What you've posted is worth pondering, but let me just make one correction. The Journal of Human Resources article did not cite a Student Pulse paper. A Student Pulse paper cited the article from the Journal of Human Resources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction noted. Here are two to take its place from the University of Surrey and News on Japan.--S. Rich (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more data: OCLC 530027535 / ISSN 2153-5760 (search info, not citations) --S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are more usages, but I'll submit WP:USEBYOTHERS has been fulfilled. Shall I continue to post (and look)?--S. Rich (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: what exactly is this? It looks like a student essay itself.

As for this, it simply seems to be a case of a news portal featuring a Student Pulse article among its links.

I'm not saying the site is totally unreliable, just that it hasn't garnered approval among any noticeable subset of the academic community. Perhaps others could also weigh in? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the links provided in this thread provide any degree of assurance that studentpulse.com has editorial oversight. In fact this link dated Sunday, May 23, 2010 says: "Dustin Turin, a student a Northestern University in Boston, founded studentpulse last year. He invites students to submit papers which are read by Turin and two other student editors." Which doesn't give me much confidence in its usage as an RS.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the writers and the editorial readers are all students, they are approximate equals and that is exactly what peer review means. Same as if submissions to a cookery magazine are read by cooks: that's peer review too. But it's not what we want in our citations ...

As for this (the link given by Biruitorul) it shows that self-publication on the grand scale is possible through Google Books. I had my fingers crossed when I said (on a thread somewhere above) that I haven't seen "spoofing or falsification" at Google Books. I hadn't, but I knew I might, and I have now: this is falsification in a way. These are made to look like books, but they don't exist as such until someone orders them. At least, that's how it appears to me. Andrew Dalby 20:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- here is a breakdown of topics presented by Student Pulse. Many of them are cross-referenced, so the overall total is much less than enumerated. A total of 183 articles are listed as "Featured Articles". This data suggests that Student Pulse limits what they present. (English & History majors may enjoy an exception!)

In any event, here are some more actual works which cite Student Pulse/Student Pulse articles:

• Dr. S. N. Deepa Yuvaraj (Anna University of Technology, Coimbatore), Student Pulse Academic Journal
• Jean-Pierre Hombach Eminem citing Student Pulse as an external link (page 316)
• Alex Jeffrey (University of Cambridge, Department of Geography), The Improvised State] citing Student Pulse as a reference (p. 193)
• Corinna Colette Vellnagel (University of Surey), Semiotics and Shock Advertisement (Essay) citing Student Pulse (p. 18)
• Jacobson, Johnson, & Lapp Effective Instruction for English Language Learners citing a Student Pulse article (p. 85)
• Elizabeth Daniels, PhD, Positive Youth Development Research (blog) citing a Student Pulse article
• William M. (Billy) Wilson Father Cry citing a Student Pulse article (ch. 3)
• Jan Leslie Holtz Applied Clinical Neuropsychology citing a Student Pulse article as a reference ISBN 978-0826104748
• Modern Art After Wwii citing a Student Pulse article (and, gasp! Wikipedia articles)
• Not sure what this is -- Annotated Bibliography
• A couple of items from www.grin.com (GRIN Verlag) are available, but I doubt GRIN published stuff would pass muster.

--S. Rich (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that for us Student Pulse articles are in a similar category to MA dissertations. If a specific SP article is cited by real academic-level sources (for example, the citation you list at "Jan Leslie Holtz" above, in a book published by Springer) then that's a sign for us the article is good enough to get into the specialist literature and is acceptable for us to cite. Without previous citations in academic sources, we shouldn't cite Student Pulse articles. Andrew Dalby 09:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor for the publication in question, I would like to thank a kind wikipedia editor for notifying me that this conversation is currently ongoing. Hopefully I can help put this discussion to bed. First, I will make several important clarifications. Student Pulse is an edited publication, with only a small portion of submissions accepted (less than 1/3). Articles are reviewed by persons with expertise relevant to the topic and appropriate to the level of the publication (this is an undergraduate and graduate student publication); reviewers are at least at the graduate level of education, either having obtained or currently pursuing a PhD. As noted above, SP does cover a broad range of topics, however it was also pointed out that the vast majority of published articles fall within the social sciences and humanities -- this is absolutely correct, and a testament to our editorial policy of only accepting material that we are confident has been appropriately reviewed.

I will make my own suggestion as to SP's fulfillment of the WP:RS requirement. Student Pulse is a relatively new publication (first full run in 2010), and given that its focus is on publishing undergraduate and graduate work, it should not be altogether surprising (or taken as a sign that SP does not meet WP:RS requirement) that SP articles have not been widely cited in the academic literature. The academic cycle is slow and long-established publications dominate most fields. On the other hand, SP articles are clearly being consumed by an academic audience, and some reputable citations are already apparent despite the obvious challenges facing any new publication. At the same time, SP articles do meet particular high standards: all are subject to editorial oversight, all are reviewed by members of the academic community, and all conform to standard academic conventions, such as the use of other high-quality sources in clearly indicated reference lists. My personal feeling is that those traits qualify Student Pulse as a reliable source. However, if those factors are not overwhelming in their ability to sway the views of other wiki users at the current time, my suggestion is that instead of making a blanket decision that Student Pulse is either "reliable" or "unreliable," the community of Wikipedia editors instead consider each SP article, where referenced, on its own merits. User:tustind

In summary, my opinion is that SP is not reliable source, generally speaking, but may be appropriate in some instances and those exceptions can/should be considered on an individual basis.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion modifies but overall agrees with Keithbob's: I think SP can generally be considered a reliable source, but depending on the context, may be inappropriate in some circumstances. I agree with his conclusion that each case should be considered on an individual basis. --Tustind (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, how would the evaluation of articles take place? By what criteria, for instance, would we decide that this can be cited at Aeneas, but this cannot be cited at Michael Cassio? If these had appeared in, say, Parnassus and Shakespeare Quarterly respectively, there would be no question as to their validity. But here there is, and I wonder how the decision whether to cite or not would be made. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that WP:SCHOLARSHIP provides some guidance. --S. Rich (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, upon reflection, perhaps links to SP articles would be best in WP:Further reading and/or WP:Layout#External links. Doing so would be helpful the readers and allow editors to consult the SP article for ideas on WP article improvement. --S. Rich (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, adding to "external links" would often be appropriate.

Thanks to Tustind for those helpful comments above. Andrew Dalby 08:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This self titled Original Unofficial Steve Earl Site is being cited in a number of places in the BLP for Steve Earle. Is it a reliable source for his discography? collaborations? TV and movie appearances etc.? Biographical information? It appears that it may be a personal web site with no editorial oversight but I am not sure. Any thoughts? Thanks for your input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This actually gets at why I think Wikipedia's appearance of proper sourcing is problematic and an illusion. You are questioning unofficial Steve Earle (USE) site, but were rewriting the article to conform to a CMT bio which takes much of its content from the bio on the same exact site. You have ignored my criticism of the sources you are using. Note the CMT bio is equally unreferenced, has no author, and has a great many sentences and phrases taken from the USE site (which is copywritten and lists it authors). Longtime fans of Earle know this as an old site with some of the most accurate, though in some cases outdated as it is less active, information on Earle. It is written by two people who know subject well and have clearly read the biographies and interviews. Clint and Lisa, the authors, have worked directly with the Earle management on many occasions, especially when there was no official site and this was the Steve Earle site, though fan published. That said, I know that is my personal knowledge and judgement. Would I accept it as a reference for an academic paper? No, but I wouldn't accept Wikipeda, either, for these exact reasons. USE may not be reliable, but the bios you have been using are no more reliable. Just because there may be an editor, or a writer is labeled a journalist, does not mean there is any real oversight or quality control. I think this is probably particularly true of entertainment bios, like those at CMT or AllMusic, which get copied and plagiarized from source to source. (Though at least Allmusic has an identified author, which gives weight over the CMT bio.) One defense of the USE site is that, unlike a great many fan sites, it does have references (including an extensive archive of interviews), though not in-line citations, and the authors are clearly identified. What constitutes a published source on the web? I think that the extensive nature of the site does give it some weight and appearance of authority beyond a typical fan site.

Also, are you willing to do the work to find the same information and cite it to make sure the Wiki article adequately covers the subject? The Grammy site would give you the nominations, but you have to dig. (On a completely different note, I would say collaboration lists and use in other media lists are problematic for a prolific artist like Earle. It can't help being partial and incomplete. Better to trim to most significant.) I am same person you have been conversing with! 65.185.126.6 (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable, as there is no indication that Clint Harris or Lisa Kempe exercise any fact checking. It is a SPS website. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is judged unreliable, than so is the CMT site. I see no evidence of fact checking there, either, and in fact know some information is incorrect based on more thorough writing on Earle. 65.185.126.6 (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Original Unofficial Steve Earl Site' is not a reliable source because there is absolutely no indication that it is reputable or fact checked by uninvolved individuals. CMT has a reputation, so we trust that they have done more than just copy and paste from some random 'unofficial' website. --Onorem♠Dil 18:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Other Stuff Exists" is not a valid argument. If you would like to start a section on CMT's reliability with a specific article for a specific claim in a specific encyclopaedia entry, please do so. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CMT has a poor reputation for journalism among music writers I know; it is a entertainment channel. On what basis do you say it is trustworthy? What evidence do they show of fact-checking or authorship (of their bios, not the attributed articles)? Many of their bios are simply taken from artist sites, which is not unusual among promoters, but is not good journalism. By the way, the bio on the unofficial site has been posted on that site for at least 12 years, before CMT started posting bios, and has often been pirated when it was the only Earle site and no official site exists. In any case, it is not perfect (mostly because it relies heavily on one source and is dated) and am not really arguing for the unofficial site, though I in fact largely trust it. What I am arguing that Wikipedia editors often show poor judgement in referencing, and that CMT should not be preferred over more extensive interviews and published bios. I know that people try to make it a reliable site, but this is why Wikipedia is not trusted. 65.185.126.6 (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this source [39] reliable, or appropriate, for this contested statement "Another commentator has said, "Try Googling both male or female ACL staff members, and the F word, or the C word. Thousands and thousands of results returned." at this page Australian Christian Lobby. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would be reliable as an assertion that 'a commentator' said something. But why are the opinions of this commentator of any significance? Given that the commentator appears not to understand how the Google search facility works, I can't see why they should be. The source might be 'reliable' for a statement that 'somebody said something', but I can't for the life of me see why we should want to refer to it in an article, unless this 'commentator' was some how of significance to the subject matter. Is he? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, he isn't. An IP keeps trying to add that little statement to the article and reverting its removal and I thought maybe if somebody impartial also thought it wasn't appropriate they might listen. Thanks for confirming what I thought already. Freikorp (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented at Talk:Australian Christian Lobby#IP edits. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a particular impartial source either considering it has a disclaimer that he's an ACL supporter from the outset which kind of wrecks the objectivity, it would never be reliable for anything beyond the commentators opinion (and that probably has no due weight) IRWolfie- (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in the opinions of other editors as to the reliability of Twitter posts such as this as many editors of TV articles are relying on them to support added content. In the example given, which was used at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 6), the included image of a script has two items of concern; the episode title is deliberately concealed and in the bottom right corner the document is identified as a "TABLE DRAFT". It seems that using this as confirmation of the production code relies on WP:SYNTH, as neither the source for the episode,[40] or the tweet explicitly say that 3X7601 is the production code for "The Date Night Variable". There are some commonalities (the episode number 112 is used by both the document and Wikipedia and 601 is used by the Futon critic source while it's partially concealed in the image) but I think this requires personal analysis in order to provide a link. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not published in the sense of WP:SOURCEACCESS or WP:Reliable sources/Cost. Not reliable as not published. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that is used that as the show's creator, Prady is a reliable source. It's not an opinion I share, as I've seen several cases where the show's creator has been inconsistent and the released version of an episode is considerably different, and sometimes even in a different season, to what the creator said would be the case. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I buy that document? No. The photo of the document isn't reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, why should Wikipedia be the slightest bit interested in 'production codes' anyway? And per WP:CRYSTALBALL, why is anyone writing articles about episodes of a TV series that aren't due to air until "September 27, 2012"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors just seem right into production codes. I don't see them as being of any real use except where the airing order results in notable inconsistencies, such as in the case of Firefly, and those circumstances are few and far between. I'm guessing that you don't spend much time around the TV project. Episode articles for programs like Glee are started well in advance. There seems to be a rush to get everything done far too early. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would make sense to me that images posted to Twitter are reliable sources only for the premise that said picture exists, and not for any substance of which the picture represents. In legal parlance they would be hearsay -- largely inadmissible for the truth of what they say, but potentially admissible with regard to the fact that they do exist. Using the film script example, the image could be an RS for the statement that a picture of an alleged script exists, but would not be an RS to support a factual statement that a script does actually exist or any content within the script.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though the "not published/source access" argument seems valid as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following Thomson Reuters page:

http://thomsonreuters.com/content/press_room/healthcare/tr_announces_top_health_systems

A reliable source for the claims made at Prime Healthcare Services#Awards and Recognition? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is a press release. The actual report mentioned in the press release, Thomson Reuters 15 Top Health Systems 2012, may actually be reliable for that. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Arabiya is sometimes referred to as a Pan-Arabist news channel. I wonder if this by itself makes it a bad thing to seclude this news channel from BLP articles? The specific question is about an article in Al Arabiya criticizing an Iranian poet who made a poem that some Arabs found insulting. My question is whether I could reflect Al Arabiya's point of view in the Poet's Wiki article by saying "Some Arabic sources found his poem 'XYZ' insulting". Thank You.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Al Arabiya may be reliable for news or other matters; it is not an appropriate source for literary criticism. Seek Arabic and Iranian journals of literary criticism, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to: Mountaintop_removal_mining

I am trying to clean up this article and bring it to the standard of NPOV.

While checking all of the cited sources, I visited www.grist.org and it would not be a choice of mine to cite as a reliable source. Does the site grist.org meet the Wikipedia guidelines as a source?

http://www.grist.org/article/epa-sleep-in-lisa-jacksons-fundamental-misunderstanding/

The above is an editorial/opinion piece that is clearly not NPOV. Sadly, this source was used to justify the use of a POVTITLE and other aggressive comments.

The publication Grist looks like it has an agenda of environmental activism. From its website, it describes itself this way: Grist has been dishing out environmental news and commentary with a wry twist since 1999 — which, to be frank, was way before most people cared about such things. Now that green is in every headline and on every store shelf (bamboo hair gel, anyone?), Grist is the one site you can count on to help you make sense of it all. So my sense is it should not be used.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sidebox genres on Allmusic.com surely they're not reliable right? Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd[reply]

No. Genres are incredibly contentious. Allmusic.com displays none of the expertise required for genre classification. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Zion square assault, there are some sections, standard for this type of article, dealing with reactions. Rather than limit these to political utterances, I have covered press comment of what public intellectuals think in Israel, and also a section on discussions in the American Jewish community. Two editors are removing material in this section on what strikes me as spurious policy grounds, more out of objections to the content, it strikes me, than anything else. See here and [41]

Of 3 opinion pieces so far, two have been challenged. Exception has been taken esp. to an article by Jessie Benjamin, appearing in Mondoweiss, and the remarks, no different in substance from many others cited in the article, esp. that of Jill Jacobs, above it, runs:-

Jesse Benjamin, an Israeli American Associate Professor of Sociology at Kennesaw State University, writing for Mondoweiss, the alternative news website run by Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz, contextualized the incident within a detailed memoir of his own youthful experiences as a Jerusalem yeshiva dropout in Zion Square, and argued the attack constituted a wake-up call to challenge what he called Jim Crow practices. Jewish allies within Israeli society are needed to assist Palestinians in exposing the problem, he argues, but concludes that, 'the globalized West still holds onto Jews as the victims par excellence,' and after 9/11, is even more comfortable in denying humanity to Arabs.

• Jessie Benjamin is assistant professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University.
• His professional interests appear to cover marginal historical or social groups, as you can see from his page here, or articles on ancient Nubians and Nabataeans, or on marginalized bedouin communities in the Negev.
• A mainstream community magazine like The Forward has no trouble him as an expert on the Bedouin, see here.
• BRILL, a major publisher of academic works has .published his work on the Nubians and Nabataeans ('Of Nubians and Nabateans: Implications of Research on Neglected Dimensions of Ancient World History pp.31-52,':the thesis again is their neglect as marginals)
• He chose Mondoweiss, and alternative news outlet, to express his own interpretation of events in Zion Square of which, as his article shows, he has substantial knowledge personally and as a sociologist of cultures.
• I quoted him for an informed opinion by an Israeli-American academic sociologist who specialized in the kind of culture that produced the event the article described. I took care to avoid any use of this source for facts, guided by the following WP:RS policy:

News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Editorial commentary and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.

• (a)he is a drop-out from a Jerusalem yeshiva, like 2 of the suspects in the assault.
• (b) he had indepth experience as a youth of the area where the assault took place and its youth culture
• (c)He became a sociologist and anthropologist, and gained university tenure in that capacity.
• (d) his expertise concerns marginals, and those who are suspected of assaulting the Arab in question are classified by other sources as marginals, and drops outs from yeshivas.
• (d) That he had his opinion piece or interpretative essay-memoir hosted by Mondoweiss does not seem to impugn the fact that the article reflects the opinions of a competent Israeli-Jerusalem academic with critical and personal knowledge of the subject background.

I'd appreciate careful analysis and input from independent specialists on the appropriateness of Jessie Benjamin as a source for his own views as a Jerusalemite, an Israeli, and a sociologist with tenure specializing on marginal cultures. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I searched WP:RSN archives and was surprised to see no discussion of whether it is a WP:RSN for anything. (Did I miss it?) It's used in a few places on Wikipedia, besides relevant articles. I certainly think it is WP:RSN for opinion, especially for someone with Benjamin's background on this topic. I might think other quotes or summaries might be more appropriate for that article, but I'd support using him. CarolMooreDC 01:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin seems to me to be (just) notable in his own right as an academic in the relevant field, so whether Mondoweiss is RS as such doesn't seem to matter all that much. At the least, I don't think Benjamin is less notable than some other people that are now cited in the article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin appears to be a rather minor academic (asst. prof at a 2nd or 3rd tier state university); his expertise, such as it is, appear to be Bedouins, Nubians and Nabataeans, not Yeshiva dropouts. "Mondoweiss" is a partisan, fringe blog. If, as the OP posits, the remarks attributed to him are no different in substance from many others cited in the article, then why are we resorting to this marginal-of-marginal sources? Let's stick with the more mainstream ones who say the same thing. All Rows4 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, Mondoweiss was addressed slightly as part of the discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_121#IRMEP_-_two_separate_issues. Inevitably that discussion was disrupted by a NoCal sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would the 21st century lexicon ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indigo%20child ) be a reliable source for this diff in Indigo children article? The attribution of an "important spiritual impact" is common for the concept in question across multiple primary sources (like published books and interviews with the authors who introduced the term into broad usage). The 21st century lexicon summarizes and defines it in a compact form, while being not a primary source. Thanks in advance. -- Nazar (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries are inherently tertiary sources and not useful for much at all in a Wikipedia article. Thus - not a reliable source for the use to which it is being put. Collect (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I would say a dictionary would only be useful for non-contentious summaries, if someone is contending it, it's probably too contentious. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate source for appropriate spiritual impact would be peak professionals in various religions with reputations for publishing; theologians, sociologists of religion, historians of religion; etc. Dictionaries are not appropriate sources for the impact of spiritual concepts. (Unless they're Scholarly Dictionaries of the Sociology of Religion etc.) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's, however, not about the actual "spiritual impact", assessed by independent professionals, but rather about the definition of a New Age concept, one of the core features of which concept being the belief about important spiritual impact exerted upon surroundings. And that belief is addressed in various sources on the subject: primary, secondary ect. While the dictionary in question summarizes it as a prominent feature of the concept. -- Nazar (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the definition of New Age concepts that make scientifically testable claims should be (and in this article are) addressed by scientific sources, rather than one that repeats the claims at face value without getting into evidence for or against the concept (especially if added for the purpose of advocacy for those claims). Ian.thomson (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the claim of having "important spiritual impact" is hardly scientifically testable. Beating down the newbies who clearly try to make their first edits with best intentions is not an advisable practice. And an encyclopedic article should pay attention in first place to illuminating the subject in question (which includes its neutral definition and versatile exposure), and not give the prominent weight to the skeptics' opinions about "how terribly pseudo-scientific it is". But, as usually, I humbly respect the opinion of majority of editors in this collective project, however defective it may appear. -- Nazar (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a claim that falls squarely within the remit of the social sciences' broadly accepted claims to produce knowledge. And internet dictionaries are not part of the social science knowledge creation process. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a dictionary definition can be a reliable source for an obviously controversial statement - especially in an article that falls under the auspices of WP:FRINGE. I'll repeat what I said on Talk:Indigo children when this question first came up:

• Firstly: the dictionary definition is at best a tertiary source - it would be a pretty poor choice for referencing such a statement in the lede. However, the way it's being used here is as a way to back up the fact that the dictionary really did say that - which makes it a fully acceptable source for a completely unacceptable statement (and, arguably, an egregious copyvio). If we were to remove the mention that this is the definition in that dictionary (as we must) - then using it as a reference becomes incorrect.
• Secondly: this is quite possibly the only mainstream dictionary to define the term. If I go to Dictionary.com and search for (let's say) "elephant" - I get definitions from six different dictionaries. The fact that only ONE of the many dictionaries that dictionary.com searches had a definition at all suggests that we're giving undue weight to the fact that there even is a dictionary definition. Rather, our experience here on this article's talk page is that multiple references show that there truly isn't a single definition that even a fraction of the Indigo children promoters would agree with. Using a single dictionary in this way is a rather serious bias.
• Thirdly: the lede is supposed to summarize the remainder of the article. Since there is no discussion of the 21st Century lexicon's definition anywhere in the article, this sentence is not allowed in the lede because it's not summarizing anything.
• Fourthly: the main article has an entire section explaining the claimed characteristics of indigo's - much of it backed up by primary and secondary sources. The dictionary definition: "a term used for a powerful, intelligent, independent child who is believed to have an important spiritual impact" doesn't entirely jibe with our better-referenced claims - "an important spiritual impact" is hardly a valid summary of our findings from primary and secondary sources: "exhibit a strong innate sub-conscious spirituality from early childhood (which, however, does not necessarily imply a direct interest in spiritual or religious areas)"...so again, this dictionary definition isn't a summary of what is stated in the main article. The dictionary also states the these children really are "powerful, intelligent, independent" - which is a claim that's not backed up by WP:RS.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable tertiary source making controversial assertion; not a reliable source by any means. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a questions regarding a reference used at Jorge Otero Barreto. The reference is from geneology.com and am wondering if this is considered a reliable source. I believe that the addition is done in good faith given my notability concerns of the subject of that article, and thus am bring it up here (for the sake of the quality of the article) to ensure it meets our RS requirements.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I suggest all "home-made genealogy sites" are intrinsically not WP:RS sources. 2. The ancestry.com link specifically is from a person who made the genealogy, hence is SPS at best, and really, really unuseful at worst. 3. Using online genealogy sources, I found that I am a descendent of Muhammed, Minerva and Thor. I suggest this result is sufficient to show my opinion of using such sources on any articles at all, and especially not any referring to living persons. Collect (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Collect. The lack of editorial supervision over these sources means that they should not be used (except regarding themselves, for example, citing ancestry.com on the article ancestry.com). Most edits adding these are in good faith by people unfamiliar with our sourcing policies. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, there are fluctuations on the Chinese Zodiac signs and I can tell by two user and mainly one, User:Bobrayner and User:Drmies both have been supposedly deleting fiction of a source (and the latest user is User:Beyond My Ken), when they are just informational sources from the pseudoscience website, it its the same going with the Western astrology. They were only sample sources and I am hoping you notify them to stop deleting them as they were appropiate for the article, while I was on break they usually sabatoged the signs, although, one IP user did try to undo they believe it was useless, I am trying to configure with the Western Horoscope as well, all I am saying let them know to stop revoming the atributions it's sources from reliable sites, please, and thank you--GoShow (...............) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am deleting the Ruling countries seems to be fictational, otherwise, most of the attribution are reliable thank you.--GoShow (...............) 16:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:FRINGE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is Chinese Zodiac.com – "Your Guide to Chinese Astrology and the Chinese Zodiac" – a reliable source for encyclopedic information? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is for discussing whether particular named sources are suitable for particular statements attributed to them. If is not an appropriate place place to make accusations of 'sabatage'. I suggest you discuss any issues relating article content on the talk page (which you have not done), and avoid making baseless accusations - the Chinese Zodiac article edit history shows no edits of the type you describe made by the contributors you name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I see. You aren't referring to the Chinese Zodiac article itself, but to the articles about the signs. Please try to make things clearer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking into more book sources right now thanks.--GoShow (...............) 17:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's totally a FRINGE issue anyway. Look at what content was being restored on Horse (zodiac). "These people are extremely independent and confident. The horse person is very quick-witted, inquisitive and determined. They are very good at recognizing patterns". What source could possibly verify that? Drmies (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The articles of encyclopedia have the right to use pseudoscience as facts from the horoscopes as information about the animals, otherwise please do not delete the sources otherwise you can also check Western astrology and delete their unbiased sources as well, but until then, don't delete the articles just because earlier user allowed them as articles for encyclopedia as facts like many films and fairy tale article on this site--GoShow (...............) 18:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If anybody is going to claim that a clearly-defined subset of the population - hundreds of millions of people - "...are very loyal individuals. They dislike dishonesty and corruption of any sort. They are up front and honest people and expect those around them to be the same. Roosters are happiest when they are surrounded by others, at a party or just a social gathering. They even enjoy the spotlight and will exhibit their charisma and wit in a minute. This star quality can be overbearing..." (and so on and so on) solely on the year they were born, we'd need an exceptionally strong source. I do not believe that any such source exists. Even worse are the neat little tables where people born in certain years are allocated to specific countries, times of day, compass directions, gemstones, foods, and countries. (If you were born in the year of the Monkey, your gemstone is peridot and your food is cloves. It's not quite clear what happens to the 92% of Norwegians who weren't born in such auspicious years). All this stuff is made up, plain and simple. An encyclopædia should not contain made-up stuff. It may occasionally be possible to find a source which repeats made-up stuff, but this noticeboard's job is to filter out sources like that. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝuʎɐɹqoq 17:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to forget Western Astrology can be made up as well too, but these are just showing the informational background. Otherwise if delete the main plots summaries on all horoscope signs as bias and show the calendar type would be find, otherwise the users who used the plot summary believe it was the best interest of Wikiproject in psuedoscience would just informative, which I am about to check if I can make the summaries more informative instead of opiniated.--GoShow (...............) 18:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you would like to strip the Western astrology articles of similar material, I would have no objection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also wp:INUNIVERSE, which omits to address common belief systems such as astrology but still is useful in explaining how to write well about them.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment Beyond My Ken on your talk page and I agree, here's deal I will delete the comment summaries, other than the calendars I will keep and the attributions, the summaries I will delete, they do seem unbias, however I'll let the people decide on other psudoscience webpages to check if they are those characteristics, other than that I agree, I'll delete the characteristics. Be back 3 hours, taken a break but will finish deleting the characteristics unless someones will do it for me.--GoShow (...............) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The online newspaper/magazine that has full editorial board, this, should it not be considered as a WP:reliable source?. Please needed your quick view and opinion. The source has been cited for the WP:notability of the subject Nandini Sahu. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a citizen journalism site, it may be questionable regarding notability. And it's marginal regarding RS. Here's their policy, which suggests there is little editorial control: "All the articles submitted to merinews pass through a moderation process profanity and authenticity check. Depending on the quality of the article, it gets posted either on merinews.com or the clog (citizens' log) section of merinews." It sounds as if they post everything one place or the other. TimidGuy (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Timidguy, and this reminds me of the section in WP:DUE which says roughly that if something is relevant enough to enter into an encyclopedia, then it ought to be quite easy to find indisputably reliable sources for it. --Dailycare (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well amazing to me, would you please take a look at this, it is also questionable?. Thanks for your assistance.Justice007 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please assist me about these all, 1

2 3 4 5 6. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, title says it all. - I want to bring this to the attention of the more experienced Wikipedians, since in the meantime this kind of nuisance might have killed a lot of other reference links on the entire WP as well...

First observed this problem here: Talk:Phantom_of_Heilbronn#Please, somebody check that reference link!. - And please excuse me, if this here is not the right place to share that kind of information. (Should this be the case, please drop me a line on my TP. I'm still a Newbie.) -- CaffeineCyclist (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PAYWALL - there is no requirement that sources be available online free of charge. In fact there is no requirement that they be available on line at all. Obviously it is preferable to use easily-accessible sources, but the link is still valid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if editors need to access sources that aren't freely available in order to edit, they can always make a request at the resource exchange. Our volunteers can typically provide articles from even very obscure publications. GabrielF (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference is that it can no longer be linked as a general "external link" at the bottom of an article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not challenge the reliability at all.

But should these sources be tagged - and how - to notify the readers? (Who then perhaps could add alternative sources.) I mean, even if you were a subscriber, the links would always first stop you at the customs gate.

Is tagging them as "dead link" completely incorrect then? (If yes, I've made some blunder that I should revert.) -- CaffeineCyclist (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC

I cant see when a newspaper would be added as a general external link! but a cite template is available for the London Times at Template:Cite newspaper The Times as printed newspaper it doesnt really need an external link it just helps sometimes. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your replies. That was very helpful and interesting stuff. - Following your hints, I think that tagging with Template:Subscription_required would be the correct thing to do in these cases, right? - Again thanks and Bye! -- CaffeineCyclist (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Southern Poverty Law Center a reliable source for: [42]. (all relevant info is in the reference. See the linked article about SPLC. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of my relevant answer is in the archives. If you can't be bothered copying and pasting to here, why should you expect readers here to be bothered answering? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite archives of the discussions it is getting brought up in numerous articles by members of wikiproject conservatism. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC has opinions. It is citable for its opinions clearly labelled as such. Anything further delves into the question as to whether that organization has a particular point of view, and if when it finds others with different poits of view it moght represent them in a less than NPOV manner. Collect (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given a reason why you think it is unreliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does the SPLC qualify as a RS? They are not a news organization with fact checking. Are their findings and research peer reviewed? They seem to be in a unique position compared to most RS used here. Are there examples of similar sources that fall into neither the two standard categories?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egad, are we here again? The SPLC does a ton of fact checking and is widely quoted as a factual source. The linked addition to the American Vision page was perfectly legitimate. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being obtuse, but do you have any references to their fact checking policies? That would settle a lot of these issues (at least for me).  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest looking through their staff [43], for example here is there editor-in chief [44]. Newspapers aren't peer reviewed by the way. Editorial oversight isn't peer review. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. Yes, newspapers aren't subject to peer review, but they (should) be subject to fact checking and retractions. Newspaper opinion pieces are frequently NOT subjected to fact checking (George Will's column is a good example of that). With that aside, it appears to me that SPLC is operating using similar principles of that of newspapers. In general I wouldn't object to them being used as a RS, though in more contentious claims (not in this RS query) I would prefer additional sources that have a proven record with respect to fact-checking and retractions to be used as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's try this again, at American Vision, a group designated by the SPLC as a hate group and run by Gary Demar, the contested passage is -

Demar has said that not all homosexuals would be executed under a “reconstructed government", but that he did believe that the occasional execution of “sodomites” would serve society well because “the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet.”^[1] He also said a “long-term goal” should be “the execution of abortionists and their parents.”^[1](18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda Evelyn Schlatter, Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, Winter 2010, Issue Number: 140.)

Is SPLC a reliable source for this purpose? Insomesia (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is appropriate. The SPLC is the best judge of this sort. If we doubted them (which we don't), we could independently check some of the quotes ourselves by looking for bits of them online. For instance, the SPLC reference says DeMar wrote "Homosexuals aren’t content with only having the bedroom" in April 2010. DeMar blogged that phrase in April 2010, according to another blog. The problem with americanvision.org is that the Wayback Machine does not archive it because its website tells the archive bots to stay away, by the wording of robots.txt, a file on the website. To know what DeMar wrote on a particular day, you would have to have been looking at it. SPLC has people who do this and document the site. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Binksternet. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Insomesia (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is to say that "we" don't doubt them. (And, we're here again, because the previous consensus is that SPLC is reliable for their opinions, and certain editors want to revisit that.) As I said on one of the talk pages, there's no (reliable) evidence that they are reliable for anything other than their own opnions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I was wrong. There's no recent consensus, but consensus in 2010 is that they have sufficient fact-checking to be considered reliable, but not WP:BLP-reliable, for statements which are clearly facts (which are the statements covered here); there's no consensus as to whether their statements about opinions can be used, except for their own opinions. However, these statements are about a living person, so it does require revisiting the matter. I don't think they could possibly be considered BLP-reliable. I think the prior consensus should also be revisited, as there's no evidence to support the claim that they do sufficient fact-checking, but reviewing the prior consensus is not necessary to determine that SPLC is not BLP-reliable, even for (theoretically) verifiable facts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitely BLP reliable and their statements should be attributed and treated with care just like any other sources used on a BLP. Use common sense and on a case-by-case basis. Generally they are reliable. Insomesia (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, it may have slipped your mind, but there's no doubt that the quotes we're getting from the SPLC are correct. After all, they're directly from the subject's book, and we have it in its entirety right here. All we're relying on from the SPLC is its selection of these quotes, as we wouldn't want to be guilty of WP:OR. To be fair, the SPLC is a sufficiently reliable source that we don't actually need the book, but we do have it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly cannot use them for a selction of quotes. We can select quotes on our own, but that is not something that a biased reliable source can be used for. For this article, we need to use the book as a source, rather than SPLC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are making an absolute statement when there is a continuum at work here. We can use the SPLC as a guide, or not, depending on our purpose. The attention given to the particular quotes by SPLC makes those quotes rise higher in significance, so they are more likely to meet our needs. We could choose other quotes, perhaps ones vetted by another third party observer, but we are not required to stay away from the ones that SPLC noticed. The fact that an outside group pulled certain quotes from the American Vision Rulers of the Nation book gives us the benefit of making sure the text is not overly self-serving to American Vision. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC examined by RSN and by outside experts

SPLC has repeated come up on this noticeboard because of the hot responses they get from their strong statements, not because their fact-checking is flawed. It's hard for new editors to understand how highly respected the SPLC is in US universities, law enforcement and government. SPLC is, if anything, more highly respected by scholars outside of the US. Here are the past RSN discussions:

• RSN:Southern Poverty Law Center, October 2008. SPLC is a reliable source per Squidfryerchef, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling and SlamDiego.
• RSN:Southern Poverty Law Center, January 2009. SPLC is a reliable source per ScienceApologist, Moni3 and Verbal.
• RSN:Southern Poverty Law Center (again) & Rousas John Rushdoony, November 2009. SPLC a reliable source per Dougweller, The Four Deuces, RightCowLeftCoast, John Carter, Jayjg, Verbal, Jmabel, Blueboar, Squidfryerchef and Hipocrite. Fact-checking ability challenged by CaroleMooreDC, with scholarly sources.
• RSN:Southern Poverty Law Center, July 2012. SPLC is a reliable source per Nableezy, Slatersteven, Whatamidoing and Skinwalker.
• RSN:Is an SPLC intelligence report a reliable source for information about the men's rights movement?, July 2012. SPLC is a reliable source per Itsmejudith and Binksternet.

Here are some scholarly thoughts about SPLC:

• Jessie Daniels, PhD, CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College: Cyber Racism. "...it has established a Klanwatch/Militia Task Force, which provides accurate information and analysis..."
• Cengage Learning textbook: Brooks/Cole Empowerment Series: Human Behavior in the Social Environment. Official US government statistics are not completely accurate but SPLC is not questioned.
• DIANE Publishing textbook: Racial And Ethnic Tensions In American Communities. SPLC's Danny Welch was invited to make a presentation to the US Commission on Civil Rights in February 1991 about "hate incidents", speaking on his own from a panel of other notables from the US Dept of Justice, B'nai B'rith and the FBI.
• Russell Sage Foundation: Making Hate a Crime, relied on SPLC for information on hate crime statutes.
• Criminologist Mark S. Hamm, PhD: American Skinheads: The Criminology and Control of Hate Crime, all data collected about American skinheads has some flaws, including data from the FBI, the SPLC, the ADL, etc. However, the flaws are not such that "sociological sense" cannot be obtained from the data. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those descriptions of the RSN archives are false. There's no consensus in the July 2012 threads, except that the SPLC Intelligence Report is an RS. And there's a 2010 thread which finds the SPLC is not a BLP-RS. But check for yourself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more explicit about what you think is false? Also, you haven't addressed the scholarly thoughts which do appear to agree that it is reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first one listed immediately dives off into a tangent and never addresses the question; the second case starts off with the observation that the first one didn't go anywhere. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my field of scholarship, but if you're interpreting the books correctly, and those books are reliable sources which state the SPLC is reliable (some clearly do so only in specific fields, not including what we're trying to use them for), then it meets WP:SPS, but still cannot be used for BLP statements. It's being used in American Vision to support DeMar's (apparently opinions, but they're probably also) statements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at the 5 previous RSN threads, only the third is on point, and the only consensus seems to be that their magazine is reliable, they are reliable for their own notable opinions, and they may be reliable for facts about their subjects. The allegations made by the subject in the 2nd thread suggest that they remove false statements only when pointed out. If the site is archived by the wayback machine, we can check the history of the page. If it progessed as the subject suggested, that site is clearly not reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense! You would have a group continue in an error if it was pointed out to them? Of course not. Even printed newspapers print corrections. Online newspapers update stories when mistakes are found.

The RSN discussions above are all in agreement that the SPLC cannot be classed as categorically unreliable, which is much of the point I wanted to make. The SPLC has various degrees of trustworthiness; its journal is the highest level. Nevertheless, the online entries are no less reliable than newspaper reports. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we can quote them with attribution on any article, biography or not. They are a scholarly group akin to a foundation or a think tank. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tightening the focus here

The issue, quite specifically, is whether the SPLC's identification of a set of conservative advocacy organizations as "hate groups" trumps the objections of conservatives to this identification. The intent is to put this identification in the lede of each of these "family values" groups and suppress mention at that point of conservative objection. If you want to subject yourself to the argument, it's going on in Talk:Family Research Council, but it's not the only article affected.

I'm reasonably willing to take the SPLC as a reporter of what people said, but that's not the authority that's being claimed here. It's their analysis that is at stake, and for that, they are the primary source. In general there's not much controversy over their tracking of hypernationalist and racist groups. They are also widely relied upon in examination of hate crimes, but that's not relevant to the topic at hand because nobody is seriously accusing these groups of committing or abetting criminal acts. It's easy enough, though, to find objection to the essential categorization of opposition to homosexual marriage as hate speech. There's an obvious political division between those who accept their analysis, and those who don't; it's bloody well obvious in the discussion. My personal view is that the designation has enough traction in media sources to be mentioned, but that the controversy needs to be admitted to up front. But at any rate in discussing their "reliability", we are really evaluating their authority on this particular point, not a general view of the organization. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misstate the SPLC position. You say:

It's easy enough, though, to find objection to the essential categorization of opposition to homosexual marriage as hate speech.

In fact, the SPLC categorization is based on the following:

Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't so much of a misstatement as it was an oversimplication in the cause of not making an awkward and elongated sentence. I don't see that the difference in grounds eliminates the reliance on their authority, as one still has the calculation that "saying things that are false" (modulo disputes over whether they are false) equals "hate". One could apply Hanlon's razor to the falsehoods and get a different conclusion, after all. Let me say again that I personally don't see an issue with recording SPLC's condemnation prominently; the issue at present is over suppressing or burying that their position is reciprocally condemned by various conservatives. I question whether anyone here's approval of their reasoning is grounds for overriding a fairly prominent mention of conservative counterreaction. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Has the SPLC ever described or listed a progressive advocacy group as a "hate group" at any point? Which ones? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't lump the FRC and American Vision in with the Klan and skinheads. SPLC has a political axe to grind, and this is how they do it. – Confession0791 ^talk 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of any that should be included? The SPLC lists three "black separatist" groups as hate groups.[45] These groups would be "progressive" except for their hate. Also, some hate groups (anti-immigration, anti-Muslim) have progressive supporters. Eugene McCarthy supported FAIR. TFD (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC is certainly a reliable source for whom the SPLC classifies as hate groups. The real issue is WP:WEIGHT - how important is it that the SPLC has called an organization a hate group. But that is not a topic for discussion at this noticeboard. And yes, the SPLC is also a reliable source for facts, as has been shown above by the many reliable sources that attest to their reliability. TFD (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the ideologies listed relate to bigotry of one kind of another, and are neither conservative nor progressive[46]. I don't think anyone really considers, neo-nazism, holocaust denial, skinheads, black separatism, or racism in general as conservative movements. aprock (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general I think in the USA the black separatists would be counted as leftist and the skinheads as neutral evil, but the others mentioned are generally associated with political conservatism, and it's certainly common enough to accuse conservatives of appealing to those movements. Mangoe (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying here is that hate groups are not confined to one political stripe. This makes it hard to claim that the SPLC is just a political group that insults groups they don't like.

1. Is the SPLC a reliable source for what the SPLC says? Yes, obviously.
2. Is it a reliable source for the content of direct quotes by others? Yes, they're not going to misquote Demar. Their track record on quotes is better than some newspapers'.
3. Is it a reliable source for selecting and synthesizing these quotes? Yes, because it must do so in order to explain why it designates AV a hate group. In general, yes, because they're talking about their field of expertise, and they're respected for it by academics and law enforcement.
4. Do organizations disagree with being called hate groups? Always or almost always. Does even the KKK admit to being a hate group?
5. Does this mean there's always controversy about hate group designation? Looks like it.
6. Is being an SPLC-designated hate group notable? Highly so, to the point that it always belongs in the lead.
7. Is controversy over this designation notable? For the FRC and some others. Definitely belongs in the article, with due weight.
8. Do we need to stop grinding our teeth and start editing? I certainly think so. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This question concerns a part of the infobox of the article Leo Frank regarding his height. The change would only affect the footnote for the 5'6" height. The proposed change would add to the footnote a comment regarding a height of 5'8" along with the Cornell yearbook source.

Height           5'6" ^[1]

---

Notes

1. ^ Oney 2003 p. 10. Lindemann 1991 p. 244.

  (5'8" according to Cornell University Class of 1906. The Senior Class Book. pp. 344–5, student #177.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link))

Is the Cornell yearbook a reliable source for this information? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Other editors currently involved in a related discussion, which is a continuation of a previous discussion, are Carmelmount and Tom (North Shoreman). --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a full citation indicating the publisher as displayed on the bibliographic information page. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original book does not have a bibliographic information page. Here are links to info regarding it's online publication[47][48] and a page near the beginning of the online publication.[49] (Please note that you can navigate to any pages of the yearbook from any pages that are linked from this and my previous message. For example, here's a link to the beginning of the online publication[50] from which you can go to any page of the yearbook by using the appropriate buttons at the bottom of that webpage.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked further and found a hard copy reproduction of the original at Amazon.com where the publisher of the reproduction is listed as Nabu Press.[51] --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. As we can see from Page 1, the title page, the book is published by the Cornell University class of 1906 themselves, edited as indicated later. I would suggest that it is reliable for the height of an individual known to the editorial board. I'd suggest that there's no WEIGHT behind this, nor is there any Notability given by the document. So I would question anyone including the height of the individual unless another source actually drew our attention WEIGHTily to his height. (Nabu Press is a reprinter.) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Not reliable per Tom (North Shoreman) below regarding Original Research from Primary Sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trial and lynching of Leo Frank were national news at the time and historians and popular writers have continued to write about and analyze the case. The two sources for the height listed in the Info Box are both highly important sources on the subject -- Oney's footnotes show that he consulted a vast amount of primary and secondary sources while Lindemann, writing a different type of book, relied on analyzing the most important secondary sources. Nobody has been able to find ANY reference to a different height in any reliable secondary source.

The yearbook is a primary source with no explanation of how it determined height. Using a primary source, especially when reliable secondary sources are available, is the exception rather than the rule. It is not a reliable source for its apparent purpose -- to propose an alternative height. A two inch differential is insignificant in and of itself and COULD be simply the result of wearing shoes or boots in one of the measurements or a short person deciding to add a couple inches out of vanity. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could join in this content dispute brought here by Tom, but there is the following instruction at the top of this page, "This is not the place for content disputes, which should be directed to the article talk page..." (Perhaps the section title here was misleading, and thus I am changing it to "Cornell yearbook" to be in line with the titles of other sections here which are referring to sources.)

So instead of joining in a content dispute discussion, let me renew my request for comments by editors at this noticeboard regarding whether or not the Cornell yearbook is a reliable source for the height of Leo Frank, according to Wikipedia policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't argue reliable sources in a content free environment. From the guideline:

Context matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.

The issue is whether a college yearbook, a primary source created before Leo Frank was famous, should be offered as an alternative source to the reliable sources already cited. The fact that nobody has shown that any reliable secondary source has used this primary source or used the same content (i.e. height of 5-8) provides valuable CONTEXT for this discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The excerpt you quoted is referring to the context of the article rather than the context of your content dispute discussion. Tom, you and I can make our arguments about the content at the article talk page, if we so choose. I think it would be better if we waited and read the fresh opinions of editors here, without trying to influence them, if we want useful new information about whether or not the Cornell yearbook is a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy, which might be useful when taken back to the article talk page. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the article, I see no reason why the information has to be included at all, given that there are conflicting sources. It doesn't seem germane to the case, so my inclination would be to omit any statement as to his height. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that there is a second reliable source of Leo Frank demographic information from the United States National Archive, Leo Frank's official passport (1907, 1908) that supports his height at 5'8" and weight of 145lbs. The document can be found on ancestry.com (with a free sign up) and it is mirrored on The Internet Archive. Steve Oney and Albert Lindemann provide no sources or references for Leo Frank's height at 5'6" and weight of 130lbs. Carmelmount (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with your second primary source as the first one. As far as Oney and Lindemann, there is no doubt that they are reliable sources. Whether they cite a footnote for any given content depends in large part whether the info. is considered to be common knowledge or not. This is from Princeton University guidelines:

Facts, Information, and Data. Often you’ll want to use facts or information to support your own argument. If the information is found exclusively in a particular source, you must clearly acknowledge that source. For example, if you use data from a scientific experiment conducted and reported by a researcher, you must cite your source, probably a scientific journal or a website. Or if you use a piece of information discovered by another scholar in the course of his or her own research, you must cite your source. But if the fact or information is generally known and accepted — for example, that Woodrow Wilson served as president of both Princeton University and the United States, or that Avogadro’s number is 6.02 x 1023 — you do not need to cite a source.

There is no controversy anywhere but on wikipedia as to Frank's height. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's not notable as an athlete; why the heck do we even need to include the stats?????? Mangoe (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just made your suggestion on the article's talk page.[52] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, Neither Steve Oney or Albert Lindemann provide references or sources to Leo Frank's height, but there are two reliable sources that do have information on LF height, passport and yearbook. Carmelmount (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Leo Frank's height has been removed from the article,[53] per Mangoe's suggestion, and there is consensus there for the edit.[54] --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to get a review of this report by the Swedish think-tank Expo (which also runs the Expo_(magazine)). In my opinion it seems to be a well-founded analysis of the counterjihad movement, but I'm worried that it's affiliation with a foundation that has a stated mission would make it a likely target for attack. benjamil ^talk/_edits 22:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley

Jeanne boleyn would like to revisit the discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_115#Medieval_Lands_by_Charles_Cawley regarding the opinion that this Cawley, Charles (3 June 2011). "Earls of Kent {1352}-1408, Holand". [http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/Intro.htm Medieval Lands]. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help); Unknown parameter |publiser= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help) (Contents) amateur website is not a reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as most editors are amateurs and not academics with unlimited access to university libraries, etc., we are pretty much restricted to online sources. Medieval Lands is probably at the moment one of the few websites that does cite primary sources, and removing it as a reliable source pretty much debars me from further editing on historical biographies of which I've created more than 100. Thanks Wikipedia, I'm sure this decision is one of the most astute yet in the ongoing process to drive away established editors from the project. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad luck—if you wish to conduct work outside of Wikipedia then go ahead, but by using unreliable sources you have tainted the parts of the project you've touched. The Resource Exchange project within Wikipedia and the public libraries system can support valid editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if Fifelfoo says so it must be true. This place is unbelievable. "Tainted the project" have I with over 300 articles including two GAs? Piss off with your pathetic arrogance, Fifelfoo. You can only flash a big pair behind the security of a computer screen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make personal attacks regarding my sexual apparatus. Please do not use unreliable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find this a little over-done Fifelfoo. This is a webpage that basically collates information from primary sources that are indeed hard to find online, and it is hosted by a journal. It is not a personal webpage. It not a top level academic journal perhaps, but still medieval genealogy is not really an academic subject (or perhaps we could characterize it as an area where academia itself uses sub-optimal sourcing). In any case fact checking and reputation for it do exist here to some level, and collating primary sources is not necessarily something that we can much better sources for. The source might not be ideal, but I find the way it is being discussed rather silly. Has anyone actually disputed anything cited from it, or found anything controversial? If so then I think a sense of balance should be kept. Some sourcing is better than no sourcing. We are not dealing with a personal website here, nor anything which is flashing any other red lights? It is also not true that there are lots of good alternatives. We are talking about medieval primary sources. It seems strange to be talking about "tainting" and treating this source in the same way that some really bad sources get treated.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew you say it is hosted by a journal. What is the journal how frequently is it published? What is the quality of that journal -- who publishes it, does it have a review board, does it carry adverts (and is its circulation reviewed by third pary), would it be purchased by the History departments of Universities etc? -- PBS (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations, is the journal of the Foundation of Medieval Genealogy. They have a review process and no adds. They are funded by memberships. I think one of the objections to them is that many members are not professional academic historians. (But I believe it gets a few.) OTOH, there is no such thing as an academic genealogist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There may be one" (© Lewis Carroll). Andrew Dalby 12:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the job of wikipedia to publish original genealogies? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. This source is now being attacked for any use at all, without reference to context, and as I said, I think some of this is getting silly. For example look at your question: if we cite a real third party source, we are not being original on Wikipedia. We can question the reliability of a source, but simply equating the use a borderline source as original research is not showing a constructive attitude?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, Cawley cites his primary sources which are mainly charters, calendar rolls, etc. It is not anything like Genealogy.com or TudorPlace. Can you point out any factual errors Cawley has made in his work?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict:] Medieval Lands is extremely useful when one is starting articles on medieval people: as regards their parents, marriages and children it usually provides the best synthesis we can immediately find, as well as a very good collection of original sources, usually quoted verbatim. Thank heaven it exists. Over on Vicipaedia yesterday, when I was beginning articles about related people with links to Hélinand of Froidmont and Philip II of France, I don't think I could have pinned them all down without Medieval Lands.

We're stumbling over the differences between starting an article, bringing it up to current Wikipedia norms, and perfecting it.

To bring it up to current Wikipedia norms, we need "reliable sources" in our current terms. We therefore have to deprecate Medieval Lands, which won't count as a reliable source till we happen to find some scholarly articles that cite it, and which itself does not make a point of citing modern secondary sources. But we mustn't forget that we used Medieval Lands to start the article: therefore we must continue to cite it (at least in External Links) otherwise we would be plagiarizing.

To perfect an article, above current Wikipedia norms, we will need to cite the primary sources, as proper research encyclopedias do. When we move on to that stage, we will need Medieval Lands still to be there -- and still to be in our references or external links -- because that's when we'll really need it! Andrew Dalby 09:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copying the text from Cawley in anything but a quote would be a copyright violation. If his sources are replaced with new sources, there is no reason to keep any reference to his work. Plagiarism rules such as you suggest apply to Cawley, only apply to PD articles from which we directly copy text or an unusual article structure (see the guideline WP:Plagiarism for details) -- PBS (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline is confusingly written: if you're reading it to say that the concept of plagiarism only applies to PD material, it has misled you. Yes, I agree that copyright violation could be involved as well. But as long as Wikipedia acknowledges Medieval Lands (in some way) in cases where our articles are significantly derived from it, and so long as Charles Cawley is happy about this (which I believe he is) the problems don't arise :) Andrew Dalby 12:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the project is tainted by the use of Charles Cawley as a source, but usage of this source must be in the form of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Charles Cawley in some of his biographical entries cites his sources, and those are often reliable sources. Although In some articles that I have seen, some of his speculation is mentioned, and in others used as as an attributed inline authority, (which he clearly is not) and I think all such usage should be removed.

I searched on http://fmg.ac which returned 100 of articles and have tagged all such usage unless the sources Cawley has used have also been cited (WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT).

Yesterday I realised that there were also a number of articles which cite Cawley without including a link to his website (EG Marie, Duchess of Auvergne). There are no other citations in that article, and I have marked those Cawley citations as: ^{[self-published source][better source needed]}. I do not think that can be construed as damaging the project particularly as the focus in recent years has been quality and not quantity. I would suggest that improving citations in those articles I have marked will improve the project more than adding additional information to articles with Cawley as the sole source for that information.

Looking at the citations in Marie, Duchess of Auvergne (there are three but only two to specific Cawley pages). Capet and Bourbon, (the third does not include a page so it probably means refer to the previous that is Capet. Using Google search for Marie of Berry on the site:fmg.ac returns two pages containing "MARIE de Berry" Capet and Burgundy Duchy, Dukes The former has an entry MARIE de Berry (1370-Lyon Jun 1434, bur Priory of Souvigny). Using that entry how can we confidently says that she was born in 1370? The death is probably derived from the primary source cited ("footnote 798") but even that is not clearly stated. For the rest of the entry there is no other citation. Compare that with this footnote from Joscelin of Louvain. I don't think anyone would have a problem with using Cawley when he is used that way (WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT).

I have also been through the articles that use "Marek, Miroslav. "A listing of the House of Orléans". Genealogy.EU. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)" as a cited source marking them in a similar way. The problem with that source is that Marek does not cite his sources.

I am currently going through citations to Darryl Lundy's The Peerage. Lundy usually cite his sources, but they frequently are not included in Wikpedia citations (see for example the article BLP article Pippa Middleton) There are also problem where Lundy is not cited and his source is cited, (See here and now) a breach of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT -- The reason I could be confident that it was taken from Lundy's website is because when the editor copied Lundy's citation he or she left in Lundy's comment "Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage."

As I have been going through articles that cite Cawley and Marek, many of those articles also cite other genealogical cites such as:

• http://roglo.eu/roglo
• http://genealogics.org/index.php which has its own wikipedia template {{Genealogics name}}

Often the pages that use these four websites contain no notable biographical details and are nothing but genealogical entries (birth marriages children and deaths) of minor Continental European nobility of people for whom little notable historical details are available on the web (even in foreign languages because web transliteration is behind English sources), but there are reliable sources available for at least the genealogical information such as Europäische Stammtafeln). The advantage about similar British nobles is that, thanks to the availability of Victorian volumes on line, there are more reliable sources available and usually enough details on line to make a judgement if the person is historically significant enough to warrant a biographical article. A first useful step in deciding if these Continental European biographies should be kept is to mark the sources used as unreliable if they are unreliable. If no reliable sources are added to the articles after a reasonable period of time then they can be put up for AfD under not notable. Hopefully it will not come to this, and many of these articles will be improved over the coming months by adding biographical details about the subject from reliable sources.

Having said that I do realise that there is a real problem with historical bias. Often the only historical record we have for women who played a notable part in the societies in which they lived is only through their marriages and children as that is all that was recorded at the time. I think that is an issue that should be discussed on the talk page and at possible AfD's and weighed into the balance when discussing whether a biographical article on a woman should be included in Wikipedia.

One final though. Since the {{Rayment}} templates were marked as unreliable, I have noticed that editors have started to replace the citations that use Rayment with more reliable sources. Hopefully marking theses other as unreliable will result in the same benefits to the project. --PBS (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PBS for getting this away from allegations of tainting the project, and looking at real examples where things can be improved. Sourcing is context relative, as Fifelfoo himself often repeats.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as PBS implies, that Medieval Lands offers a particularly useful start for articles about medieval women. Not only their marriage and family but their philanthropy too: Cawley cites all those charters etc. I've used it in exactly that way (Hawise of Monmouth, Rohese of Monmouth). Andrew Dalby 12:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, I'll just stick to writing about Northern Irish paramilitaries and the Troubles as I get more positive feedback in those fields than I do on historical bios. Being accused of "tainting the project" is my exit cue, so I really no longer care about what constitutes reliable sources for historical bios.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to pick up on one point that Andrew made "OTOH, there is no such thing as an academic genealogist". Up to now professional genealogists can beset be seen as producing stud books for those in society who were willing to pay for such information. I suspect that social network analysis tools (such as the police use to analyse criminal networks via their phone usage) will be let loose on the genealogy and the subject will become much more prominent as an academic discipline because of the insights it will give into the possible reasons why certain families supported others politically for reasons that up to now have been overlooked (it will also throw up lots of possible incorrect associations that litter current genealogical compilations). The closest analogy I can think of is how genetic research has had, and is having, a profound effect on historians interpretations of poorly documented historical migrations. However this is speculation does not get us any further in this particular thread about the usage of Cawley as as a reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also point out that including or excluding Cawley's work as a RS will not offset the academics' disdain for Wikipedia's historical articles seeing as we're all amateurs, Cawley or no Cawley, so....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. Incidentally, although I'd love to find some academic praise of Cawley's work, I'm not aware of any academic criticism of it either. Just no mention at all as yet (so far as I know). Yet some use it, just as some use Wikipedia ... On the other hand, Christian Settipani, whose early medieval genealogies I wouldn't touch with a bargepole, has an academic foothold with Katharine Keats-Rohan. You can't trust the academics these days. Life ain't what it used to be Andrew Dalby 08:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting to be told why there is a problem using Cawley's website when he provides a long list of his sources of which there has never been an academic dispute. This move is just simply counter-productive and an attempt to inject an exclusive country club ambience into the project. There may as well be a banner reading "Amateurs not welcome".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above use his site, but only where you can cite the reliable sources he has used. This is nothing to do with his abilities good bad or indifferent (because we are not in the position to judge that), it is because his site fails WP:V. Looking at the example I gave above, what part of Marie, Duchess of Auvergne (a previously unreferenced article article to which you made large changes and added the 3 Cawley citation) can be supported by Cawley using his secondary sources (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT)? -- PBS (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if you say it fails WP:V you may be right, PBS, but I must say I'm not sure which clause it fails.

Marie, Duchess of Auvergne lacked a precise link to the entry at Medlands, so I've added one under external links. Odd that we provided an accurate link to Familypedia (an open wiki site) and not this, but ... Wikipedia is a work in progress, as they say. Andrew Dalby 13:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is reason to doubt some of the material on the Louis T McFadden page is from an un-biased source. The actual vigor with which that article attempts to place a label on McFadden is clearly fodder for the neutral point of view forum but the single source used to label McFadden is biased. The Mcfadden ^[2]page sites numerous articles form a single source which cites itself. The source is biased and the items in the article are placed there with prejudice and mailice. There is a reference from a 'reporter' named Drew Pearson ^[3]whose wikipedia page states in the opening sentence that Pearson often made claims with no proof - yet wikipedia considers Pearson's yellow press to be encyclopedic enough to appear in the biography of an individual who served as Chairman of the US House Committee on Banking and Currency for eleven years. I am not about to claim that McFadden may not have made some comments that offended individuals of the Jewish faith. I will remind you that in the 1930's and 20's discrimination against many of the Jewish faith was not uncommon, rather quite common. I will claim however that the article on McFadden is heavily biased by the single source of the JTA. It is impossible to look at the article and see the single self citing source attempting so vehemently to condemn McFadden with a label one cannot believe that this is not baised and malicious and done with prejudice to hang a certain label on McFadden and therefore marginalse his work. Having the single source of the JTA relentlessly quoted is done for a single reason. Only substantiating the biased claims of the JTA with JTA^[4] citations fails on scholarly and news organizations points 142.68.89.59 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Pearson is a notoriously unreliable source. Mention of allegations he made should be utterly dependent on their impact at the time (e.g. his attacks on James Forrestal). I cannot offer an opinion as to the reliability of the JTA at the time, and I agree that it would be nice if other sources could be found testifying to McFadden's views. Mangoe (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson is quoted per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, so we are not so worried about whether he was accurate. Certainly it is a fact that McFadden was mentioned in Pearson's column that day. I have corrected the Pearson quote to say that Pearson was noticing McFadden being quoted by the fascist Silver Shirts. User:Binksternet

The phrasing is better but I am having some trouble with the section as to whether it is reporting a controversy of the time, or it is documenting McFadden's sins after the fact. If it is the latter, Pearson is an inappropriate source. If the former, he is appropriate only if he was a participant in the controversy. Mangoe (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a scholarly source on this so it isn't as though we have to rely on contemporary news reports. See Jenkins, Philip (1997). Hoods and Shirts: The Extreme Right in Pennsylvania, 1925-1950. University of North Carolina Press. pp. 117–120. for an extensive section discussing his antisemitic career. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is very obvious that the powers that be at wikipedia have an antisemetic ( whatever that means - the term is thrown about so liberally these days that it is pretty much meaningless as it targets anyone that is even slightly critical of Israel ) axe to grind and it is very important to wikipedia to label McFadden as such ddespite the rampant ant-jewish sentiments of the day. You should at least review the article and check the spelling. The attempts to validate Pearson's comments pretty much put the argument on ice that wiki is biased. There is no editing war because wiki is an autocracy142.176.239.2 (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, McFadden stood out from the crowd in his day. He was not holding a median position. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several users insist on removing the {Primary sources} tag from Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons). I am not really sure what the basis of their position is. All of the TSR/Wizards of the Coast publications are from the company that produces and owns the trademark for D&D and are therefore obviously primary sources. The other sources listed are:

1) something by Paizo Publishing, the owner of the Pathfinder game trademark - this source is used to verify that in a Pathfinder game sourcebook there is a critter called the "brownie". Hence the document is being used to verify that the document has the word "brownie" on it.

2) something by Necromancer Games which is used to verify that a critter called a brownie appears in the book published by Necromancer games. Hence the document is being used to verify that the document has the word "brownie" on it.

3) something by Avalanche Press which is used as proof that the Avalanche press book contains a critter called the brownie. Hence the document is being used to verify that the document has the word "brownie" on it.

The only potentially non-primary source is the White Dwarf magazine appearance. The publisher of White Dwarf had been the licensed publisher of D&D materials in the UK up until the year before this article appeared and so it is potentially a third party source. However, it would be a farsical claim to suggest that the two sentences cited to that source counter suggest in any way that the content of the article does not meet the criteria flagged as problematic with the tag: "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject". -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic is limited to the Dungeons and Dragons game, then all three of the sourcebooks are non-primary, since they're not published by TSR or Wizards of the Coast. Is that the question you were actually asking? Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: whether the tag describing the article as relying on primary sources is appropriately placed. Is the content of the article relying on 1) books being used in a primary source manner ie simply to verify their own content/existance of certain words on their pages 2) sources closely affiliated with of the creator and owner of the D&D franchise /associated licenses. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, that they are published by someone other than TSR/WotC says that they are independent, not secondary. Both are required for sources satisfying WP:GNG, but they are different things. Whether a source is secondary or primary is something that is going to vary from source to source, and I will remind you that WP:PSTS acknowledges that a given source can fill multiple roles.
I don't agree that Paizo or other parties using the OGL are necessarily "closely affiliated" with WotC/TSR, but as discussed elsewhere, some companies like Kenzer had relationships with WotC that would compromise editorial independence per WP:IS. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand how sources that have specific licencing agreements with WotC and bear the mention "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®" could be "independent" of the D&D franchise and of WotC. Independence does not only mean "editorial independence", but also "no conflict of interest". Avalanche Press and Necromancer games both having direct financial interest and direct participation in the D&D franchise itself, there's no way they can be independent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons and Dragons rulebooks and manuals

We've had several discussions and AfD on Dungeons & Dragons that have been going nowhere. The main point of disagreement is the nature of sources used on articles about fictional D&D creatures like Adherer, are they primary/secondary, affiliated/independent ? I've come here to have the matter evaluated by fresh and uninvolved eyes.

To contextualize: Dungeons & Dragons is a tabletop Role-playing game, played using core rulebooks which are official manuals detailing storyline and gameplay mecanics, published by TSR/Wizards of the Coast the creators and copyright holders of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. These manuals or "sourcebooks"/"handbooks" , as they represent the game itself, are primary sources, I think we can all agree on that.

Now, there is disagreement whether other manuals used in D&D are primary/secondary, affilated/independent. There are two different types of manuals:

• Manuals which are commercially published supplements/extensions to the D&D game, providing original fiction and game mecanics intented for use in a D&D gaming session. Though not from the official D&D publishers, these books are published under certain licencing agreements that allow them to use material (story and gameplay) from the official D&D game, and to be sold as part of the D&D franchise (they bear the mention "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®"). An example would be Tome of Horrors published by Necromancer Games (see an official preview in pdf).
  • My view is that as these books provide original fiction and rules for D&D, and as such don't provide "analytic or evaltive claim" (as secondary sources do), they fully participate, at primary level, in the building of D&D as a game and so I see them as primary sources not "independent of the subject" (per WP:GNG). Other users have expressed the view that since they are not from the official D&D publishers these manuals are secondary and independent.
• The second example is official core rulebooks, thus primary sources, from other tabletop role-playing games which are not D&D. Some can develop their own gaming mecanism, some others can reuse story and mecanics from D&D (again through specific licencing agreements) while still being completely different intellectual properties from different creators. See for example Pathfinder Roleplaying Game from Paizo.
  • Some contributors use these official manuals to argue that when these feature a fictional creature that also appears in D&D, then the manuals from other games are secondary independent sources, because there is no official affiliation with the D&D franchise. They also say that the appearance of the creatures in other games is a proof of notability. Again they argue that merely not being from D&D makes it a secondary source, despite not providing any analysis. My view, however, is that since these manuals are primary sources for their own games, they use the fictional creature to build their own fiction and their own mecanics, and don't provide any analytic or evaluative comments on the creature as it appeared in D&D, since they are not commentary books but primary sources for games (which I think is not "significant coverage" either per WP:GNG). I think being a secondary sources requires more than just "not being D&D". As such, they are not independent from the fictional creatures they feature, and since they are not D&D they just don't deal with the creature from the D&D franchise (thus don't deal "directly with the subject" per WP:GNG).

Thanks for helping us on this. We've had AfDs on D&D fictional creatures in the past and some on-going, including one last month Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) which outcome was the redirection of all articles nominated per consensus that the various manuals (both D&D extensions and other games), the only sources found, were primary/affiliated. Now that other AfDs have started, a user disatisfied with this outcome claims it was "not policy-based" and that "a lot of editors disagree", I think this is a good opportinuity to see which interpretation on sources is policy-compliant, and maybe to reach a wider consensus that won't be easily dismissed (note that the previous AfD had 21 participants, yet that didn't seem to be enough for some).Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This has also been brought up here before. - SudoGhost 22:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I feel that a rigid black-and-white distinction between "primary" and "secondary" can sometimes be unhelpful - there are grey areas - but these sources are very much on the primary side of the spectrum as far as I'm concerned. Now, it's often reasonable to use primary sources for uncontroversial claims, but I don't see how these articles pass the GNG if none of the sources are independent. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝuʎɐɹqoq 08:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that the issue of independence requires careful attention to the actual publishing situation. I do not think that most OGL publishers lack "editorial independence" per WP:IS, though some companies like Kenzer had licensing arrangements that gave WotC an editorial approval role that would compromise "editorial independence".

The contention here regarding Primary or Secondary is that it assumed that these books only contain in-universe text that provides little significant coverage apart from the creature stats. In reality, many products go beyond this, discussing perceptions and uses of various game items from a game-play (vice in-universe) perspective. So I think saying all these sources are necessarily primary (or strictly primary) fails to give them adequate attention.

The problem I have with many of the articles and why I frequently vote for merging or deletion is that despite having sources I consider credible, many of the articles lack any semblance of significant coverage from those sources. Simply saying that a creature appeared in a certain book isn't worthy of a stand alone article; at best, it's a line entry in a list article. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of independence does not only reside in "editorial independence", per WP:GNG, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator" [...] "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations." Per WP:IS: "a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication).

Can anyone demonstrate that sources that state "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®" have "no strong connexion" and "no affiliation" to the subject, which is D&D ? That they describe D&D in a disinterested perspective and no potential from financial gain by being tied to the D&D franchise ? I agree with all that you said, except I don't see how these sources could be seen as independent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted what looks like rather close paraphrasing between The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Jurgen Habermas [55] and ours. There are at least a couple of sentences in the biography section that are copypasted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do see Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions:

• Archive 62
• Archive 129

If I read the Archive 129 discussion correctly, the consensus seems to have ended up that glbtq.com is *not* a RS. I take exception to that. From what I understand, if a source has editorial oversight and provides their own sources for their material, then they could be considered "reliable". Glbtq.com seems to pass both these criteria. The presskit at the site claims editorial oversight, and many (if not most) articles include bibliographies. For example, the article about William Inge includes the sources used, and the article about Kenneth Anger does as well.

Question: How does Glbtq.com fail the guidelines on Reliable Sources? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 129 discussion only, and rightfully, dismissed glbtq.com in one instance, citing that it was referencing research which should be cited directly. In general glbtq.com's research is acceptable but like all sources needs to be used judiciously and on a case by case basis might not be the strongest sourcing available. The 62 discussion veered more into the LGBTQ categorizing, which has a higher standard on Wikipedia of self-declarations for living people, but essentially held up glbtq.com as reliable. Insomesia (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Link: http://everythinginmusic.com/artists/fall-out-boy
• Article: Fall Out Boy Former members section and in the infobox.
• Statement: "Brandon Hamm – guitar (2001)"
• My argument: the source is a blog made by an open source blogging tool called [WordPress]], severely reducing its reliability. It has been cited in an attempt to support Brandon Hamm's inclusion as a former member on the Fall Out Boy page, which a user added alongside a shaky self-published source made by Hamm himself in the comments of an online newspaper website. There has been an RFC on the contentious issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fall_Out_Boy#RFC_on_Brandon_Hamm with a general sentiment of excluding Hamm from the page. Hamm's involvement in the band has not been verified by any reliable sources and has not contributed to any released material, making the grounds of his membership very contentious. However, the said user has just added the also-shaky everythinginmusicsource.com source in an attempt to keep Hamm on the page. While I'm on this issue, the original source used for Hamm's membership is this http://blogs.suntimes.com/music/2008/05/background_reading_on_the_prom_1.html#comment-314099. I feel that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP policy is not being taken into account by the user supporting Hamm's involvement due to the sources being weak and unreliable for such a large membership claim. Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently created a page for cortandfatboy, a Portland-based podcast (talk page) and it was deleted for being a recreation of a previously deleted article. Unbeknownst to me, a prior version was created in 2011 and it was nixed due to an alleged lack of reliable sources. Over the past year, the show has been featured in a cover story in the Portland Mercury, a weekly newspaper, and on the blog of the Oregonian, the state's biggest/most widely read publication. I think the sources are there to warrant an article. If at all possible, I would greatly appreciate it if anyone here would be willing to look over the article's citations and tell me if they're up to par. Cheers... Multnomahblues (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Wieferich prime I am preparing some content that I later want to include in the article Wieferich prime. At the section User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Wieferich prime#Connection with Sophie Germain primes I wrote a short passage about the connection of Wieferich primes with Sophie Germain primes. My question is, is the source I used, namely this paper on arXiv an acceptable source for the statements it cites? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you reply, please place

==Talkback Reliable sources/Noticeboard==
{{Talkback|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|arXiv paper|ts=~~~~~}}
~~~~

on my talkpage. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 23:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Specificially this page in List of unaccredited institutions of higher education List_of_unrecognized_accreditation_associations_of_higher_learning

Hi. :) This is, of course, a "list of unaccredited institutions of higher education". There are several institutions which are sourced only to this website (and a few which are supplemented with a link to this website) -- as of this writing, it is reference 15. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter challenging the accuracy of this information, but, of course, they do not handle content issues and are thus not in position to make this call. I searched the board for prior discussions about geteducated, but only found one off-topic on its notability.

The Wikimedia Foundation recognizes that the community is the expert on what sources are or are not usable and are hoping that you will review it to see if it is reliable in this context, taking any action you may deem appropriate if you decide it is not. They trust and respect your review and resulting decision and will communicate to the correspondent the result of any discussion.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI: I checked List of unaccredited institutions of higher education, and that page is not referenced there. It is referenced in List_of_unrecognized_accreditation_associations_of_higher_learning. jfeise (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Thank you. I can't believe I linked the wrong one. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• [EC] Because it's a commercial website in the business of selling advertising, I wouldn't necessarily rate GetEducated.com as the highest-quality of reliable sources, but I think it's reliable as a source of information on unaccredited institutions and non-recognized accreditation bodies.

One particularly strong factor in its favor is that the website is recommended as a resource by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation. Articles about the website have twice been deleted via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geteducated.com and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetEducated.com; although those discussions did not find the website to be notable, they uncovered quite a few instances of reliable sources mentioning the website. Those mentions lend it some credibility as an information source.

The GetEducated website itself has several attributes that indicate reliability. It identifies who stands behind the information[56]; it has a complete set of contact information[57] (this is very much unlike most of the entities listed at List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations and List of unaccredited institutions of higher education, which typically either list no geographic location, operate from an obscure and remote place such as Vanuatu, or use a physical address that turns out to be a Mailboxes Etc. outlet); it provides thorough documentation of the basis for the information provided on its reports for individual institutions (this is an example of a report for a fully accredited school; here's an example of a report for an unaccredited school); and the information it reports is conservatively worded.

The Geteducated database of online schools is much smaller than the lists on Wikipedia and the list at http://www.geteducated.com/diploma-mills-police/college-degree-mills/204-fake-agencies-for-college-accreditation is shorter than the list in the Wikipedia article List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations. These comparisons give me confidence that they didn't copy from us (this is important, as some ostensibly reliable vendors of information on diploma mills and accreditation mills appear to have copied from us). I have observed that the GetEducated lists have grown slowly over the last few years, which is consistent with what would happen if they researched every entry individually, as they say they do. --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not consider geteducated.com to be a RS. They have a vested interest in guiding people to one school or another. Just because they might be (currently) correct doesn't mean they are reliable. If I say "The United States has 50 states" on my blog, it doesn't make it a RS for geography. FWIW, I'd support deleting that list article.....what a mess. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I recently reverted an edit by a new user whose only edit was to delete an entry from the list of unrecognized accreditation organizations that was sourced to geteducated.com. The entity whose listing I restored was IAO. That organization's website shows a credible set of contact information and lot of accreditation activity worldwide, but it does not give any suggestion that IAO has recognition as an accreditor from any legitimate government authority. We would not include it on the Wikipedia list solely on the basis of lack of evidence of recognition (inclusion in the list requires a reliably sourced indication that the entity definitely does not have recognition as an accreditor), but I can't find a basis for questioning/challenging its listing as "unrecognized or fake" at geteducated.com. --Orlady (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can Firishta, the historian of the 16/17 centuries be considered a reliable source for the history of the Khokhar community? I don't mean cites of his opinions but rather cites of him as fact. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

specifics pls. what article? what claim? have other more recent scholars made claims counter to him? if so who and based on what evidence and what is the scholarly opinion of the sources that contradict him? how "controversial" are the claims that are being attributed to him? have the claims been specifically challenged by an editor?

In general, a scholar from that long ago, it would probably be best practice to attribute claims. Even if outplaced by more recent scholarship, it could be good content to keep and present to show the historical evolution of the views and interpretations. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TRoD, and yes, I am familiar with the outcomes and procedures of this noticeboard. I linked to the article. The claim is everything related to the history of the community, apparently up to Firishta's own time. Treating him as being some sort of ultimate source.

I was trying to keep it neutral but, since you appear to insist, then yes, I challenge the usage for factual statements. This is an Indic caste article, it is subject to general sanctions and it is an area in which (a) a lot of puffery goes on; (b) most stuff from centuries ago is either ignored by modern authorities or is deprecated; and (c) I have much experience. You can forget the evolution of historical views and interpretations because that is an issue for an article concerning the historiography of India etc (which would be interesting, to be sure).

I really did not want to say any of this because it moves the query from one that is neutral to one that is clearly biased. But you did ask, sorry. I must admit to getting a bit fed up with the pussyfooting around this subject area and it is all pushing me that much closer to jacking it all in. The odd bad day is becoming the odd bad week and it simply is not worth my effort, especially when it almost invariably ends up as I anticipated and, if you can forgive my ownership, in "my favour". My apologies for the rant: I do appreciate the input and the request for clarification but this type of issue is old news here. I feel like a hamster on a wheel. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously "Treating him as being some sort of ultimate source" is "NO" :-)

I had just quickly glanced at the articles but as you have pointed out the views of 16/17th scholars are clearly no longer considered as valued for anything other than examples of historical views regarding caste issues. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per HISTRS and the fact he was born, lived, wrote and died before Ranke this is not reliable for any claim. Quote—at most—as a primary source per WP:HISTRS regarding using primary sources for illustration, ie only where a modern historiography of history quotes Firishta on a point. and only where that point is WEIGHTy to the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

71.230.50.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is persistently inserting information pertaining to student complaints about Peabody Institute, repeatedly claiming that Facebook and a blog are verifiable sources: [58].

I would like a third opinion as to whether or not this information should be included.

69.251.42.0 (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook and blogs are only ever "reliable" sources in the most limited of circumstances such as when they are used to support non controversial content solely about the verified owner of the Facebook account / blog. (ie John Doe's blog being used to verify a claim such as "Doe was inspired to write the song X after seeing a beautiful sunrise") or when they are the verified account of a known expert who has been previously published and the blog postings/content are in the same topical area for which the person was published see WP:SPS. In this case, nope, not usable in the least. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original discussion for this website I started is located here. I want to use The content I want to use it for is for the Scanlation article on potentially for related articles. I want to use the website's history of scanlation, information on the process, and interviews with scanlation groups and industry publishers. AngelFire3423 (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad penny that just keeps on turning up heads, so I thought I would try to put it to the community for an opinion. There are those who edit 'Yugoslavia in WW2' articles who question whether the subject book is a WP:RS on that general subject. The general theme of these objections is that Cohen was apparently a dentist (if he was, he may still be one, I don't know), and therefore it is not a. reliable, or b. he's an amateur and it could only be a tertiary source at best. Here is the Google Books link to the book in question [59]. The book is published by Texas A&M University Press, is part of a series on East European Studies edited by Stjepan Meštrović, and has a foreword by the late David Riesman, who was at that time the Henry Ford II Professor of Social Sciences Emeritus at Harvard University. Cohen uses footnotes from other secondary WP:RS on the subject such as Tomasevich, Milazzo, Roberts etc, but the work is extensively footnoted, and Riesman concludes inter alia 'this volume will be useful to scholars specialising in the history and current politics and policies in the Balkans and Serbia in particular.' On this occasion it just happens to be the Ante Pavelic article where it has been challenged, but it has been challenged on other 'Yugoslavia in WW2' articles before. I ask for a community view on this book as a WP:RS on the subject of 'Yugoslavia in WW2' generally, because I think that would suffice for the moment. If there is a more specific challenge to a specific part of the book for a specific article, I will of course bring it back here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

doi: 10.1093/hgs/14.2.300 is an appropriate review in an appropriate scholarly journal. They note he has not historical postgraduate training. I think this paragraph is sufficient, "An objective and thorough history of the World-War-II Serbian puppet state under Milan Nedic certainly is needed, but Serbia's Secret War is not it. This is not an exhaustive study, nor did I find it unbiased. The tone is set at the outset in the "Series Editors Statement," where Stejpan G. Mestrovic indicates that "respected Western fact-gathering organizations have concluded that the overwhelming majority of atrocities and one hundred percent of the genocide in the current Balkan War [Bosnian Civil War?] were committed by Serbs" (p. xiii). I find, and I think many readers will perceive the same, that the intent of this book is to punish Serbia and the Serbs for their alleged past and current crimes against the non-Serbs of the region. No falsifications of history appear in its pages, but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs." "Nowhere in Serbia's Secret War is there any discussion either by Mestrovic or Cohen of the intellectual validity of the transference of a past epoch (e.g., World War II) onto the present as this book largely does. Without such a dialogue, however, this book or any other like it, may degenerate into unreasonable conspiratorial history. Historiography, especially that of the modern Balkans, is well populated with studies exemplifying such trends by people who have an axe to grind; these works contribute little to our understanding of complex past events and their impact upon the present. Although it habitually is, history should not be employed as a weapon. Serbia's Secret War addresses several important historical topics, but does so

poorly and incompletely. One can see it as part of the current popular-historical and journalistic literature that seeks to demonize and condemn rather than to chronicle and elucidate fairly. It is to be hoped that its shortcomings will stimulate others to try harder and to do better." The criticism levelled that this is pre-Rankean history is so methodologically harsh that I would call it a condemnation. I would say that it is unreliable, and refer readers to WP:HISTRS regarding appropriate sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]