. I have seen sometimes, while emphasizing a point, scholars go on to connote something entirely different. For example, they make comments like "A is nothing but B" to emphasize a strong connection between A and B, but the connotation is "A is B", and I have seen it being used as such. I see that this cannot be addressed without the participation of a larger number of editors with some degree of domain knowledge. Chaipau (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

caic.org.au

Source: caic.org.au

Article: Landmark Worldwide, and others:

• culthelp.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• caic.org.au: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• (other domain redirects may exist as well)

Content:

• In the article Landmark Worldwide:

  ...with former members reporting manipulative and coercive techniques such as sleep deprivation.

  and (in the lede):

  In some quarters, it has been classed as a cult, with some participants alleging the use of manipulative and coercive techniques.

• On the Talk:Landmark Worldwide, it is being used by editors to forward claims that the company is a cult.
• These claims (among others) are then being used to support the company's inclusion at List of new religious movements.

Commentary:

• As near as I can tell, CAIC is now a self-published aggregation of material presumably published elsewhere. (A Whois search shows that the site is registered to an individual, not an organization.)
• The site is clear that it has an agenda.
• It (CAIC) has a statement on most pages that it is not saying anything in their voice.
• The site does not have clear ownership (the site copyright actually includes the phrase "Yada yada yada").
• Our own article on the only "source" for CAIC's voice says that she passed away nearly 13 years ago (over six years before the domain was registered).
• In the example of Landmark Worldwide, it is being used as a source to support a rather exceptional claim.

Is the source (caic.org.au and other redirected domains) a reliable source? Does it support the statements made at Landmark Worldwide quoted above?

• Not reliable - As proposer of commentary above. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: As I suggested on the Article Talk page given CAIC is a clearinghouse of links to other articles (which are not being disputed individually) then one option would be to source each article directly. However, the opposite holds, if each CAIC linked article is not being disputed individually then why is CAIC being disputed as an aggregate of links? AnonNep (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Not reliable From looking around the site it appears to be mostly personal opinion pieces by people who have attended a Landmark course, I can write one of those, inclusion on that site wouldn't make it authoritative. Indeed on this page http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=8&id=73&Itemid=12 the site maintainer "Jan Groenveld" says "Most of the articles regarding Landmark/Forum/EST are anecdotal - subjective experiences of others who have been through the Landmark/Forum/EST experience. They are provided to give an alternate viewpoint to that found on their own website." in other words articles on the site about Landmark are selected because they disagree with Landmark's own website, not because they necessarily have merit. Jasonfward (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The specific page on CAIC that mentions Landmark lists its sources (including publishing a Landmark rebuttal to its own content for balance) and does include a few 'subjective experiences' but is more of 'a self-published aggregation of material presumably published elsewhere' than 'mostly personal opinion pieces by people who have attended a Landmark course'. But, as said, the 'subjective experiences' could be ignored & other sources directly linked to the same effect:
    • 42 Hours, $500, 65 Breakdowns - Mother Jones, Volume 34/August 2009
    • ABC Radio National "Background Briefing" documentary on Landmark Education - ABC Radio National (Australian National Broadcaster)
    • 60 Minutes: Werner Erhard (March 3, 1991) - US CBS '60 Minutes' with link to transcript
    • "The Fuhrer Over est" by Jesse Kornbluth - New Times, New York, March 19, 1976. Pp. 29-52.
    • Marriage licence for Jack Rosenberg / Curt Wilhelm VonSavage / Werner and Ellen Erhard etc - Book excerpt 'Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile', Steve Pressman, 1993
    • AUDIO: Werner Erhard interview with Barbara Walters (1976) - as per description
    • Inside Landmark Forum (transcript) - English language transcript of French documentary "Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous"
    • Inside Landmark Forum (video) - video of above with English subtitles
    • Landmark Education reply to France 3 documentary - Right of reply offered by CAIC to Landmark
    • The Forum Begins: The Curriculum and Pedagogy - Ph.D Dissertation by Charles Wayne Denison, University of Denver, 1994
    • The Structure: First Sights Of The Forum - Excerpt from dissertation by Charles Wayne Denison, University of Denver, 1994
    • "Not interested in people - but only money" - Personal experience copyrighted to Rick Ross
    • Soul Training (another Landmark experince) - Boston Globe, March 3, 1999.
    • There's no meeting of the Minds - Westword, April 18-24, 1996
    • Mind game courses aimed at public sector workers - The Times, July 22, 1992
    • "Landmark Forum is a very aggressive and selfish program" - 'By an attendee of Landmark Education', 1988
    • The Con-Forumists - Swing Generation, November 1998
    • The Forum: Cult or comfort? - Boston Globe, March 3, 1999
    • Mellow Out Or You Will Pay - Argus Magazine, December 1980
    • Landmark Education - by Andy Testa
    • Cults & Psychological Abuse (my experience in the forum) - 'taken from remarks -- considerably expanded -- that I delivered as a panel member at a discussion called "Cults and Psychological Abuse" on 30 October 1992 at Western Psychiatric Institute in Pittsburgh'.
    • Part 1 Of a Discussion on AOL - as titled
    • Part 2 of a discussion on AOL - as titled.

AnonNep (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Most of this gaggle of links appear to either be to unreliable sources (the AOL chat might be my favorite) or to sources that don't actually discuss the claims that this source is being used to report. In any case, these links are irrelevant to whether the CAIC itself is a reliable source. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable if used with care. Despite the statement by Tgeairn, CAIC is not cited as a reference for the "cult" label at all in the Landmark article (for which other sources are cited), but rather only for the statement that there have been reports of "manipulative and coercive techniques". Nor has this source ever been discussed on the Talk:List of new religious movements page. Although I agree that there are other sources that can and should be used to support this brief statement, that is no reason to deem the existing reference unreliable. CAIC, and its website, are cited in academic literature, and a very quick search turns up several:
  • Jeffry Kaplan: "Doomsday Religious Movements" in 2002. Millennial Violence: Past, Present, and Future. London: Routledge/Frank Cass Publishers.(references)
  • George Chryssides: "Heavenly Deception" in James R. Lewis, Olav Hammer, eds. 2007. The Invention of Sacred Tradition. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press (references)
  • George Chryssides: 2011. Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press (bibliography)
  • Margaret Thaler Singer, ‎Janja Lalich: 1994. Cults in Our Midst. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers (acknowledgements as an important resource)
  • Nancy K. Grant Ph. D., Diana J. Mansell R. N.: "Eckankar (co-worker with God) The Religion of Light and Sound" in 2008. A Guidebook to Religious and Spiritual Practices for People Who Work with People. New York: iUniverse (references)
  • Thomas J. Badey, ed. August 2004. Annual Editions: Violence and Terrorism 05/06. edition: 8. Dubuque: McGraw Hill Contemporary Learning Series (references)
  • Sharon Brehm, Saul Kassin, Steven Fein, et. al.: Instructor's Resource Manual: Social Psychology 6th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin (recommended resource)

Moreover, according to CAIC's Wiki article, it has had notable run-ins with Landmark in the past, and CAIC would also be a relaiable source for its side of that story, again, if used carefully. • Astynax ^talk 09:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that CAIC is cited in academic literature, please review your references:

• In Millennial Violence: Past, Present, and Future, it is listed in a list of Internet Addresses in the "References and suggested reading" section. CAIC is never cited in the book.
• In "Heavenly Deception", the actual reference is to "Hassan, Steve, "The Truth about Sun Myung Moon" and includes a url for a copy of that article on CAIC's site. CAIC isn't the source in that reference, and does not provide any content other than hosting a copy of someone else's web page.
• In Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements, CAIC is listed in a list of Critical, Countercult, and Cult Monitoring Sites. Being listed in a list of websites does not mean it is being used as a source. There is a reference to caic.org regarding MSIA, which takes the reader to an unattributed copy of an excerpt of someone thoughts on the subject. Again, there is not material here from CAIC, only an unattributed copy of someone else's work.
• I cannot find any reference to CAIC in Cults in Our Midst. Can you verify that one?
• Following the pattern, A Guidebook to Religious and Spiritual Practices for People Who Work with People uses CAIC as a repository for other people's material (and is not exactly "academic literature").
• Annual Editions: Violence and Terrorism, included on a list of websites - the exact same list as the others.
• Instructor's Resource Manual: Social Psychology, the name of the website is listed in a list of websites that are accessible from a personal website. Again, no material from CAIC is being used as a source.

In none of the "academic literature" you listed is CAIC used as a source for anything at all. At best, it is included in a list of websites; and at worst it is being used as a webhost for someone else's material. Neither of these make it a reliable source. --Tgeairn (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: You are again mischaracterizing the issue at hand. A great many reliable sources are collections of information from multiple authors/sources. For each book/journal listed, I already provided in which way the site was listed. Academic authors do not include items in their references unless they have used them as sources and/or regard them as reliable for their readers/students. They do not tend to put unreliable sources in their recommended reading lists or bibliographies unless they have either used the source or think it will be valuable for their readers/students. The sole exception for that would be if the article criticized the source as unreliable, which none of the above do in regard to CAIC. Even were we to dismiss reference, bibliography and recommended reading lists (and we should not), your contention that "In none of the 'academic literature' you listed is CAIC used as a source for anything at all" is patently false. Chryssides certainly cites them, and authors do not thank sources in their acknowledgements for the contributions made by the sources toward completion of the work unless they have made use of the source. • Astynax ^talk 18:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not reliable As above, the CAIC website is clearly a self-published website that appears to have no scholarly or academic credentials. Moreover, the site itself doesn't even appear to make the claims that the source is being used to support. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Not reliable per WP:SPS. Of course if some of the links on that site point to sources that are WP:RS, there is no reason why those references could not be cited directly. It does seem however that, of the links that point to to newspaper and magazine articles, many are Op-ed pieces rather than news reports, or quotations by the reporter of the opinions of non-notable or unnamed individuals. DaveApter (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, it is not reliable in the sense that it can't be used to say Landmark Worldwide is a "cult" and therefore a "new religious movement". When you go to the CAIC site the first thing you see is a big disclaimer saying "Just because a group is mentioned on this site does not mean we regard it as a destructive cult. Both Cults and Isms are listed to provide information for those seeking the downside of many of these movements." So in their words, they're not saying it's a cult; also I don't think the self-published reviews there are reliable sources either. I'm not saying that Landmark doesn't have problems, but I don't think this is the way to deal with it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

WGmaps article sources

not sure any of the external refs have any real relevance besides a passing mention that the site exists, nothing to do with notability. Thoughts on this madnesss?

Louis-Frédéric Nussbaum (trans. Käthe Roth), Japan Encyclopedia

This book is currently cited in around 1,000 articles.[48] It's a nice, colourful book, and a good read. It's also fairly accurate when it comes general, superficial overviews of Japan-related topics. But it also has a large number of errors. It translates Hyakunin Isshu as "Simple Poems by One Hundred Poets", even though the "simple" is not in Japanese and has never appeared in any of the 12+ translations of the work into English.[49][50] It misspells the name "Ariwara no Narihira" in its article on him, despite spelling it correctly in the article on his brother immediate below.[51] It's article on the Kujiki claims the latter to be a 1644 forgery, when an extensive debate between myself and User:Shii on Talk:Kujiki showed no reliable sources that indicate the work was written later than the 10th century.[52] Japanese encyclopedias all say so.

I'd tend to attribute these errors to the fact that Nussbaum, apparently an art historian by training, was not expert in everything Japanese, and so a book written solely by him is inherently not the best possible source on everything to do with Japan. I don't know of any reputable general reference "encyclopedia" in which all of the articles are written by a single person. In fact, his original work in French didn't include the word "encyclopédie" in the title. This word was added by the translator, Roth, a [French-English translator who apparently has no significant background in Japanese studies, having only translated this and one other francophone book on Japan. This is troubling when her translation of the Japan Encyclopedia (not even Nussbaum's still questionable original) is being cited in disputes about very specific terminological and orthographic issues.[53] I'm not even the first to notice these errors on Wikipedia: User:Stone-turner pointed out some other errors in January.[54]

I know the book claims to be written by a well-known historian of Japanese and Asian art, and is published by a reputable university press. But it's just got too many misprints and places where we can't tell if certain claims originate with the author (who appears to only be a reliable source on certain parts of Japanese culture) or with the translator (who is not a reliable source on anything to do with Japan). Therefore, I'd like to settle here once and for all whether the book can be used as a source for potentially controversial material when no other sources can be found.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like WP:TERTIARY applies here, but the test of that would be whether the author uses primary sources or relies on intermediate secondary sources. Tertiary sources often have the type of errors you mention. Good secondary sources would normally be taken as more definitive, but in general you would need to find such secondary sources in order to eliminate this source in each particular case. I don't think you can can just eliminate it as a source altogether on account of your own judgment. Perhaps some strongly negative reviews from acknowledged experts would suffice, though. Zero^talk 07:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding statement because I know of one situation where this source is actually more reliable for terminological issues than most other sources. Louis Frederic's Japan Encyclopedia correctly spells the name of a battle taking place in 587 AD as the Battle of Shigisan. A search on Google Books seems to indicate that a slight majority of published sources spell the word as "Shigisen" or "Shigi-sen", which anyone with knowledge of the Japanese language would know to be incorrect. Evidently, either Louis Frederic or his translator made some typos, but here is one place where they accurately fixed a common mistake. As was said above, care should be taken in using such tertiary sources, but if someone is proposing to "eliminate this source", that would not seem to be a good course of action.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Zero: So does that mean that if there's a reliable secondary source that contradicts it, we can just remove the Nussbaum citation and the text based on it, and replace it with the better source? I've tried this before with sources that were arguably much worse than Nussbaum, and been accused of "removing referenced text" and violating NPOV ...

Curtis: That's just an unfortunate coincidence. But we don't need English (or French) sources to tell us how to correctly pronounce or romanize the names of Japanese mountains. Reliable sources place the battle at Mount Shigi, and so if Wikipedia calls Mount Shigi "Shigisan" or "Shigisen" or "Shigi-san" or "Mount Shigi" or whatever, we can spell it that way. Plus, I looked into it and apparently -san is the kan'on and so likely dates to the Nara or Heian Period, whereas -sen is the go'on and so was more likely used during the period in question.[55] Therefore, it's likely that both are technically correct, and since no one in modern Japan calls it "the Battle of Shigisan" anyway, there's not much point splitting hairs over whether the "English name" of the battle should be using the modern Japanese pronunciation. My source for the readings of 山 is Gakken's 2006 Kanji-gen. Therefore, Sansom is still a better source and isn't even technically wrong on this minor detail. Anyway, I'm not proposing "eliminating this source" -- that would be far too much work. What I'm saying is that if an editor finds a particular statement questionable, and Nussbaum is the only source that can be found for the statement, then a reliable secondary source should be required: a translation of a tertiary source that is known to contain many errors should not be good enough by itself.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: User:Enkyo2 is probably the book's main advocate, but even he recognized that it contains errors. In response, User:Bamse said that Nussbaum "does not work [as a reference]". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Every book contains errors but they are often minors and concerns details. This is comes more often in 3rd sources than in 2nd sources.

Given the descrption that you give of this book (well-recognised as well as his author), it should be given credit and each time there is a doubt, some secondary sources should be found to confirm the doubt.

If this happens too often (I would say between 5 and 10 times), then other sources should be prefered in the redaction of the articles.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

whether the book can be used as a source for potentially controversial material when no other sources can be found

The short answer is, with attribution, if the matter is obscure and otherwise unattested. However, since he wrote basically a derivative compilation, I very much doubt whether no other source could be found even for the obscurer matters he might mention. Only one example is given 'Shigisan'.

The Hyakunin isshu translation is certainly a blooper; the Ariwara no Narihira mispelling just editorial oversight on a lapsus calami; on a thing like Kujiki, a generic source like Frédéric cannot be used because it is subject to academic dispute, and in these instances, one must always have recourse to secondary specialist sources, never tertirary sources that push on opinion; 'The battle of Shigisen' is English usage, yet 信貴山 is read 'Shigisan' in modern Japan. I don't think he should be used here either, and I don't think indeed that that English wiki article bears a proper title: its only justification is that none of the other current Japanese terms have stabilized to allow one to be ascendent. A cursory glance at this obscure episode (the Nihonshoki doesn't appear to name it, by the way (Sakamoto Tarō, Ienaga Saburō, Inoue Mitsusada, Ōno Susumu (eds.)Nihon Shoki, Iwanami Koten Bungaku Taikei 68, vol.2 pp154-171, unless my quick glance through it missed something, doesn't appear to mention any name for the battle. When was the term coined? One thing I do know is that this was undoubtedly the traditional reading of an ancient text source, because

• George Sansom,A History of Japan to 1334, (1958)1974 p.49
• Edmond Papinot, Historial and Geographical Dictionary of Japan, (1899,1906,1910) Tuttle reprint 1972 sub. Soga no Umako, p.597
• James Murdoch,History of Japan, 1903, p.137
• Charles William Hepner, The Kurozumi Sect of Shinto, 1935 p.9

Now all of those extremely erudite Meiji (or close to Meiji) Japanologues write 'Shigisen', and it is not a slip but reflects, undoubtedly, their transcription of original sources, as edited by Japanese scholars. It can't be coincidental that it is also retained in some modern scholarly monographs by period specialists, e.g.Gary L. Ebersole, Ritual Poetry and the Politics of Death in Early Japan, Princeton University Press, ‎1992 p.148.

Hijiri's call is therefore probably correct on the original historical (go'on) pronunciation (and also because of the fact that it is the lectio difficilior), against Curtis. Most Japanese would now read Shigisan (信貴山), because it looks standard. If you pronounced that shigisen they’d probably hear that as a reference to the Kintetsu branch line from Kawachi-Yamamoto station (信貴線)! Some might recall also that the Shigisan engi emaki is pronounced that way, reflecting Heian pronunciation.

So (a) it's pointless to have a blanket dismissal of a fairly good general encyclopedia (b) but on tricky issues, they should not be used, unless there is no other source. In this case, one uses attribution. Shigisan should really be, in my view, Shigisen, on the basis of the evidence above.

p.s. Hijiri. (it's = its) as of course you know. Rapid internet reading tends to make us pick up even the illiterate confusions of youth. I have to stay on guard myself against stuff like this. It doesn't matter (but it does!) By the way 'Shigisen, sounds to me like it might have meant 'Snipe-Hill' (鷸)? Well, no matter. Just an idle thought. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"It's article on the Kujiki claims the latter to be a 1644 forgery" Belated, but in my research on the use of the Kujiki in the 17th century I've never seen anyone claim this. If the claim isn't an outright fabrication, the author of this "encyclopedia" was working from remarkably old and poor sources. As Hijiri and I discussed on the Kujiki page, since the Meiji period the debate has been between the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries as the date of authorship.

I clicked on one of the links above and saw that the article on Arita-yaki is similarly confused: it describes it as consisting of Kakiemon and Nabeshima styles, when in fact these are just the most famous and refined styles among a large variety of Arita-yaki. That is just the error I noticed on the page linked to. I didn't look at the pages before or after. Shii (tock) 22:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A description of this one-volume work is at the website of the Japan Society of the UK here. The reviewer suggests that Japan Encyclopedia would ideally be used in conjunction with other referential sources so as to aid in cross checking the information presented. This work is a useful part of the ordinary cross-checking process which is conventional in our wiki-project.--Enkyo2 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Enkyo2, as I have painstakingly pointed out several times now both here and on ANI, has a tendency to "cross-check" Nussbaum with 12th-17th century primary sources that don't actually say what he says they do... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know what is done or not by Enkyo2 but cross-checking must be done with secondary reliable sources. It is not forbidden but it is very delicate to use primary sources to discuss/criticize how secondary reliable sources analyse them. Rejecting secondary sources analyses on the base of the primary sources content requires high expertise on a topic, which wikipedians are not supposed to have.
• "Japan Encyclopedia would ideally be used in conjunction with other referential sources so as to aid in cross checking the information presented, and this is facilitated by a fairly extensive bibliography, which is included." -> This comment makes think that there are several (or even many) factual errors in the the Japan encyclopedia but that doens't reject this. If case of controversy, a secondary sources should be brought to prove the information of the Encyclopaedia may not be correct ; in case of sensitive information, the Encyclopedia should be rejected and a secondary source immediately prefered. For contexts, the Encyclopedia seems perfect.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose one can find a lot of good things to say about this book, but it is simply not reliable, that is, one cannot count on it to being right. It doesn't matter what his sources were. Facts that went in often come out mangled. In [56] I pointed out several problems with the calendar article where things were wrong or backwards. Some others: In Ansei no Taigoku (purge), that Ii Naosuke carried out the purge becomes "the first to be purged was II Naosuke." In Yamato, Yamato-chôtei, "court of Japan" is translated as "heart of Japan."

Though daimyo had to have a revenue of 10,000 koku or more, the article on Fudai-daimyo says that fudai daimyo "generally had revenues of 10,000 koku or less." In the article Hitojichi, the fact that Tokugakwa Ieyasu was held as a hostage for twelve years becomes he took hostages for twelve years. For Mathematics, "Algebraic rules...arrived in Japan during Hideyoshi's time and were published in 1299." Hideyoshi wasn't yet around in 1299. In Ethnologywe read that "student-aged individuals today may reach a height of more than 170 for men (with the exception of sumotori)…." How many short sumotori are there? In Aso-san, the three people to die in the 1979 eruption of Aso-san become hundreds.

In the Chronology, the death (assassination) of Sanetomo, the last Minamoto shogun, in 1219, is listed as a cultural event of 1215. And Oda Nobunaga did not become shogun in 1573. How do you go about disproving his statement under G" "They are partnered with the syllables…ye to give gye." Do you have to find a reputable source that says "Japanese does not have the sylable gye"? If you want more strange statements, I am confident I can come up with some.

By the way, on the pronunciation of 山, there is a Mt. Daisen 大山 in Tottori.

Is the question "whether the book can be used as a source for potentially controversial material when no other sources can be found"? If this book can have so many mistakes with well-known facts, how can it be trusted for things that only it says? --Stone-turner (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. We should move a motion to the effect that that where L-F-N has been used, he must be cross-checked with another independent source. He should not, on the strength of the now many examples cited above, be used in future. Take citations from him as flags demanding that the point be checked when they are not obvious (well-known) or deal with historical details.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "heart of Japan": That clearly was either a misprint on Nussbaum's part that Roth accidentally made much worse based her not speaking any Japanese, or a misreading of Nussbaum's French by Roth. The French words for "court" and "heart" are spelled almost the same, and I think are nearly homophonic.[57][58] This indicates that this mistake was Roth's, not Nussbaum's, which means that at the very least if we are not going to take this source off the table completely, we must always check the French (my copy is in the mail from Amazon now).

Regarding the death of Sanetomo: The date is a serious blooper, but that's all it is: a blooper. The book's actual articles give the correct date.[59] More likely, "Sanetomo" is a misprint for his regent Tokimasa, who actually did die, apparently of natural causes, in 1215. Unfortunately, I think having accidental internal contradictions is just as bad as getting the facts wrong. Also, until I checked and found it more likely that the 1215 date was meant for Tokimasa, I was going to point out that calling the assassination of Sanetomo a "cultural event" is not problematic when one considers that Sanetomo is better-known as a poet than as either a warrior or a statesman. But I know nothing about Tokimasa's contributions to culture, so I can't say whether these theories gel with each other. Google search indicates that Sanetomo's relationship to waka was an indirect consequence of his association with Sanetomo. Either way, you're right that this is a bad error.

Regarding the pronunciation of 山: I searched my electronic dictionary for all words ending with the character and pronounced as either sen or zen, which is how I limited my search to the names of specific mountains. I found 10 such words (out of several hundred). These were 氷ノ山 (hyō-no-sen), 七金山 (shichi-kon-sen), 佉羅陀山 (kya-ra-da-sen or ka-ra-da-sen), the aforementioned 大山 (dai-sen), 象頭山 (zō-zu-sen), 弥山 (mi-sen), 須弥山 (shu-mi-sen or su-mi-sen), 霊山 (ryō-zen), 鷲山 (ju-sen) and 霊鷲山 (ryō-ju-sen). Among these 10 results, I found some interesting facts. 象頭山 is a mountain not in Japan but in India, and the middle character is pronounced zu (which is the go-on) rather than the much more common reading tō, which fits with the fact that the following sen is also a go-on; the mountain being in India and connected with Shakyamuni indicates that the word's "correct Buddhist pronunciation" has likely been preserved since Buddhism first entered Japan -- at the time of the Battle of Shigisan, when go-on readings were more prominent than they are now; there is also a mountain in Kagawa Prefecture with the same kanji, read as zō-zu-san. 須弥山 is the Japanese name for Sumeru, a mountain in Buddhist mythology. 霊山 can also be read as rei-zan; like with 象頭山 rei is the kan-on and ryō being the go-on. The 金 in 七金山 not being pronounced kin is for the same reason; 七金山 and 佉羅陀山 are both associated with 須弥山. 霊山 and 鷲山 are both abbreviations of 霊鷲山, a place where Shakyamuni preached. The dictionary entries for both 大山 and 弥山 indicate them as pilgrimage-sites and/or the sites of temple complexes. Of the the 10, the only one with no specific connection to Buddhism is 氷ノ山.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

At a guess about half of the problems are due to the translation, probably including the problems I mention for Ansei no Taigoku, Hitojichi, and Ethnology. That still leaves a lot due to the original, such as the calendar problems. That he gets something right in one place doesn't mean he understands it or gets it right in another; he often seems to copy and paste without understanding. But, however they came about, the problems make the book under discussion unreliable. And I don't think using the French original will help much with problems as he does not cite sources in articles, so you cannot check him. --Stone-turner (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As for Minamoto Sanetomo, he was not particularly a notable figure in himself, though he was a poet, but with his death there were no more Minamotos, which meant the Hojo regents could control completely the various high-ranking children who they made shogun. So his death was definitely a significant political event.--Stone-turner (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I know his death was a significant political event, but he is regarded as having been maybe the third or fourth most important poet of his age, and that includes his own tutor, who is regarded as the best waka (as in tanka, not chōka) poet ever. The death of such a figure is definitely a cultural event (even if neither our article on Sanetomo nor Nussbaum's properly emphasize his poet-ness). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is FoxNews not on Wikipedia:Current science and technology sources

I'm just wondering why FoxNews is not considered an accurate source for science and technology when similarly "opinionated" sources such as CNN, NYT, and CBS are. Since there isn't a used Talk page on that subject page, I thought I'd post the question here. Obviously FoxNews is RS in general, but I've seen editors argue through edits/reverts and on Talk pages against even this (which is simply biased silliness). Any honest, nuetral observer can see that CNN, NYT, CBS, and FoxNews all have the same issues with opinions turned into facts and vice versa and having to recant "mistakes" so why is FoxNews singled out as not reliable? Really not trying to make some conservative/liberal point or start a political discussion - just honestly asking the question. Thanks - Ckruschke (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Are there subpages of FoxNews that focus on S&T? If so, why not WP:BB and simply add them. The page has not been edited for some time. If there is any dispute about this the issue can be brought up on the (empty) project talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much! Ckruschke (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Reliability of Protoculture Addicts magazine

The reliability of the anime/manga publication Protoculture Addicts has been questioned at BLPN, but I think this is a more appropriate board for the issue.

To sum it up, for an edit, I used the editorial (officially reprinted online) of Protoculture Addicts issue 41. It's a North-American paper publication about anime and manga that has been going on since 1988, first as a fanzine, then as commercial publication. It was later absorbed (with publication still going on) by Anime News Network.

Protoculture Addicts has been referred to as "the oldest American anime professional specialty magazine" in Watching Anime, Reading Manga: 25 Years of Essays and Reviews by Fred Pattern, published by Stone Bridge Press, 2004, p.108. The magazine has also received coverage in Cartoon Cultures: The Globalization of Japanese Popular Media by Anne Cooper-Chen, published by Peter Lang Publishing in 2010, p.134-135. It has also been mentioned in a various other publications as can be seen in a Google Book search.

The PA#41 editorial I mention was written by Claude J Pelletier, editor-in-chief of the magazine, who has also been mentioned in various publications (Google Book search).

So is Protoculture Addicts a reliable source, and particularly its #41 editorial which provides a translation/summarization in English of an interview with an anime director (Hideaki Anno) originally published in the Japanese magazine Newtype ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please don't forum shop. The editorial is an opinion piece that is not even faithfully taken from the original document because it was translated via a friend/colleague and than loosely reported on. Secondly, the translation is being paraphrased, citing this as Anno's words in quotes is misleading (owing to BLP concerns). Third, you are taking that source and arriving at a further conjecture that runs into BLP issues that are outside the purpose of this board. The magazine may be a good source, but it has had dozens of inaccuracies and errors like many other publications. This editorial is flawed because it lacks context and has errors and ambiguity that is not in dispute in the original document. I say the brief editorial cannot compare to the original or even the faithful full translation and given the errors should not be used in any capacity, including those separate from the BLP concerns. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You have been told by two users this wasn't a matter for BLPN. I'm merely moving the discussion to the relevant board. Had you read the editorial, you'd have seen it contains direct quotes/translations and not just paraphrasing. The source doesn't need context to provide an accurate translation/summarization of the original Japanese interview, and I have seen no full-translation except in a self-published, unreliable fan-website. Per all the published content I've found, I'd say Protoculture Addicts is perfectly reliable to provide the translation/summarization of a Japanese interview. I know your POV on the question, but now I'm trying to have outside opinions on the question.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm done here. Folken's polemic arguments here are toothless; the original source should be used over some paraphrased translation and Folken's insertion is not backed by the original. If his response to criticism is really relevant than we take from a secondary source and not a tertiary interpretation that is at odds with the original. Anno's response, in English, to criticism was summed up as "I have no problem with them. If there's a problem, it's all with you guys. Too bad." And that "Too Bad" was in English and is held in numerous accounts.[60][61] Sorry, but this is a moot matter in my eyes, because Wikipedia should never advocate using a third-party account of what a source says over what the original source actually says.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs)
      • As neither you nor I are Japanese-speaking users, we have to rely on the most reliable source providing translation/summarization. That source is Protoculture Addicts, not your self-published fansite. But there is nothing at odds with the fan translation anyway. They say the same things. This isn't about Anno's response to criticism, this is about Anno's reponse to anonymous fan backlash on the internet. The source you mention isn't about fan backlash, but about "Evangelion's last two episodes", that is what Anno has no problem with, not the fact that they upset many fans.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You may not read Japanese, but don't tell me what I can and cannot read. The original source is what we go by. Just because I don't have it on hand to show you doesn't change its contents or reliability. For interviews, the interview as reported is more reliable than some paraphrased comment done by the translators friend. This is not about the sources' reliability as a whole. You made the matter into something of a BLP concern. The source is Newtype Magazine for June 1996. And that is the only citation I need and that is the reliable source for that interview. PA's error is their own, but in cases like this, go with the original. Plain and simple. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't have access to the original source so we go with what reliable source tell us about it. What is the BLP concern exactly ? And what is PA's error exactly ? The original, you don't have it, and you have no idea what is says, so why are you making such a fuss ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The original source is fine - I do not need to show it to you. The translation on Gwern's is good enough. I doubt scans are still out there on the net. I've got all you need to verify it yourself if you wish to do so including page counts; the text has been quoted and re-quoted in various places. You are saying something that is simply not held by the source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with Protoculture Addicts being considered a reliable source in general, but there is some concern that the translation may not be accurate, and is introducing errors (some of which could count as breachs of the BLP policy). There is no evidence the translation has been confirmed with the subject as being accurate, we don't know how the translation was carried out or what level of skill the translator had. We should err on the side of caution and discount the Protoculture Addicts article and any content referenced to it in this case. Hope that helps everybody. Nick (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If we were to take that objection seriously, almost no source containing a translation would be usable, because sources containing translations normally don't say "and by the way, we checked this with the subject, and by the way, our translator has a high level of skill".

If the source is generally reliable, and you have no reason to think it's specifically unreliable with respect to translations, then it should also be considered reliable for translations. Otherwise you could object to anything: "sure the source says that the building is 500 feet tall, but we don't know if the building measurer had a high level of skill". Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Uninvited editor trying to parse this: Am I correct in reading that some editors, or at least User:ChrisGualtieri, has access to the original source? And that he is saying there are errors in this particular English translation? Well, if there is at least some access to the original, then that should be used rather than what appears to be a possibly shoddy translation. Protoculture Addicts may be an RS in general, but a short, poorly written editorial with possible translation issues is a lot to hang a potentially controversial comment by a BLP on. Gamaliel (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The faithful translation is the best that I have from the original document spanning six pages and starting on page 10. I've been trying to track down the original, but it was referenced in the July publication for which I have the text (no scans) and the June Animage text (no scans either). Of the precious few scans I do have, most are from postings on sites like Evageeks. I've pondered asking Newtype for a copy, but they don't want a gaijin like me writing to them. And unless I can provide the Japanese text at minimum, I'd say keep it out until it can be verified in its native language. Japanese is merciless to online translation systems and foreigners in general. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

To sum it up, ChrisGualtieri does not have access to the original Japanese source. He is basing his remarks on an English fan-translation self-published on this fansite (what he calls the "faithful translation"), which is itself a translation of an older French fan-translation of the interview found on the net and of unidentified author. I agree with Ken Arromdee that if Protoculture Addicts is regarded as a reliable source for its anime coverage, which includes a lot of translations and direct interviews with Japanese authors, and the only objection to the editorial is based on a so-called difference with unreliable sources, then it is absurd to claim this editorial would not be reliable. I agree that possible translation issues must be taken into account, but we are also supposed to weigh the seriousness of the objection, and in that case there is none.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

So after reading this it seems the alleged problems with the translation may only be speculative. But I still have concerns about pulling out controversial quotes from a shoddy editorial, no matter how reliable PA is in general. Is there no other source for similar comments? Why must these particular comments be used? If they are so important, why is there not more coverage of these comments? Neon Genesis Evangelion isn't obscure, so there must be coverage elsewhere. Gamaliel (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

NGE sure isn't obscure, but untranslated Japanese interviews from 1996 are more likely to be. The official English version of Newtype didn't appear until 2002 and didn't delve into the Japanese version's backlog. Back then, when animation was still a niche undercurrent, the only kind of publication where you could read that kind of interview was ...Protoculture Addicts. You see how ChrisGualtieri tells us it is almost impossible now for non-Japanese to get Newtype back issues. The only other publication with mention of this particular interview and comments was Neon Genesis Evangelion: The Unofficial Guide by Kasuhisa Fujie & Martin Foster.

Now, to tell the truth, this isn't an issue of translation at all. I believe that ChrisGualtieri, in good faith, has initially misread my edit in the article, the PA editorial, and the fan translation, and got confused along the way. He clings to an interpretation that my edit and the PA editorial would say that Anno qualified fan criticism as toilet graffiti. But that is just not what the editorial and my edit say anyway.

Please read the editorial (relevant part quoted):

he made some interesting comments about the internet fans who excessively criticized the show.

"I think the people who are very much involved with the Net," Mr. Anno said, "have very narrow views toward life and the world. They're always in their rooms and don't go out very often to communicate in person. Because of their information on the Net, they feel they know everything without searching the real truths." They easily and anonymously say things that they would never say in person. "Their messages are like graffiti in a public toilet." They attack other while they are staying in a safe place. "They don't have anything certain to hold on... that's probably why they watch anime shows. (...) I would like to add and say to those fans, hey, go out and visit towns. I am 35 now and I am realizing the importance of human contact little by little..."

Now my last edit: "in response to excessive criticism and gratuitous attacks from anonymous fans on the internet, he made controversial comments in a Newtype interview in June 1996, in which he compared offensive and anonymous online messages to "graffiti in a public toilet". Anno concluded on the remark that some fans on message board "don't have anything certain to hold on" and advised them to "go out and visit towns"

And for reference, here is the relevant part of the fan-translation Chris refers to:

The 26th episode that some diehard fans rejected…sure, it’s true that some fans were frustrated by the absence of continuity with the original story. But on the Internet, among other things, we have read some very scathing criticisms.But this too is a fact: [other] viewers who watched the last episode (which registered audience records) have exclaimed to themselves, "Evangelion is truly brilliant!"

"Among the people who use the Internet, many are obtuse. Because they are locked in their rooms, they hang on to that vision which is spreading across the world."

What you should know so as not to take anime fans for idiots

"But this does not go beyond mere "data". Data without analysis [thinking], which makes you think that you know everything. This complacency is nothing but a trap. Moreover, the sense of values that counters this notion is paralyzed by it. And so we arrive at demagogy.

For example, someone mentions my name, saying, "Anno is dead".5 If that person were next to me, perhaps I might hit them. On the message boards [Internet] someone can still make a rebuttal, but this remains at the standard of toilet graffiti. One does not need to sign it. It quietly arrives directly at your door. It’s so convenient that careless people use it without remorse, without stopping [for consideration]. Obviously, not all Internet users are not like that. But as it is very difficult to find honest people [in it], I simply don’t have the freedom to devote time to it. I just want to say "come back to real life [réalité] and get to know the world". For example, when it was decided to redo episodes 25 and 26, the news spread quickly from Gainax’s server across the Internet. If we had not set the tone, completely outlandish rumors would have emerged. But by revealing the information, plenty of incoherent statements like "they make it for the money" were thrown in our faces.

I realized my own hypocrisy when I let myself be convinced that, not knowing our financial situation, this kind of talk was only fair. Whatever they say, I do not think you can see other negatives in Evangelion! (Laughter) By not paying attention to childish ideas which they are subjected to, we take the anime-fans for being stupid. They do not leave their [comfortable little] world. They feel safe. They have nothing solid in themselves on which to rely.

That’s why I tried to go to the rescue of Japanese animation. I do not say, like [Shuji] Terayama, to "throw away your books and flee the city", but to go to town and meet people. Why can I say that? Well, I noticed what I was missing for me, in my heart. For twenty-one years I have been an anime-fan, and now, thirty-five years old, I notice with sorrow: I’m nothing but an honest fool (laughs)."

We can always discuss whether this is relevant or necessary for the article, and for the sake of compromise I'm ready to drop it altogether. But the real issue here is that ChrisGualtieri's good faith enthusiasm prevented him to take the time to carefully read my edit and what it was based on. And rather than questioning himself, Chris chose to blame the PA editorial for an absurd problem that doesn't even exist. This is not the first time Chris gets confused over some text interpretation (see here) and I'm not ready to see a reputable publication that can provide extremely valuable content for dozens of other articles (because they were the only ones translating this stuff) be labelled as "shoddy" and "unreliable" just because of a communication issue between Chris and me that's been blown out of proportion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Oi, again with the bringing up of the mud to sling around like your prose is picture perfect. Clearly, the topic moved to the "Anno is dead" reports, if next to him, he may strike you (from my translation of the French), but online they are safe and its like "toilet graffiti" where you don't even need to sign it for it to arrive at your feet! This is not criticism of the show, this is people being insulting and sending death threats and spreading rumors of his suicide for making that ending. There is a fine difference between their criticism being "toilet graffiti" and the people who spread news of his impending/self-imposed death! Combining the two and adding a quote which is not that accurate is my concern because it is not accurate. We disagreed over the definition of religious symbolism versus theme and meaning. Let's sum this up rather simply; the last dispute was over "it had no particular meaning", but four sources disagreed including the creator who said, "Evangelion also includes a "salvation-like" story, but it’s not true salvation. It was a work where, thinking about the destination of mankind, I began by borrowing elements from Christianity." So it had a meaning to build the salvation-like story owing to the title "Gospel of a New Century", you can debate the prose all you want, but I'm not the one with the Bible in hand asking questions about it to be accurate about such depictions and the Biblical stories which are so well represented that the entire backstory consists of Adam and Lilith right down to Eve (Eva) being made of Adam with the Fruit of Life and Fruit of Knowledge being path to god and Humanity. More and more similarities exist, the work uses such texts to draft the story, but this is not a sponsored production from the Catholic Church and it carries no religious message, but it does present a religious meaning in humanity's search and desire to become, reunite and find God. Let's not quibble over nuance and word choice forever, it's over and done with - better out than left in wrong. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If anyone needed a proof of Chris' communication issue, here it is, full force. He still insists that "criticism" is being compared to "toilet graffiti", while my edit states "he compared offensive and anonymous online messages to "graffiti in a public toilet"." How can anyone read "offensive and anonymous online messages" and understand "criticism" is beyond me. Neither my edit nor Protoculture Addicts portrays "criticism" as "toilet graffiti". Clearly this is not an issue of translation here, at least not as far as Protoculture Addicts is concerned, but of ChrisGualtieri not reading comments properly.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your terrible prose has a number of issues that not only compound problems, but is confusing and inaccurate. Your words at ultimate removal were, "and in response to excessive criticism and gratuitous attacks from anonymous fans on the internet, he made controversial comments in a Newtype interview in June 1996, in which he compared offensive and anonymous online messages to "graffiti in a public toilet". Anno concluded on the remark that some fans on message board "don't have anything certain to hold on" and advised them to "go out and visit towns"" Asides the run-on sentence, misquoting, a missing period, you have made an improper cause and effect and synthed something out of context. First, he didn't do the interview to response to controversial comments as you suggest. Second, the "controversial comments" are more about the personal attacks he received and not the criticism as can be interpreted. Third you lack the context of these messages, avoiding the subject of death threats or claims of his suicide which were widespread, this not "gratuitous attacks" this is people telling him that they are going to kill him and/or tell him to commit suicide for the ending of Evangelion. Some of these messages were added to the film itself including the vandalism of the company. The response was to those messages and is not relevant for discussion of the article, at all. The "some fans on message board" is not even proper and the quotes make no sense either and given the reality of the messages received were often directly sent. Given that the Protoculture editorial is rife with grammatical and spelling errors, I really wonder about the accuracy of this terrible translation, even the unquoted segments suffer grammatically, like "They attack other while they are staying in a safe place." Talk about some good prose. Say what you want, but the insertion was a problem and means little, this one interview out of the dozens that I have is also the one interview that I cannot get the original text for. The magazine may be exceedingly rare outside of Japan, but that is to be expected and unless you want to pay 700 yen + international shipping for it, I think we should not use something that no one can provide the original text for. Nick was correct; this way I can't screw up the quote by taking from the unofficial French translation and you can't use this questionable paragraph in PA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"First, he didn't do the interview to response to controversial comments as you suggest." I could play your game and tell you that "reponse" is a noun, and in English, the particle "to" is used to introduce a verb, "respond" in this case. I could throw your personal attacks back in your face, but there are more important things to deal with.

No, I don't suggest Anno did the interview to responD to controversial comments. During the interview, Anno was questioned on harsh criticism from online fans, and in his response to that specific question from the interviewer, he made the comments quoted. Hence, "in response to excessive criticism and gratuitous attacks from anonymous fans on the internet, he made controversial comments". How you can read "...he made an interview with Newtype" instead is a complete mystery.

"Second, the "controversial comments" are more about the personal attacks he received and not the criticism", and I agree. That why I say "he compared offensive and anonymous online messages to "graffiti in a public toilet"". "Criticism" is not mentioned in this sentence.

"this not "gratuitous attacks" this is people telling him that they are going to kill him and/or tell him to commit suicide for the ending of Evangelion." So yes, in English you can call that "gratuitous attacks". There is no context lacking.

"The response was to those messages" That's exactly what PA and I are saying.

"The "some fans on message board" is not even proper" Please explain how.

"and the quotes make no sense either and given the reality of the messages received were often directly sent." this whole sentence of yours doesn't make sense.

So we agree that the PA editorial is accurate, and so is my edit.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I made no personal attack and I think its time to drop the stick. No one cares to debate moot points anymore. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As long as you drop accusations of the PA editorial being "libel", "defamation", "mistranslated", and refocus on my wording being ambiguous, I can accept to drop the stick as far as the RSN is concerned. A dispute resolution process is however inevitable. And you made personal attacks.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This issue is really exacerbated by the poor communication between the two of you. It's very difficult for an uninvolved editor to follow. I'd encourage both of you to cut down on extraneous prose and try to boil things down to essential bullet points.

I understand the difficulty of finding sources that you describe. I was in comics fandom in the 90s and it's difficult to cite even widely-known facts because the reliable sources of the day haven't made it on to the internet yet because nobody's scanning old issues of TCJ or CBG en masse. Even so, we have to go with the sources we do have, and I don't think PA establishes what you say it does in this edit. The source doesn't establish that Anno's comments were "controversial", only that Pelletier disagreed with them. Nor do I think the source establishes a characterization of "gratuitous" or "excessive".

The translation issue is something of a red herring, but still, what remains here is the fact that we're presenting something as an accurate and exact quote that was read from a magazine in one language by one person and spoken to another, who is now recounting it in a different language. Translation aside, that's also an accuracy and BLP issue. Gamaliel (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

My latest edit was this one, not the one you refer to here. I acknowledge there might have been issues with my wording before, but I tried to address it as best as I could given what we have in PA.

As for "controversial", NGE The unofficial Guide seems to establish that, but it's true I had not used it in my edit.

"excessive" is straight from Pelletier's summarization, and "gratuitous" is my rewording of "easily and anonymously".

I understand accuracy and BLP issue, and if this is an issue of wording on my part, as the latest comments tend to show it, then I have no problem discussing further rewording, which is a matter of regular editing and not of source reliability, or "libel" or any other fantastic accusation. PA's reliability has not been fundamentally questioned and you pretty much agree this is more of a communication issue than anything else, so I'm leaving it at that as far as RSN is concerned. We have 2 sources for the graffiti quote, and even a 3rd (though it can't be used in the article) to at least have a level of certainty, between users, that PA did not make it up. Further discussion as to how paraphrase it accurately in the article, or whether it really needs to be used, can always happen at the article's talk page, but the source itself is fine and that's what I wanted to establish. PA does not state anywhere that Anno has equated "criticism" with "toilet graffiti", and whether ChrisGualtieri is ready to acknowledge that fact is a communication/behavior issue that, if persistent, can be dealt with at other forums.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, i don't think PA made anything up, I'm just concerned about presenting something as an exact quote that might not be quite exact. I'd be more comfortable with paraphrasing and only quoting select phrases. Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

hellokpop

Would hellokpop.com be considered a reliable source? While it isn't a blog or a simple fan-forum, and has a staff [62], the staff is comprised of volunteers, which is why felt that I should ask about it here. The website does have an application process, [63] so it doesn't seem that just anyone can work for it, and they claim to have been referenced by several esteemed publications, such as The New York Times and Wired. --Jpcase (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a tough call. Maybe I'm misreading it, but the first two sections at their disclaimer page don't inspire confidence.The wording isn't clear, but it appears to be saying that their articles are based on sources that may or may not be reliable. In a sense, that's true of a lot of sites, so it may be that they're just being overly cautious in the disclaimers. Still, a reputable site will expect its writers to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources, and expect its editors (of which hellokpop apparently has several) to verify content before it's published. Rivertorch (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Can Mobile Reference be considered a Reliable Source

I noticed that the Emirate of Granada article did not have a lot of references for historical facts presented in the article. I added this one: Google Books. After I added it I looked up the book publisher: Mobile Reference. http://www.mobilereference.com/. I noticed that it is from a company that publishes travel information to mobile devices. Is this a valid reference. While it is in Google Books, it seems like it might be a mobile app or something. I welcome opinions on this. Thanks Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not a valid source. If you scroll down to the last page of the e-book, you will note that it uses Wikipedia as a primary source for information. That means that it is essentially a Wikipedia scrape, and therefore not usable as a source. You should find something else as a reference; it is possible that a related article on Wikipedia has a valid citation to a reliable source, which be a good starting point. Horologium (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I feel dumb. I didn't look at that. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that's sorted :) Just for information, finding a book on Google Books is no evidence of reliability. Andrew Dalby 09:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You have to be careful with Google Books searches. Most of the obvious WP scrapes say so up front, but there are some other publishers like Lulu and iUniverse that are completely self published and have no editorial control. To be honest, you can sometimes tell why they're self published by the quality of the writing. ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

traveltrends.biz

Can I get consensus on whether or not articles (not comments) on this website are reliable? Their about page states that they are owned by "Bluewater Press" and written by "Martin Kelly", but I don't know them from a hole in the ground and have no idea what his credentials are on this topic. The main reason for questioning this is to try and de-puffery STA Travel, a recently created article, with some criticism grounded in reality, and their article here was the top hit in a Google News search on the company. I don't want to do it, though, if this is just one non-notable person's rant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The article you mentioned is unreliable gossip published in an SPS form. While this forum may change its nature later, at the moment it is SPS. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Is Russian Wikipedia a reliable source?

Sorry to ask a question I think I already know the answer to, but an editor has been repeatedly overwriting parts or all of the article Mark Feygin with an unsourced version from the Russian Wikipedia. Am I correct in stating there that Russian Wikipedia is not in itself a reliable source, but that independent secondary sources should be provided? An outside opinion would be appreciated to help move the discussion forward. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the Russian-language Wikipedia, like this one, is not a reliable source for our purposes. If there's a sound article in the Russian Wikipedia, then it should have reliable sources to draw on. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but an extra comment: Translations from other language wikipedias are pretty common as a starting point and I guess it worth remarking that this in itself is not bad. Like with all edits, it is once that editors express reasonable doubt that demonstration becomes necessary that things can be verified in reliable sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

England

Are the sources cited in the subsection "England" here reliable for the statement made in that subsection? Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

They are. But whether or not the text should be included is another matter. TFD (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that Roscelese's objection is that information that (to me, at least) certainly falls into the category of the "Catholic Church and abortion" somehow doesn't fit the topic. It would seem that she now thinks the topic is only supposed to involve conflicts within the Catholic Church over abortion. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've already explained repeatedly to Esoglou that a) the event's lack of relevance to Catholicism or the Catholic Church is the primary reason it doesn't belong, with the poor quality of the sources a secondary concern, and b) that there is a range in source quality and "not outright fabricating something" is not the only standard that needs to be met. This WP:IDHT is very childish. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TFD's comment. Unfortunately, this had to be got out of the way first. It is indeed regrettable that a posting here was needed to get acceptance of something so obvious as the reliability of the cited sources for their report on the Church's declaration. Discussion on inclusion of the declaration can now follow. Esoglou (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody said that the sources were unreliable in the sense that they had possibly fabricated the statement, your claim that you've somehow achieved any kind of consensus here is annoying and tendentious. Please stop, and discuss the points people have actually made as though you were a productive editor. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

TFD has clearly stated that "the sources cited in the subsection 'England'" in the article are "reliable for the statement made in that subsection". Nobody has contradicted him, at least not explicitly. You have remarked that there is a range of source quality, but have not said he is mistaken in judging that the sources reach at least the necessary minimum level of quality. You say that nobody said that the sources were unreliable in a certain sense, but again have refrained from stating your own view on their reliability for what they say. Do you contradict TFD's statement, which I support? If you do, please say explicitly that you hold that the cited sources are not reliable for what they state. We could then see whether the view you will be the first to express gets gets support from other editors. This noticeboard is about reliability of sources. It is not the place to discuss claims that there is no relevancy for the Catholic Church in its own public protest against the impunity that enables doctors to break the law by accepting to perform forbidden abortions (!) We can discuss points like that elsewhere. Esoglou (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You're making yourself look like a fool and I can't help feeling second-hand embarrassment just from being in this conversation. Please stop humiliating yourself and stick to the topic: whether a self-published statement of someone's opinion on an unrelated event justifies inclusion of that event in an article. Nobody has stated that the sources don't support the statement, although if you do think that these niche opinion-based sources have a habit of fabricating material, that would be a good thing to consider before you use them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That the cited sources are reliable for the statement based on them is the only view that has been expressed here. Not even Roscelese has denied their reliability. This noticeboard is not the place to discuss the topic of whether what these reliable sources say should be included in the article. Esoglou (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Is an abstract of an unpubished paper referring to a conference delivery a reliable source? Subject Khazars and genetics

At Khazars, an editor has introduced a large amount of material from this source. The scholars are all notable, and the paper will be published shortly. But in 7 years, I have never seen anything like this kind of snippet, prepress, pre-peer reviewed, allowed to warrant any addition to a text. One simply cannot yet access the unpublished paper's contents. The board gave a thumbs down to a similar problem, with a preprint of a genetic paper on Khazars here, and I think the same principle applies. This looks like impatience for pushing in the results you want to read overriding the cautions of the wiki rulebook to me.Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a primary source and therefore the issue is WP:WEIGHT. What degree of acceptance has the paper received? That can only be established through secondary sources. TFD (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The paper looks reasonable, but it should not be cited before it is properly published, and even then it's only a single study that should not be overblown. But no, it's not a primary source (by reasonable definition of "primary"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It is primary, it says, "Here, we assemble the largest sample set available to date for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins...." It reports its authors research and findings. TFD (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No. An unpublished abstract from a conference meeting is not a reliable source, and agree with TFD that it is a primary source. Arzel (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I was not informed about this, although I think I should be. All the genetic studies mentioned in Khazars article comes from primary source. This is especially true for Elhaik. However, here is not as it was called an "unpublished abstract from a conference meeting" but a genetic study presented by highly respected American Society of Human Genetics--Tritomex (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In many areas of study research articles, which some people consider primary sources, are the only decent sources. But this is a good example of why the primary/secondary distinction is not always useful. So I don't think we should get hung up on that term.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice of a paper to be presented at a conference is not reliable publication of the paper. Since this is not a behavioral noticeboard, I won't say more, but it sure is tempting. Zero^talk 07:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to add to this, conference presentations themselves should never be accepted as reliable sources, since usually only the abstract is "peer reviewed" (and that itself may be a fairly light process). I would only consider a conference paper acceptable if it appeared in a conference proceedings, and then only under the WP:PRIMARY restrictions. There are a few other exceptions; if, for example, the presentation was itself a sort-of "review" article, in that it wasn't presenting novel results but just summarizing those that had already been published. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Technically it is graded as a 'poster' not a paper, i.e. an announcement of results that the broad scientific community has not yet had an opportunity to examine. Tritomex. You haven't even taken the care to notice that that page was sourced most rigorously, excluding anything that did not pass a very high bar. I made a compromise, while I think breaks the rules, by retaining mention of it (given the profile of the scholars it will certainly be published within several months). But as it stands, we have (a) no mention of the journal where it is to be published (b) no knowledge of the eventual publication date. I see an edit war has broken out on this, despite near unanimity here. Tritomex. The way you did that violates not only RS. Please do not persist against a majority of independent peers, esp. when I have myself reached out to find a minimal accommodation for citing at least the poster, even though this is definitely not acceptable at the moment on the page, particularly one written according to extremely rigorous principles of RS. This is a matter of waiting a few months, as with the Elhaik paper, as as User:Jayjg also noted on the Khazar page on that occasion, such preprints are too early to allow incorporation.('Elhaik wrote something considerably more complex than that, but in any event his study was neither published nor peer reviewed, so we can't use it. arXiv is a an archive for preprints of articles. If it's published in a peer-reviewed journal, then we can re-visit what it says at that time. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC) )Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to add that user Zeero000, is not uninvolved editor, he has been involved in at least 20 content dispute with me (all content dispute I had) including on this same question. --Tritomex (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It's OK to mention that, but it doesn't affect this case one way or the other. A conference pre-print or a pre-conference abstract certainly can't be treated as a reliable factual source. Normally, the conference itself (i.e. reactions by other scientists) will be the first stage of peer review; the second stage is the submission and evaluation of a final text after the conference. Before the conference there is little if any peer review.

I would add that the dispute about primary vs. secondary doesn't seem really relevant to me. If and when the conference paper is published, it's just like any other academic/scientific article from that point onwards: a typical secondary source. Such academic articles are "primary" to Wikipedia only in the sense that they tell us what sources of information the author used and what the author thought, but those things only matter to Wikipedia if we're writing the author's biography. Andrew Dalby 09:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I just want to agree with those that are pointing out that a paper given at a conference is not a reliable source for us. We've discussed this before, maybe it needs to be in WP:RS. I agree with Andrew, the primary vc secondary issue isn't relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This differs very much by field. In computer science, conference papers (at real conferences, not things called "World Multiconference on X" ;-) undergo full peer review, are usually published by recognised academic publishers (e.g. in the Springer LNCS series), and are often the primary (as in "most important", not WP:PSTS sense) line of publication. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was oversimplifying. I'm still a bit dubious about material that hasn't been published, whatever the status of the conference. And we need to be able to see the entire paper, not an abstract. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we are in violent agreement about that issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

[64] I just found out that the material was already under per review "All accepted abstracts will be published in the ASHG 2013 Meeting Program and cannot be withdrawn from publication after June 6 (even at the request of the author and/or principal investigator). Abstracts not withdrawn by June 6 will be reviewed and programmed by members of the Program Committee. Abstract Publication Abstracts selected for presentation will be available on the 2013 meeting Web site in late August and are published online." Also see "How to Cite Abstracts" --Tritomex (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if the conference has no full papers, only abstracts (of the talk). In that case, at best the abstract is published. Meaningful peer review is not possible on the abstract only - the review by the program committee will not involve full evaluation, it will just filter out obvious crap and off-topic presentations, and maybe select contribution based on significance and variety to create a balanced conference program. I'm reasonably sure the authors will also submit the paper to a journal, maybe after receiving feedback via the conference. You may have to wait for that (typically a few months). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephan Here is additional prove: "Review of Abstracts. All abstracts are reviewed by at least one 2013 Program Committee member and two ad hoc reviewers. The reviewing process is strictly confidential. The Program Committee reviews all abstracts submitted for presentation and determines whether an abstract is suitable for platform or poster presentation. The Program Committee reserves the right to decline a presentation to any submitted abstracts that lack scientific content or merit, or merely announce the availability of a resource or service...Abstract Publication Abstracts selected for presentation will be available on the 2013 meeting Web site in late August and are published online. " [65]

That doesn't contradict what Stephan wrote. All it means is that it's ok for platform or poster presentation, as it says. This is pretty standard for conferences and does the filtering Stephan mentions. It doesn't mean that there is a paper, or indeed anything, that has passed peer review. In fact, it's possible that any paper that comes out of the conference will be different in significant ways. You'll have to wait for that. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It is accepted for a poster session only. There is no indication in the guidelines that anyone on the program committee looked at more than the 330 word abstract. Calling this "peer review" is preposterous. In fact it doesn't mean that a full paper even exists yet (though it might). It is pretty hard to take this all seriously, especially from someone who argued for ages against reporting on Elhaik's paper after it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Zero^talk 13:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'd hesitate to give a blanket ruling on all such cases, which seems to be how you've stated the question and how some have answered it. In some fields abstracts from a conference might be widely cited and at least a bit pre-checked. And in certain contexts I've seen it widely accepted that certain types of things can be cited from snippets or abstracts. But there are certainly several warning signs here, and so then the another question is whether this is being used to source something surprising or something uncontroversial. I also try to keep in mind a principle that we should be cautious of trying to be "cutting edge" in research, which is not really what encyclopedias do. We could just wait?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

As it is written in American Society of Human genetics website all abstracts are reviewed by Program Committee members before being published at ASHG website (august 2013). Also, changes to the papers are restricted to before June 6th (and of course before being officially published by ASHG website) . I myself can not be a reason for accepting/rejecting this genetic study into Wikipedia (already accepted by American Society of Human Genetics and reviewed by its appointed official committee members ) and my arguments regarding Elhaik papers were totally unrelated to the origin of its publisher.--Tritomex (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course we should wait, as Steven says. I would say 90% of what I read of in the I/P area I judge important (NGO on-site observer reports), but I never use it on principle, because the status of the source would only give rise to bickering or is generally not good in wikipedia's terms. One simply withholds one's material until it is reliably sourced beyond challenge(and that rarely happens). The curse of this place is impatience, which is usually a sign of wanting to get something one personally approves of in, or disapproves of, out. Eran Elhaik's preprint was in a much greater stage of advance in publication when objections immediately arose precisely of this kind. Tritomex even opposed its use after full publication (because its conclusions were wrong!), while here he proposes using a source that is pre-prepublication (because its conclusions are right). I'll race you, Tritomex or anyone to get this paper into Khazars (and other articles) as soon as it comes online, published by any of the usual human genome journals. Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

More importantly to me, as main drafter of the page, is the aesthetics. We can't give a link, we can't give the publication year, or the journal in which it will appear. It violates the template norm established for an article that tries to approximate GA level standards. Worse still, whereas all other genetic papers cited, pro (very few) or con (many), are given extremely brief, succinct and collective notice (per WP:Undue, since this stuff has little to do with the Khazars, except as a minor historical theory), and Tritomex added virtually half of the abstract conclusions to it, making a complete mess of that studied brevity and neutrality of the section. Its weighting more or less reads:'Yeah, yeah . . but this is the truth, just published' (the conclusion happens to be what Tritomex believes. I personally don't believe anything either way on this issue).Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a pre-print and not a self published study, but a study published by highly respected genetic institution, the American Society of Human Genetics.It is not an anonymous PDF file but a study already reviewed by specially appointed experts, committee members of American Society of Human Genetics. To quote Stephen "It looks as if the conference has no full papers, only abstracts (of the talk). In that case, at best the abstract is published."---Tritomex (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the study is not published. The abstract is. A core requirement for a scientific publication is reproducibility of the results. The abstract does not have enough data for meaningful replication. It's possible to cite the abstract, but WP:WEIGHT makes it very hard to do more than at most mention it in passing. As I said, be patient. The authors are recognised scholars, and, from the home page of the first author, he routinely publishes similar results on different populations in academic journals. Chances are excellent that this will happen here, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It's possible to cite the abstract, but WP:WEIGHT makes it very hard to do more than at most mention it in passing.

Thanks, Stephan. Despite my general reservations, that is precisely how I made my call in this edit, which Tritomex, refusing a compromise, immediately reverted. I will withhold rereverting for several hours, just in case the strong consensus that Tritomex's use of it is inappropriate at the moment changes. But I hope that he accepts that when there seems to be a solid third party consensus, one is not entitled to persist in reverting to one's personal preferred version. This is a collaborative venture.Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The abstract was published but not the whole paper. We cannot give the abstract the same weight was a whole paper. A substantial quote from the abstract is too much weight. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In every field, academics pursue research through experiments, surverys and reinterpretation of existing data. Other scholars then examine their methology, and attempt to replicate their research, or in some cases totally ignore them. A consensus then emerges whether the findings become the new consensus, are accepted as a majority or valid minority view or are relegated to the fringe. At that point WP:WEIGHT kicks in and we can decide how the findings should be presented or if they should be ignored. Until other scholars have commented on this research however no weight can be established. TFD (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Having been on several abstract reviews for conference proceedings I have to say that the peer review process for an abstract is not at all like the peer review process for an actual paper to be published in a journal. Arzel (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless it is written by the authors of the paper and is therefore rs for what they said, "Our findings support the Khazarian Hypothesis", which is what the disputed edit says.[66] The only objection can be weight. TFD (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong edit, wrong year, wrong paper (and, apparently, a real paper, not a bare abstract). The source currently under discussion comes to the opposite conclusion - it "does not support the hypothesis of a significant contribution of the elusive Khazars into the gene pool of the Ashkenazi Jews." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank You for your suggestions: So is there a support (from uninvolved editors) for proposal to add following sentence (until the paper is published in journal) to Khazars page: A New genetic study presented in September 2013 found no support for the hypothesis of a significant contribution of the elusive Khazars into the gene pool of the Ashkenazi Jews."--Tritomex (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Not from me, if the citation is to a pre-conference abstract. I gave my view above. When the results appear in a peer-reviewed article or book, that's the time to cite them. Andrew Dalby 07:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, that is a gross distortion of the discussion, where outside input has suggested )(a) don't use the poster ((Zero),Qwyrxian; Arzel; Dougweller (b)unless it is weighted according to secondary source support (TFD,Andrew Dalby (=a); 'it should not be cited before it is properly published,'(Stephan Schulz ); (c)we should wait (Andrew Lancaster=b ); (d) mention only in passing ((Stephan Schulz),Binksternet.

The majority are against using it until it is either published in a journal, or (higher bar) referred to in secondary texts, and do not think the poster is in conformity with RS standards. They advise patience. I made a decent compromise which ignores this general scepticism, and wrote 'or not significant'+poster source, notwithstanding the fact that the new paper's results conform to the other thumbs-.down sources in the lead (with the unique difference that, this paper, like Elhaik's, uses proxies for the Khazars). Notwithstanding this you read this as a chance to expand the already generous terms I offered. It is POV pushing. Were I a precisian, I would be technically in my rights, on the basis of these varied comments, to cancel all mention of the text, until it is published. I gave you an inch, you want two thirds of a yard.Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, I don't mean to sound mean here, but there cannot be any "compromise" here. A paper that has not been published is not a reliable source. I have to say that the idea above that we could cite it strictly as verifying the author's opinions is likewise not acceptable, because technically until it is published in a paper, it's not really their "official" (in a scientific sense) opinion. And, like Arzel, I've also been involved directly and indirectly with the conference review process, and, as already stated, papers can get presented on conferences based on nothing other than an abstract, and, sometimes, nothing other than a title plus the author's names. Finally, the notion that we would ever cite an abstract (not a published paper) is likewise a very poor idea, in that abstracts simply do not capture the subtle details, which are often quite important. All an abstract is supposed to do is to give enough info so that other researchers know whether or not the article is sufficiently relevant to their life that it's worth reading. Yes, it's better than, say, a trailer for a movie in that it does usually "give away" the "ending", but not much better. Tritomex, my position, at least, which I believe is wholly consistent with WP:RS and WP:V, is that you cannot ever use an unpublished paper (which is what a conference paper is) as a source in a Wikipedia article. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I made it clear from my original edit summary that in my reading of WP:RS, this should simply not be cited for the moment. I knew Tritomex would read my partial revert as motivated, not by editorial scruple, by some obscure ideological or antisemitic or POV-angling prejudice that undermined the origin of the Jewish connection to Israel. That is how, unfortunately, he reads every edit I do, and almost automatically reverts whatever I do to a page he is interested in. As a published scholar (in retirement) I'm quite familiar with the peer-review processes, but I also contacted geneticists who gave me exactly the analysis you and others have given. Without meaning to be personal, my experience told me however that Tritomex's reappearance on that page meant battles, edit-warring, and walls of talk page argument mainly based on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I thought once of revising Ashkenazi Jews, and I had to abandon the page through sheer exhaustion. I don't report people on principle. At the same time, there is a limit to what I can stand when editors talk past everything to get their way. I am only one editor, and in my original edit summary, I said explicitly what the board has now confirmed, and esp. what you stress, namely No, Tritomex. This is (a) violating of summary style, WP:Undue (b) an abstract of an unpublished paper is not RS (c) one must be patient, as one was with Elhaik (d) I've put a footnote, but, strictly speaking, this is against the rules. A compromise. This compromise can be accepted by Tritomex (he didn't though it was his best bet) or rejected by other editors who, hewing closely the RS rules, could reject it, and remove the source. The 'compromise' I suggested is against the rules, as is now clear, but its function was to signal to Tritomex that I, for one, have absolutely no ideological antagonism to including of a scholarly nature anything that undermines the Ashkenazi-Khazar hypothesis. Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I can not say I am uninvolved, but I do know that Nishidani is right that in past cases like this Tritomex you have taken the opposite position. I do think the article will be an interesting one and almost certainly worth citing when it comes out, if nothing else because of the author list. But I think even if the abstract seems clear now, there is too much chance that the eventual published title and abstract will be different. The words you are most interested in are PRECISELY the types of ones which might be allowed more easily in a congress, but neutralized a bit in a final paper.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. This is not peer reviewed and only when the final paper is published can we consider using it. Consider using it. Not all peer reviewed papers are equal, and there are editors who believe that we should wait to see what other professionals say about a paper before using it, although I think this should be decided case by case. What I do feel strongly about is that an editor must have read the entire paper before adding text sourced to the paper, abstracts are never good enough. In fact, we've had heated debates over whether abstracts should be used at all. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

We should be careful of abstracts, but I think a blanket ban of citing abstracts is probably un-called for. More controversially, I think we can not apply the standard of waiting for a "field" to come to a consensus first. This simply won't work for many fields, and the idea can lead to some very twisted and strange articles and strange debates in those fields. But both of these points are not really important here where the abstract itself is not final.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Doug, for another reason. We are, really, supposed to be writing to encyclopedic standards. People who have been commissioned to write articles know well that it is presumed (obligatory) that you master the sources, and are not using hearsay or thin hints. Esp. in citing technical papers, the tendency is to cite the abstract, and not read past it (much as editors generally prefer in controversial area to edit the lead, without reading the whole article- a source of endless problems). Abstracts can be deceptive. Much of the earlier page consisted of selective use of the abstract, ignoring the details in the printed pages, as I showed when I examined all of the papers. See here. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani: just an aside but from the context I presume you are agreeing with Doug about abstracts. Concerning that point I only wanted to say that I hesitate to write blanket statements. The other point, above citing individual research papers, would mean we would end up needing to cite whatever scraps of 10 year old secondary source we can find. That would give a very distorted view in the field of human genetics. I believe there was a fairly big communal discussion about this some time back concerning this very article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew. Yep.I don't think the idea that we can only cite scientific papers through secondary sources holds. Suffice it that we have the full reports themselves (secondary sources take too much time to see the light of day). I am wary though of using newspaper reports of scientific papers as reliable secondary sources. From what I see, it's all selective spin, and we've had that crap at Khazars and elsewhere. Editors must in any case assume a responsibility not to cherrypick nice bits. It took days to read through all of the scientific papers, and correct the bias of citation one chap (or another) introduced. Doing that is a serious behavioural issue if it continues.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Not reliable, for all the reasons already cited, and the consensus is clear. In an overpoliticised field, where the science is moving forward quickly we have to keep the bar high. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Mugshots.com's page on Michael Lohan for his place of birth

Is Michael Lohan's page on mugshots.com reliable for his place of birth?

And if it is reliable, would it violate WP:BLPPRIMARY? Nightscream (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unreliable. The source takes no responsibility for its content, "MUGSHOTS.COM DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR TIMELINESS OF THE CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE. NAMES MAY BE SIMILAR OR IDENTICAL TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS. FOR LATEST CASE STATUS, CONTACT THE OFFICIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WHICH ORIGINALLY RELEASED THE DATA". There's no guarantee this source transmits any material intact, it certainly doesn't check it. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of sources on history of the Georgian alphabet?

There is a long-running dispute in the article about the Georgian alphabet regarding the history of said alphabet. See here for the "History" section of this article as it currently stands. See also here for the current talk-page discussion of the issue (the non-English name of this section, likely unreadable to most of you, is "Georgian alphabet" in Georgian). Following is a description of the issues as I currently understand them; hopefully I haven't misspoken, and I apologize in advance if I have inadvertently misrepresented anyone's arguments.

There are two primary competing hypotheses for the origin of the Georgian alphabet. One version claims that the alphabet is of indigenous origin, having been created before the Christian era, and commonly attributed to the 3rd-century-BC king Parnavaz I. The other version says the Georgian alphabet was invented around AD 400 by an Armenian scholar, Mesrop Mashtots; Mesrop (or Mesrob) is also credited with the invention of the Armenian alphabet. (Note, by the way, that although Georgia and Armenia are right next to each other, their languages are totally unrelated.)

The article currently mentions both of these hypotheses, each with several references to sources. The problem we are having is that Wikipedians favouring each version are insisting the other version's sources are unreliable — and that, by consequence, only their favoured version should be mentioned.

• The person currently championing the Armenian origin theory completely discounts the recorded accomplishments of King Parnavaz (and even the claimed existence of Parnavaz) as largely legend and refuses to accept that these legendary claims deserve any credence. The Armenian theory, on the other hand, is (so he points out) supported by numerous modern academic sources, and is in fact (as he understands) the only origin theory for the Georgian alphabet that has any currency in the scholarly community.

• Supporters of an indigenous creation of the Georgian alphabet contend that the stories of King Parnavaz are historically credible, whereas the Armenian accounts of Mesrop Mashtots are not; also, that it unreasonably strains credibility to imagine that a non-Georgian could possibly have been familiar enough with Georgian to create a workable alphabet for this language. As for the numerous modern academic sources backing an Armenian origin, it is asserted that all these sources are simply regurgitating the (suspect) Armenian claims on the subject, so these modern sources are allegedly unreliable on this issue, even though they might appear on the surface to be the kind of sources we would generally accept on Wikipedia.

There also seems to be a lot of nationalist-based accusations being flung around, but I hope any outsiders willing to investigate the matter can look past the various ad-hominems and concentrate on the question of which (if any) of the sources being used right now are sufficiently reliable to be used.

I imagine this matter will probably also have to go WP:NPOVN — to try to figure out how either or both of these two competing origin claims should be dealt with in the article — but before trying to take it to NPOVN, I think it's best to get a better idea of the reliability of the sources backing each claim. Any outside input would be welcome. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This board is good at assessing particular sources rather than in resolving disputes between sources. Could you list one or two of the best sources for each position so that we can assess them? Zero^talk 07:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A quick look around scholarly sources doesn't reveal much in the way of evidence for either theory. Page 4 of this book describes both theories as legends. In any case, since both theories are out there both should be presented in the article. Zero^talk 08:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Zero. The source that Zero cites here is (I would say) highly reliable. Since it describes both of the origin legends, we can do so too, citing this book itself if necessary. Andrew Dalby 09:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly some poor sourcing going on here. Among the sources allegedly supporting the indigenous Parnavaz version (unfortunately all cited only in Russian), probably the highest quality one is the one by Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze, who is a well-reputed historical linguist. The work exists also in an English translation uner the title Alphabetic writing and the old Georgian script (which I haven't so far been able to consult directly). However, according to this [67] summary of the state of research, Gamkrelidze wasn't in fact advocating the hypothesis in question – he proposed that Parnavaz practiced some different form of "alloglotographic" writing, not that he invented the current Georgian alphabet. All these sources need to be checked carefully in case there are more such misrepresentations. The article I just linked to (Nino Kemertelidze, "Theories of the origin of Kartuli writing") may be a decent starting point for a rewrite. It should also be checked whether the current structure of the article, strongly implying a dichotomy between just two competing hypotheses (Mashtots versus Parnavaz), might not be quite badly oversimplified. If the Kemertelidze article is anything to go by, the issues are much more multi-faceted than that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A large number of the Russian sources (notes 17-25) are too old to be useful. We have a very large number of quality sources from English academic works on this question that can easily replace them. That is the first thing that requires substitution (though contemporary Russian linguistic papers, on the cutting edge, of course should be accepted). I would advise using sources like these :-

• Nino D.Kemertelidze, 'The Georgian Tradition' in David Cram,Andrew Robert Linn,Elke Nowak (eds.) History of Linguistics, 1996: Traditions in linguistics worldwide,John Benjamins Publishing, 1999 pp.227-233 because it reviews the field, and gives each theory is due weight.
• Mzekala Shanidze,'Greek influence on Georgian linguistics,' in Sylvain Auroux (ed.),History of the Language Sciences, Walter de Gruyter, 2000 pp.444-447
• Harold Haarmann, 'The Caucasus: Scenarios of ethnic conflict and trajectories of standarization,' in Matthias Hüning,Ulrike Vogl,Olivier Moliner (eds.) Standard Languages and Multilingualism in European History, John Benjamins, 2012 pp.283-307, pp.297-300 (an easy overview but useful because it tries to stand outside the ethnic biases that influence interpretation)
• Tinatin Bolkvadze, 'Eastern-Christian tradition and the Georgian language,' in Tope Omoniyi,Joshua A. Fishman, Explorations in the Sociology of Language and Religion, John Benjamins Publishing, 2006 pp.60-67 Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for what you have come up with so far. I've looked at the above papers and find it instructive that they portray the question as more complicated than simply having to decide if the Georgian alphabet was invented by Parnavaz or by Mashtots. I also like the fact that we have scholarly treatments which discuss the competing claims; this is, after all, what we are supposed to be doing in Wikipedia (per WP:PSTS) — citing reliable secondary sources which discuss and interpret the primary sources, rather than trying to interpret the primary sources ourselves.

A comment, by the way, on the word "alloglottography" (or "alloglotography") — AFAIK, this refers to the practice of writing in a different language from the one being spoken (e.g., ancient Georgian scribes may have "written" their language by translating what they wanted to say into Aramaic, and then writing the Aramaic, and the resulting text would be translated on the fly back into Georgian for later reading). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

consultingbyrpm.com/blog -- personal blog of economist Robert Murphy

1. Source: "Free Advice: The personal blog of economist Robert P. Murphy": "In Defense of the Mises Institute" [68].
2. Article: Ludwig von Mises Institute#Criticisms
3. Content:

   Mises Scholar Robert Murphy wrote in support of the Institute's founder, Llewellyn Rockwell. He called the critics of Rothbard and Rockwell "hyenas" and defended Rockwell's refusal to respond to the controversy surrounding the racist content in the Ron Paul newsletters.[37][38] [39][40] In the opinion of former Mises Institute Scholar Gene Callahan, "I think the truly racist time at LVMI had passed by the time Bob [Murphy] and I got there" around 2001. Callahan states, "Rothbard, in the late 80s or early 90s, had decided that an appeal to racists was just the ticket for his movement. He published articles saying things like blacks weren't doing very well because they weren't so smart, got involved with Neo-Confederate causes, and so on. I think by 2000, Lew Rockwell sincerely regretted that time". Callahan rejected Robert's Murphy's denial that the Mises Institute is a cult, and compared it to Scientology.[41]

• Talkpage discussion: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Murphy blog as RS for article .28BRD.29
• Notes by OP: Footnote 37 is the Murphy blog citation. Footnotes 38–40 are about the Ron Paul newsletters. Footnote 41 is the subject of another RSN, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com. (The quoted passage is copied from screenshot of paragraph without using <ref></ref> Wiki markup so that footnote numbering does not change with subsequent edits.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite (or maybe because of) a lot of words coming from Srich, I still have no idea what his objection is. MilesMoney (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I cannot read his mind, but a frequent objection (and one widely supported at this board) is that in general a blog is not a reliable source, and that even in cases where it is accepted (e.g. for an opinion), there needs to be a good reason why a particular blog post deserves enough weight to include it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried that on, but it didn't fit. We're using Murphy's words about himself and his own organization, so it's WP:ABOUTSELF that applies here, not WP:BLOGS. Moreover, we're quoting him in support of the subject of the article, which means WP:BLP can't possibly apply. The reason we're doing this is so that we can frame Callahan's response, which would otherwise make no sense, so this is well-motivated.

I can't read his mind, either, but if that's what's on his mind then he's wasting our time again. I've been frustrated with his confusing, incompetent and counterproductive behavior on this issue, and I'm no less frustrated now. MilesMoney (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Just gonna point out that I've asked SRich to explain himself, he's made other edits to this section, but hasn't even tried to explain himself. Looks like all we're left with is mind-reading and I'm not detecting any hints of what your objection is. a whole lot to read.MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment. Please redact it per WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood it, but whatever. MilesMoney (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• PRIMARY sources are piss-poor at evaluating racism. They're entirely unsuitable to cult-studies. And they're inappropriate for the history of small controversial organisations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that the primary source isn't even quoted on the issue of cults, and we have to let them discuss racism because it would be unbalanced to let Callahan's allegations go unanswered. MilesMoney (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't interest me. The source isn't reliable for the claims it is making. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply to anything I said. Unfortunately, none of your comments show that you have a working understanding of the relevant issues so I'm not sure what to do with your opinion. MilesMoney (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me quote you in detail, "we have to let them discuss racism because it would be unbalanced to let Callahan's allegations go unanswered" We must X because WP:OTHERSTUFF. No we must not. I'm sorry but you can't backdoor shit into the encyclopaedia because someone else once did so. The source you're citing has no capacity to judge racism in the sociology of small group organisations, nor is it credible for the history of a small controversial political group. This is because it is a primary SPS. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you actually read WP:OTHERSTUFF, you find that it's not only a (non-binding) essay, it's a link to a section called "What about article x?". This argues against the idea that one article's existence should be justified -- in an article deletion discussion -- by referencing other articles.

What we're talking about isn't article deletion, nobody's making the argument that it argues against, and it's not even binding, regardless. Like I said, you don't have a working understanding of relevant issues. You're misquoting non-policy out of context to something it was never even supposed to apply to. The relevant policy is WP:BALANCE and it's on my side. MilesMoney (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFF is often mentioned in discussions about problematic edits. The analogy is that the existence of other lousy stuff/articles does not justify keeping this lousy stuff. While BALANCE is editing policy, it does not come into play until the threshold question is asked – Is the Murphy blog (or Callahan blog) acceptable RS? We cannot have two personal blogs (not acceptable RS) presented in the name of BALANCE. This is especially true when these personal blogs are talking about third parties. Also, Murphy's blog is not about "his organization" in that he has no official role in the administration or policy positions of LvMI. He teaches & has had stuff published by LvMI. (Another analogy. Fouad Ajami is a Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He's written over 400 articles about Arab & Islam issues. It would be improper to look through his publications, find interesting tid-bits, and post them in a "Views espoused by founders and organization scholars" section.) The views of the individuals, like Murphy and Callahan and others, are best confined to their particular articles. – S. Rich (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Srich The Murphy piece is RS for the content which is cited to it in the context of this article. Most of the points I stated in the Callahan thread above also apply here to Murphy. In neither thread have you made a case based on policy and content. Instead you are dressing up your opinion with inapt citations and misinterpretations of policy. Please do some background reading: [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]. Please note, per one of the links provided, it is not constructive to deploy gratuitous language such as "lousy stuff" here. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Village websites

Can a village website such as this be used as a source for statements about that particular village, sort of like WP:SELFSOURCE? (Normally I avoid using such sites, but this particular page provides a very detailed history of the village in question, with no reason to suggest it's grossly unreliable). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine for uncontroversial material. It seems very well researched, and I would expect that most of the information is drawn from sources that could be traced, so you could search for corroboration. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Citogenesis problem

Per the clever minds at (the website that shall not be named), it was discovered that reference.com is linked from ~12k articles. However, reference.com itself often hosts copies of wikipedia articles. Thus, citogenesis.

• [75]

This is a classic example: Landala - no source other than reference.com, which itself contains a copy of the article from Wikipedia.

I think we should list reference.com and (in some cases) dictionary.com as non-reliable sources (do we have a black list?) and start an effort to clean this up. What do you think? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)