Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

In spite of my objections per closing a previous RfC relevant to this article, I will close this RfC as well on the basis that its participants have not expressed any reservations given my prior involvement. Of course, if there are substantial disagreements with this close, they can be brought to the appropriate venue. The current topic still deals with citing a blog, self-published by a member of the institute in question, to support statements in relation to the controversial reputation of the institute. As such, my closing at the prior RfC still very much applies here. Consequently, consensus is that the blog is an inappropriate source for use in this article, and therefore, so is its content. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

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

• Content (updated, as material from Callahan removed per RSN):

  Mises Scholar Robert Murphy wrote in support of the Institute's founder, Llewellyn Rockwell. He called the critics of Rothbard and Rockwell "hyenas" and defended Rockwell's refusal to respond to the controversy surrounding the racist content in the Ron Paul newsletters.[40][41][42][43]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Srich The Murphy piece is RS for the content which is cited to it in the context of this article. Most of the points I stated in the Callahan thread above also apply here to Murphy. In neither thread have you made a case based on policy and content. Instead you are dressing up your opinion with inapt citations and misinterpretations of policy. Please do some background reading: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Please note, per one of the links provided, it is not constructive to deploy gratuitous language such as "lousy stuff" here. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARY SPS with no EXPERT making accusations tending to libel. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What article text sourced to Murphy's blog is libelous? I don't think calling Rockwell's unnamed critics "hyenas" is actionable. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libel is not the issue. (Murphy could be saying wonderful things about different people.) When a personal blog talks about others (persons and third parties) it goes beyond WP:ABOUTSELF. Murphy's personal blog involves named, particular third parties/third persons. It is not acceptable RS about the Ludwig von Mises Institution. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is out of touch with the facts. Murphy is writing about himself; he's a member of the Institute and therefore free to discuss it all he likes. He's saying good things about it, defending it, so libel doesn't even enter the picture. But if he wants to deny that it's a cult, that's his call, and he's a reliable source on what members believe about the cult status of the Institute. MilesMoney (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SRich, you've been curiously silent. Can we conclude that you're dropping your objections now that they've been soundly refuted? MilesMoney (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a welcome outcome, since Srich has rejected user Fifelfoo's libel concern. Of course, keeping Murphy's bit intact makes it all the more appropriate we also keep Gene Callahan's comment on Murphy, for balance. Note that Callahan defends Rockwell by stating he believes that Rockwell came to regret the racist redneck strategy which supported the founding of vMI. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:QS says: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves;... They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. [Emphasis added.]" Murphy's blog might be suitable in his article or for posting his expert opinion in the field of economics. Callahan's blog might be suitable in his article or for posting his expert opinion in the field of economics. Murphy has taught & had publications published by LvMI, that does not make him an official of the organization. I'm a "member" of the Sierra Club. While I can use my personal blog to express any personal opinion about the Sierra Club, that opinion cannot be used in WP. Fifelfoo has objected on multiple points. I support many of the points. Again, we have a blog commenting about another blog which is commenting about other uncited comments. This is QS based on other QS. – S. Rich (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@srich: Have you reviewed the links which discuss various of the fallacies you have used in these RSN threads? That will help move this discussion forward. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My background reading is not the issue of this thread. Rather, let's look at the names included in Murphy's blog: Ron Paul, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Peter Klein, Roderick Long, Mark Thornton, Lew Rockwell, Guido Hulsmann, Jeff Herbener. Even if he says wonderful things about these people, he is giving us gossip, rumor, and personal opinion. His personal blog has no meaningful editorial oversight. It can be used in the Murphy article, but not elsewhere. – S. Rich (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph describing a kerfuffle between warring camps of libertarian economists (between the "GMU Austro-libertarians and the Auburn Austro-libertarians") is a tempest in a teapot if all we have on it are blog-sourced salvos sent at each other across no man's land. Why do we care what the bloggers are saying to each other? This stuff should be sourced to mainstream journals and books, not blogs, and it should be described neutrally rather than in the voices of the involved. The text shown at the top of this thread as "content" is clearly using Murphy's blog post as a coatrack to introduce the intended post by Callahan who is given five sentences versus the one sentence offered to Murphy. It is clear from this addition by Steeletrap in mid-August is the basis for the current RSN discussion; Steeletrap writes that Callahan "implies" that LvMI is a cult akin to Scientology. It is only later that Murphy is added by SPECIFICO in a false attempt to provide balance, when it is obvious that the only reason Murphy is added is so that the bit by Callahan can better survive deletion. The much greater weight given to Callahan is revealing. I think the whole paragraph should be struck as undue weight. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong flick, Binksternet. This has nothing to do with the Cato/Mises rift. Murphy and Callahan were colleagues at Mises. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed the part where I linked to the same Murphy blog that you used as a reference. It's the same game. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be directing your efforts to an area beyond your expertise with these libertarian and Austrian economics articles. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really good at recognizing activist editors who are here to slant the encyclopedia their way. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this noticeboard is Reliable Sources, and so far you haven't shown much understanding of the sources, their contexts, or the WP policies that would apply to them. But I'd love to have you prove me wrong and see some on-topic policy-based writings from you. SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion of my "understanding" is not worth comment. There is a larger picture here; larger than RSN's purview. This context should not be absent from the discussion, as it bears strongly on the matter. The various blogs from Murphy and Callahan are not useful on Wikipedia unless they are 1) on topic, 2) founded on the writer's widely acknowledged expertise, and 3) relevant to a summary style encyclopedia article on the topic. In this case, the relevance is severely lacking. Murphy argues against unnamed critics of LvMI-as-a-cult and then Callahan responds saying LvMI is indeed a cult, in his opinion. Who cares? This back-and-forth by bloggers is not mainstream news. I say delete the paragraph per WP:UNDUE. As well, neither Callahan nor Murphy are expert cult researchers, so they are out of their element. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, just about nothing regarding the Mises Institute is "mainstream news." Please read all the source material. Murphy says that no group which solicits dissent could possibly be a cult. Callahan, in order to refute him, gives a counterexample. It's a matter of logic. One needn't be an "expert cult researcher" whatever that means, or call Ghostbusters, to figure out that Callahan has refuted Murphy in this narrow clearly stated matter. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at Rich's and Blinksternet's hardline refusal to accept either of these sources, the more I realize that neither of them has even an excuse. Neither one can point at a rule that's even relevant, much less on their side. Neither one has anything substantive to object to; it's all just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I also realize that, since we can't quote Callahan without Murphy or vice versa, we can't talk about how reliable they are separately. We need a single thread, which means this one is dead in the water. Let's close both of these threads, burying the mess, and let them open up one where they actually stay on topic and don't misapply the rules. MilesMoney (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Callahan blog RSN is getting plenty of comment, and each RSN thread has a notice about the other. Combining them will not work for two reasons: 1. Combing would not change the basic RS analysis (for either blog) and would only complicate a thread that is quite long as is. 2. What you say about the fate of Murphy's blog vs. Callahan's is true to a certain extent. If Murphy's blog is non-RS, then Callahan's comments about Murphy's blog get kicked out because of WP:UNDUE. I opened the Callahan blog RSN first because some editors claim other RS supports the idea that LvMI is a cult. Callahan's blog might be non-RS in this regard, but the other sources might support a cult description. But since Callahan's blog talks about Murphy's blog, I felt it necessary/helpful to open this RSN as a separate issue. Again, I remind readers that each thread provides notice about the other. – S. Rich (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not saying that LvMI is a cult. For that, we'd need considerably stronger sources. All we're saying is the obvious and uncontroversial fact that the controversy exists, that members of the LvMI argue publicly about whether it's a cult. I'm just not going to let you misinform people by spinning the issue this way. MilesMoney (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the RSN regarding the Callahan blog is now closed with a non-RS determination ([8]), I propose that we give equal treatment to the Murphy blog and consider it non-RS as well. It would be unbalanced for us to leave the Murphy comments in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic here is whether it's RS, not the balance of the article. You may withdraw this at your option but if not, let the discussion proceed to a conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closing of the related Callahan blog RSN said: [inserted closing text curiously omitted by OP: "consensus was that comments from Callahan's blog in re: the institute as a cult should not be included in the article.] The basis for this consensus was that, as a self-published source, the content is generally considered unacceptable for use. [Emphasis added.]" I cannot see how we might consider Murphy's blog as RS. It is specifically self-labeled as a "personal blog". It would be incredibly inconsistent to allow one blog in, yet exclude the other. – S. Rich (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC) [omitted text inserted SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)][reply]

A request to close this RSN has been posted at WP:ANRFC. – S. Rich (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two RSN threads are about different issues and Srich's insistence that, because the Callahan/cult text was rejected, the closing Admin must reject the Murphy defense of Mises Institute is unfounded. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may be two different personal blogs involved with the two RSNs, but the WP editing issues involved match. Each blog is WP:SPS. Each goes beyond WP:ABOUTSELF because each blog talks about third parties. Each is WP:QS. Each is WP:PRIMARY because they ruminate on their personal experiences at LvMI. Each involves blogging about material that is not within their areas of expertise – economics. Specifico has not advanced any WP policy, guideline, or argument to overcome this fact. – S. Rich (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as if you feel that there's more to say in this discussion. If so, I suggest you withdraw your request for closure. If not, I'm sure the closing Admin will bring the matter to the right conclusion without needing special instructions. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have anything to add. The arguments are well laid out above and, by connection, in the closed Callahan blog RSN. I would not presume to instruct an Admin on how to close. (And they'd probably ignore any such proffered instruction.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content related to Murphy's blog now updated per removal of Callahan quote. Basically the material after the footnotes. – S. Rich (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this update, the discussion in the current thread no longer reflects the current article content and sources. This thread should be withdrawn. Please start a new thread which states whatever issues remain in the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Callahan material was found non-RS was posted a few days ago. Perhaps "Clarify" would be a better term. No matter, the issue remain the same – Murphy's material is a personal blog and does not serve as proper RS. (How does the removal of the Callahan blog change that factor?) – S. Rich (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – The article text and supporting references have changed since this thread was begun and the comments may no longer apply to current article content or sources

SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please state the question for which you are soliciting discussion. Please be specific and state any outstanding concerns and their relationship to the current article text. If you are requesting further editor comment here, please withdraw your closure request so that all editors will have a chance to comment and help move the discussion to a resolution and consensus. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does the removal of the Callahan blog (from the article text) change the fact that Murphy's personal blog is SPS and thereby is not acceptable RS? An answer might start off saying "Murphy's personal blog is acceptable as RS in the article because......" – S. Rich (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you meant to write was, "Does the removal of the Callahan text change the fact that Murphy's statements are acceptable RS?" I would say it doesn't change things. Murphy is still RS for the text attributed to it. Please withdraw your request for closure so that discussion can resume. Otherwise, this thread is going to remain stale and stuck. The alternative would be to withdraw this thread and start anew with a more clearly stated issue which relates to the current article text. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you appreciate the value of anchoring. (And my framing of the question/s was quite deliberate.) So, I will await fulfillment of this inquiry:

"The removal of the Callahan material changes the analysis of the Murphy material because..... and the Murphy material is RS because.........."

Please provide rationale for the missing portions. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I restated the question, and no reply has been forthcoming. Accordingly, I've removed the "awaiting" tags and the duplicate "stale" tag. As the WP:BURDEN for keeping the Murphy personal blog in the article has not been meet, this RSN is ready for a decision and closing. – S. Rich (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

A number of biographies use People magazine for sourcing various statements. Prior limited discussions on this board have held People to be generally reliable. [9], [10], [11] However, concerns have been raised that People does not meet the sourcing standards laid out by WP:BLP. The full discussion outlining these concerns can be found here.

1. Can People continue to be used as a reliable source in BLP's?
2. If the answer to 1 is Yes, under what circumstances should People not be used as a source in BLP's?

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (first question "Can People continue to be used as a reliable source in BLP's?")

• Yes, it can be validly used. I don't have any new arguments, so I'll repeat some of what I stated in the above linked WP:BLP noticeboard discussion: People is generally not considered tabloid journalism, at least not by Wikipedia, which means that use of it for biographies of livings persons (BLPs) is generally not in violation of WP:BLPSOURCES. It has become standard practice to use it as a source in BLPs; editors often have especially felt that it is fine to use for uncontentious material. It is also used as a source in many WP:Good (GA) and WP:Featured (FA) BLP articles during those nomination processes (where the sources are usually extensively analyzed, especially with regard to WP:Featured articles), without any problems. I wouldn't put People in the same category as the National Enquirer or the Daily Mail, especially not the former, and of course neither has the Wikipedia community generally done so. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. I mean, it can be used; it'd be pretty silly to say it can never be used. This doesn't mean that it can always be used for everything, that everything that appears in People must be true, or that People is the gold standard for journalistic veracity on this planet. But it can be used. Am I understanding the question correctly? Of course it can. (BLP's can be fraught; there's some material that should be redacted even if we have an excellent ref, there's usually lots of harmless and uncontested material that doesn't really have anything to do with why WP:BLP was created and the spirit of BLP, and then there's some borderline material where we want to be really careful. Those need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and things like the reputation of the author of the piece and other factors might come into play. You can't really have a strict rule that covers all these cases.) Herostratus (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes People is a magazine that has a major emphasis on reporting celebrity news. If terms such as "gossip" and "tabloid" are defined broadly, then People is a gossip tabloid. Defined more narrowly, it isn't. It has a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and professional editorial control. Therefore, it is a reliable source in specific contexts. Certainly, a book published by a reliable publisher would be a better source, or even an article published in a respected newspaper. But we are not debating whether or not People is the best source ever published, but rather, whether it is generally reliable for biographical information about notable celebrities. Even the New York Times can be unreliable, for example, Judith Miller's articles about the runup to the Iraq war. I believe that People is generally reliable for biographcal details regarding celebrities. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, to be used for uncontentious biographical information from interviews, as per WP:SELFSOURCE, and possibly for other information relevant to People as per Context matters. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Longstanding consensus is that People may be used as a reliable source (obviously in BLPs, since LPs are their focus), and it is already used in a large number of well-written, well-sourced articles, including GAs and FAs. It is a mainstream magazine published by one of the oldest, most reputable magazine publishers in the world, it employs experienced editors to oversee a staff of qualified journalists, it has a reputation for fact-checking, and because of its good name in the business it enjoys an enviable level of trust among its readership and among the celebrities it covers. We would be hard pressed to replace it because no other source with its specific focus is as reliable. In discussions leading up to this RfC, the term "tabloid" was bandied about, but it seems unfair to tar People with that broad and woolly brush; the magazine's style may verge on the lurid at times, but the same can be said of much celebrity coverage in other sources, including various daily newspapers and broadcast news programs. Besides, the substance matters more than the style, and no evidence whatsoever has been presented that People 's substance is generally less reliable than that of any other source. Rivertorch (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. It is particularly useful for interviews and announcements from BLPs and their representatives, which they have a good track record of rendering faithfully. Siawase (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, especially in interviews of LPs and statements they make regarding themselves, their lives and careers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No as it is a gossip magazine; as someone put it below, accuracy is not important for its business model. However good its fact-checking, it is, by its nature, prone to use less encyclopedic rigour in what it does and doesn't print than we require for sources on a BLP. There are also well-founded concerns about it being used by celebrities for what amounts to product placement. We should perhaps adopt similar, but even stricter, guidelines to using sources like this and Hello to those we already have for sourcing from autobiographies. A Featured Article should never be sourced to gossip magazines, as their editorial values are so different from ours; even if, on occasion, they contain useful material (and I have seen little evidence of this), it should always be possible to find a better source for something that is going into one of our encyclopedia articles, particularly those on living people. --John (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - From looking at the edit which started this discussion, yes it can be a reliable source. And as stated above, context matters. Garion96 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, but cautiously. People is not utterly unreliable, but it's not the gold standard of journalism either. If the claim is unlikely or potentially contentious, I'd want to see corroboration from other sources, but if it's pretty unremarkable, I think People would be sufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes And this has been discussed enough times to make it a simple answer. It uses fact checkers, etc. which makes it reliable enough for Wikipedia purposes. It is not a "gossip magazine" and calling it one does not make it one. Does it use information from press agents? Yes. So does the New York Times. So that argument is simply disposed of as not relevant here. Would I use any single source for an extremely contentious claim? "George Gnarph is HIV-positive and has had thousands of sex partners" (hypothetical claim) surely requires extremely strong sourcing - beyond even the New York Times. Collect (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. No question here, it's an excellent, perhaps the best, source for what it does cover, the celebrity world. It is a long-standing and well-regarded publication ad is ubiquitous in libraries and library databases, and is frequently cited in sources that no editor would think twice about using in a BLP, such as biographies from mainstream, reputable publishers and biographical library databases. It is not the ideal source for things outside its area of expertise (for example, medical, legal, and historical issues.), but what source is ideal used in that manner? Gamaliel (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. There should never be a blanket ban of this magazine in BLPs. It can be used to support a wide variety of facts. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, with caution. It can be used carefully to add or confirm basic facts or opinions that more reputable news sources leave out because it is not in their remit, particularly when dealing with highly notable celebrities whose fame is in part derived from this media coverage. I would not touch it for anything negative, or for anyone else other than the article's subject (most obviously their spouse(s) and children). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, for standard material, with the same disclaimers as everyone above: requires editorial judgment (as does everything else), and not as the single source for a highly contentious claim". --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, but it depends very much on what is being sourced, the article etc. "X gave an interview to People", usually. "Rumours say Y did this." definitely not. There is a whole grey area in between. Martin451 (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes People magazine can be used as a reliable source in many cases. It still publishes a certain amount of gossip which is unreliable content but among all the popular publications on celebrities People is among the most reliable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes there are at least some conditions under which it may be used, and the arguments and conditions for its use have been laid out pretty well above. My view is along the lines of Seraphimblade's. Zad68 03:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes As shown by other editors People does fact checking and publishes corrections. It has no reputation for deliberately publishing incorrect material. It is certainly reliable for sourcing uncontentious biographical facts and its subject interviews can be used to source material dealing with the subject's thoughts and opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (second question "If Yes, under what circumstances should People not be used...")

• I'll assume it's not a question of the material itself being problematic (e.g., it's unnecessarily defamatory, trivial, nobody's business, subject has requested redaction, etc.) where we might remove the material regardless of how well it's sourced. So we're talking about anodyne (harmless) material that does belong in the article. In that case, we should treat it like any other source: If there's reasonable grounds for suspecting the material isn't true (such as when there's another source saying something different) then we should probably not include the material. Otherwise, treat it like any other medium-level source, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Herostratus, we are not discussing problematic additions. Thank you for asking. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    • OK. Just to expand a little, suppose the material is not defamatory but is maybe a little embarrassing. It's something we want to be sure to get right. If it's in a book the subject wrote himself, we're pretty sure of that. If it's in Der Spiegel we're pretty sure of that. If its most other places, we're maybe not quite so sure. I don't think we can give a set rubric and each case needs to be looked at. How about this for a rule of thumb: treat People about the same as a news story in the Los Angeles Times. Times news stories aren't fact-checked but they have a rep for veracity to uphold; People is fact-checked but rigorous veracity is not as important to their business model; so maybe it's a wash. Just a thought. Herostratus (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have a source establishing that LA Times reporters aren't trained in fact checking? --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
        • I'm sure they are. What I meant by "not fact-checked" is that newspaper news stories generally aren't checked by an independent fact-checker because there's no time. It's only hours between an event and the publication of the story. (New stories are copy-edited for errors (spelling, grammar, house style) and the copy editor might flag a dubious fact, but not usually.) Instead, news reporters are expected to check their own facts and keep copious accurate notes and not make errors, and they will be fired if they make too many mistakes. Imagine being called J. Jonah Jameson's or Perry White's office to explain an error in your story, if you will. This varies very much between papers, but big famous papers like the LA Times have a strong business incentive to not be perceived as being riddled with errors. At People, on the other hand, you have an actual person calling Scarlet Scarlett Johansson and asking "We have you down as saying such-and-such. Is that an accurate quote?" and so on. I don't know how vigorous their fact-checking is, but just because "The sort of person who reads People" is I thing I don't think it's accurate to assume they don't care about that or that being lax with fact-checking (which is pretty low-wage and cheap) would be a good business model for them. "The sort of person who reads Cosmopolitan" is also a thing, but see here for a description of their reasonably rigorous fact-checking operation, for instance. Herostratus (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please don't say newspaper stories aren't fact checked because reporters are expected to check their own facts. It has no meaning. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
            • It has some meaning. "Fact-checker" is a real job. "Fact-checking" is what a fact-checker does. If a professional fact-checker hasn't vetted a piece, it's not been fact-checked in this formal technical sense, which is what I meant. Herostratus (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please stop being disingenuous. Journalists are professional fact checkers as part of their job. Why does People require such tortured support, that an intern at People is a better qualified fact checker than a professional journalist? Says who besides you? Cite it or cut it out. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
                • Lighten up, willya? I explained myself already: "What I meant by 'not fact-checked' is that newspaper news stories generally aren't checked by an independent fact-checker" Quote is directly above. Note the word "independent". What you're saying is "No, 'fact-checked' carries no implication of a second person needing to be involved" and I gather you also think it doesn't much matter. It's a debatable point, and you might be right (or not), and we'd need people working in the field to enlighten us on usage, and even they'd probably disagree, and of course word meanings depends on context. Language! It's imprecise. I could use the term "independently fact checked" in future, but then someone will doubtless take that to imply that the facts have been checked by an external consulting firm or something. So I dunno.

I'm not dumping on the LA Times or anything. Dailies are generally mediocre sources for facts, mainly because of deadline pressure I suppose. If there's a notable car crash in the middle of the night, they have to get a story with lines such as "Smith, 37, was killed when..." into print in a couple of hours. So how did the reporter know Smith was 37? He probably asked his wife or something. 99+% of the time that'll do ya, but there's that <1%: maybe he had a recent birthday and his wife forgot to account for that, or maybe he's been lying to her all these years, or maybe she's lying for some obscure reason, or whatever, so there's that. That's part of the reason the Times prints corrections (mostly trivial stuff) most every day. There's nothing shameful about any of that -- dailies are great for what they are, and the good ones are pretty darn reliable. Herostratus (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how you get the age of a crash victim for a newspaper traffic fatality report. You don't have a clue, so lighten up yourself with the loose and clueless information. You obviously have no basis for what you are saying, so lighten your load by not providing misinformation in order to get People accepted as a BLP source. Fact-checking by People interns is not superior to trained professionals fact-checking at newspapers.. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Well, enlighten us. How does a does a newspaper traffic fatality report get the age of the victim? You apparently know something about this, and it's important to know this, so please share. I mean, it's 2:00 AM. The paper hits the newsstands in a few hours. All I can think of is the reporter using something like LexisNexis, is that done? If that's it, why not just say so? Herostratus (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the jurisdiction. However, big clue is that traffic fatalities are accompanied by formal procedures and records, formal identifications, and formal notification of kin. See this for one example in one jurisdiction of records associated with a traffic fatality. Eyewitness testimony is reported as that, the words of a witness in newspapers, not as factual evidence from a single source. People, unlike other sources in the one article I cited on the last board, gets >75% of its information from personal interviews, under 20% for others. Don't get ticked off at me because you stated your wild guesses as information, newspaper reporters are experts at fact checking. It is a requirement of the job. The article cannot run if it is not verified; so don't say they have too little lead time. You don't know that any more than you thought you knew they got victim ages from next of kin. They get next of kin names from official records after the next of kin have been notified after preliminary then final identifications of victims. Formal identification is recorded, and this information includes age of victim. It is so extraordinary and rare to get this wrong, officially, that it really makes the news when it happens. This information is not necessary to this discussion, but neither is your misinformation that newspapers don't fact check. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Oh OK, Coroner's report. I didn't know these were published that quickly. Thanks, this is useful info! You're right, there's a lot I don't know, and I'm trying to feel my way through to some useful data and conclusions, which I why I started this discussion with How about this... just a thought. We work together to work through these things, and advancing a proposition is one way to start that process, right? I only know what I can glean from what I read, and there's not a lot. (For instance, "Cautionary tales circulated [in the fact-checking department] about errors that originated in The New York Times or The Washington Post, only to be replicated and memorialized forever by lazy magazine fact-checkers relying on single news stories. Proper protocol was to consult microfilm of the paper but then to check the next few days’ papers, also on microfilm, on the chance that a correction had been published" ([12]) and so on. You have knowledge of the inner workings of dailies, and this is very useful. Why didn't you say so, for goodness sakes? (And you still haven't said so; we're left to infer it.) Given that, I'm interested in your statement "People, unlike other sources... gets >75% of its information from personal interviews, under 20% for others" This is useful info! How do you know this? I'm not asking this in (or my other questions) in a adversarial "how the the hell do you know this" manner, OK? Finding hard data on this stuff is hard, I just want you to share your knowledge. Herostratus (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted in the linked WP:BLP noticeboard consensus discussion, the appropriateness of its use varies, but editors especially agree that it is fine to use for uncontentious information. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree and did not agree that it i fine for uncontentious information, and I mentioned specific problems with the uncontentious examples posted, and your final posts indicated that discussion was manipulative, and I request you not to draw conclusions for me from it. Thank you. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Like I noted in that discussion, I don't see how my post you are referring to "indicated that discussion was manipulative." You drew a conclusion that I did not state or imply. As for not drawing conclusions from you, noted. What I stated still applies to the other editors, as seen in that discussion. Collect, one of Wikipedia's strictest WP:BLP-compliant editors, even told you: "It meets WP:RS and is generally acceptable for Wikipedia articles, including BLPs. I believe this has been stated forcefully by many above. AFAIK, it is not the Weekly World News or the like, and is not a 'tabloid.' It does not promote specific special interests, and is about as innocuous as is imaginable. It does, in fact, cover people other than film and tv actors, and I seriously doubt the about long discussion affects the opinions of a clear consensus here. And since the consensus is so crystal clear here, I consider the issue quite sufficiently settled. Cheers." So the exceptions from that discussion are you and John, which is where "generally" comes in with regard to the other editors and what I've seen in various discussions on Wikipedia regarding People. Flyer22 (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I provided evidence that it does promote specific interests, that of the celebrities it works with. The consensus of that discussion is completely bogus. Please do not continue speaking for that discussion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

And per above, I fail to see how the "consensus of that discussion is completely bogus." I will continue to refer to that discussion as having achieved consensus on this matter because, as others agree there (and at WP:ANI), it did. Flyer22 (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at BLPN is to continue to use People as a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• People should not be used as a source for medical, scientific, historical or other academic topics. It can be a reliable source, when used judiciously, in celebrity biographies and other articles about popular culture. It should be used with caution in articles about notable legal cases. When sources from publications with a better reputation for accuracy are available, they should be used to supplement or replace citations to People. As always, editorial judgment is called for. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Cullen's got it about right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think People should not be used in most cases. Most of the content of the magazine is produced under no well-regarded standards of rational inquiry. So largely it is not a reliable source. There are of course exceptions, but these would be few and far between. I think a lot of people respond to considerations like these with their arguments like "discussion of these aspects of pop culture are not covered by sources which follow academic standards, and so reliable sources for these aspects do not have to approach the quality of reliable sources for academic subjects." I say to this, one man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens. I would say that this only goes to show that such aspects are not worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Some people also may reason that it is harmless to allow such sources in for pop culture articles, because the serious articles will not be affected. I would ask anyone who thinks that to look at the evidence and reconsider. It is often that a nonetheless serious topic becomes popular. In such cases, if there are editors who promote non-academic quality material, they end up treating these serious topics the same way. For example, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth is a recent book about the historical Jesus which became very popular. The article is currently greatly a commentary on a Fox News interview by a Lauren Green, including the question whether this was "The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?", as if any of this has any importance to the study of history. But by tolerating and incubating such treatments of non-serious, popular topics, this is the sort of spillover that happens. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What Herostratus said, more or less. I wouldn't support a blanket rule about when not to accept People as an RS; I think we need to use our judgment on a case-by-case basis, as we would with any source, when exceptional claims or particularly sensitive content are involved. Rivertorch (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think People should be used when it speculates about the future, specifically regarding pregnancies, marriages, affairs, divorces, weight issues or substance abuse problems of LP, any statement that comes from unnamed sources that aren't the individual concerned. I think that any newspaper, magazine or website article that makes these unsupported, speculative statements is veering into "tabloidish" behavior and should be avoided. But I don't see that as a consistent pattern with People magazine.

Luckily, WP:BLP guards against this kind of speculation being included in articles on Wikipedia We don't have to write up special guidelines for each media source because WP:BLP is adequate protection against this kind of media coverage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm largely in agreement with the above. If the claim is speculative, extraordinary, or likely to be contentious, People is not sufficient by itself. If the claim is in the area People is normally known to cover (celebrities and pop culture, largely), and is relatively mundane, using it is likely to be acceptable. Ultimately, "Is this a reliable source?" always requires the followup question "A reliable source for what claim or statement?". There is no source which is unquestionably reliable in all cases and for all subjects, so examining the context is always critical. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• People can be used whenever the facts it presents appear to be well-founded and not controversial. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I more or less agree with Cullen's comments above, with perhaps an added caveat. There will be times when some material in such a source is a matter of some contention to the person involved, but we as editors might not know that. As one possible example, someone might use it to indicate that they were present at a wild party they themselves want to deny being at, whether they were or weren't there probably doesn't really matter, and in some cases there may be no apparent "contention", perhaps because of lawyers working unseen in the background. I don't know how often such "I was somewhere else" or "S/he was here" statements appear in such sources, but I imagine they do exist. On that basis, honestly, much as some others might not like it, I personally would be really, really hesitant to use People at all on a lot of material, other than perhaps direct or indirect quotes from individuals and similar material which can be directly ascribed to some person involved in the story. Particularly for most of the people in People, there are other sources, like the person's own website, newspapers, TV, and other media, which might be preferable. Yeah, they might have the same problems once in a while too, but their reputations for seriousness are also a bit heavier, and I'm going to assume that they possibly exercise greater care in covering what we might call "questionable" material. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Editorial judgment, avoiding undue weight and general WP:BLP concerns ought to constrain us from mentioning "wild parties" in biographies, no matter what the source, unless some dramatic event occurred there. We simply can't concern ourselves with the machinations of invisible lawyers. If People says that actor so-and-so was born in Altoona, Pennsylvania in 1961 to a tool-and-die maker named George and a hairdresser named Harriet, I trust them. It may well be that this information has not been reported in the New York Times or the New England Journal of Medicine. As for "TV", do you really think that "AM Altoona" has fact checking capabilities comparable to those of People magazine? Because I don't. I think that local entertainment TV talking heads pretty much read what is placed in front of them, and that journalistic standards for that type of reporting are low. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me ask about a couple of examples of borderline data:
  • "Schmoe, a devout Christian Scientist...." (Keep in mind that some people think Christian Scientists are kind of nutty, so this could be, if not defamatory, deprecatory to some. That applies to really any religion -- some people think Catholics are any kind of Christian are kind of loopy, and so forth.)
  • "Schmoe turned down the role of X in film Y..." (Nothing else is stated, but let's assume that X turned out to be a plum role, and turning it down might indicate lack of savvy or following bad advice on Schmoe's part (probably just bad luck though), so a deprecatory vibe could be inferred.)

Assuming the only source is People, what would you my fellow editors do? I don't know. It's a hard question! My inclination would be: 1) it's quite likely true, since People wouldn't just make something like at up or publish it without a fact-checker confirming it it wit the source, but 2) "quite likely" isn't good enough for arguably deprecatory material in a BLP. But if I'm not going to accept it, I also wouldn't accept Time or the New York Times as a sole source, either -- same deal applies, and I have no reason to believe that Time or the New York Times is any better on this sort of thing than People. Herostratus (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use them if it isn't highly contentious, there isn't a source to the contrary, and (for the second case) it's judged to be important to the person's notability. The "arguably deprecatory" case seems weak - there are few facts that aren't "arguably deprecatory": just for an example, see just above, "arguably" being born to a hairdresser and tool-and-die maker is a sign of lower-middle-class origins. If we excluded everything that is this weakly "arguably" deprecatory, we couldn't write anything. For the second case, it might well not matter enough to be included - actors turn down roles all the time, and it's very rarely a big deal; maybe he just wanted to spend the time with his family or something. It would be highly contentious if there are sources to the contrary, or implications to the contrary (for example, if the alleged Christian Scientist is known for advocating blood donation, or their close relatives are well known or proselytizing members of some other faith); then we'd probably want other sources as well, not just this one, though this one could be used as one of several. --GRuban (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The turned down role would be out on WP:UNDUE alone for the reasons GRuban stated. That factoid would need more meat on its bones or it's just trivia. The Christian Scientist assertion I would lean towards excluding on WP:BLP/WP:REDFLAG grounds, but that's in part because the scenario as presented seems unlikely and would raise redflags because of that. Who would this person be where the only mention of their religion is one unattributed sentence in People? If this People profile is some of their most extensive media coverage, they might not qualify for WP:WELLKNOWN and we should stick to only covering their work. On the other hand, if they are well known and there is extensive media coverage available, it raises a redflag that no one has touched on their religion elsewhere. Siawase (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not if it's the single source for a highly contentious claim; and not for the sorts of gossipy or celebrity trivia things we generally leave out (currently dating X; attended movie premiere Y dressed in fashion by Z; etc.), not because of unreliability, but because they're a celebrity mag, and we're an encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We generally leave gossipy or celebrity trivia things out? I wish! Rivertorch (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave circumstances ambiguous If information is published in People and the information is non-contentious then the magazine should be considered a reliable source. I have no opinion about what should be done with contentious information from this magazine. Perhaps it should not be on Wikipedia or perhaps it should. Supplement claims with other sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

Here's an odd thing. The question is "...for BLPs". But if People is reliable, it's reliable. If it's not, it shouldn't be used anywhere. Granted there are special BLP considerations for some material, which can get complicated I guess, but we can probably dispense with that because:

• People is probably mostly used in BLPs. It's not much used as a ref in articles on quantum physics or medieval plainsong and so forth. If People is no good for BLPs it's probably not much use to us at all and blacklisting it would not be much of a loss.
• If it is reliable, then it's probably most reliable for material on living people, because that's their area of expertise (note that the name of the publication is "People"). If I wanted to learn about the current state of exoplanet research, I'd turn to Astronomy, but if I want to learn what movie Kristen Stewart is currently filming, I would not turn to Astronomy. That would be silly! Even if if they did mention it (doubtful, but let's suppose they did) I wouldn't consider them reliable for information about Kristen Stewart, because that's not their area of expertise. They might get Kristen Stewart confused with Jennifer Lawrence. A reporter from People would never do that, but might get R136a1 confused with Cygnus OB2-12, which a reporter from Astronomy would never do, and so on. (At the ref vetting checklist I used the more formal term "standing to address the material".)

Summary: If People can't be used for BLP's, is there any reason to not just blacklist it? Can't see one. Herostratus (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Data is good. Here's what I got from a quick web search:

• here's a recent instance where they screwed the pooch. This doesn't speak to well of People. On the other hand, photos are particularly hard to verify (maybe with Google Images and TinEye and whatever, though, that's not longer so true). It's easier to call someone up and ask "Did you really call Brad Pitt a poltroon?" than it is to say "I have a photo here, is it you?". Also, this was apparently a big enough deal for the Post to write a story about it, so maybe it's not that common. It's one instance, but it's a data point. If People does this a lot it should leave a paper trail, and we should look for more of these.
• here, People itself says that fact-checking is done by interns. (That's not necessarily that damning; they didn't say "only by interns", its a very entry-level job, and "intern" != "lazy moron". I'd be interested to know how this compares to other publications, though.)
• I see a couple references to People's "$3-million-a-year fact-checking department" but in ads that're probably sourced to People itself and I can't put that in context anyway. If there's anything to it, $3 million sounds like a lot to me, but I'd have to have other publications' budgets to compare.
• Heh, I found an article where an actress screams at a People reporter "Do your fucking homework, you cunt!" which I suppose could be taken as criticism of the rigor of their fact-checking (I can't cite the source cos it's not reliable, and WP:BLP standards apply here too; it's probably true, but then the actress is one of the lidda-bit-crazy ones, so that's maybe a wash).
• Now this is interesting: according to an old version of our article Fact checker, there was an article at the Medill School of Journalism website where an erstwhile People fact-checker writes "[I]f more than four mistakes are later found in articles checked and passed by a fact-checker in the course of a year, the magazine would fire him or her. To protect their jobs, fact checkers try to identify three separate sources for any claim." If true, that's a useful data point, but the link doesn't resolve. But it's a direct quote; it seems unlikely that they'd just make up something like that. Why would they do that? I'm pretty confident the article exists and was quoted correctly. Would like to get my hands on it. A year's a long time. Four is a small number. Getting fired is pretty harsh. Add it up and it sounds like a reasonably rigorous fact-checking operation. (Update: realized that the (dead) link points to a folder named /1999/, so probably too old to be very useful.) Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think all newspapers and magazines make mistakes, so I think we have to have reports of comparing how many they make, anecdotes won't cut it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

It is perhaps just as important whether they publish corrections, openly acknowledging the mistakes they do make, and it appears they do:[13] Siawase (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they do publish corrections, and that's good for two reasons: 1) they care about that on at least some level, and 2) if data sourced to People is challenged by another editor, she can point to the correction (if there is one and she can find) as proof of nonveracity. Anecdote's don't cut it, but each little thing is a data point. If someone can show me scores of these, I would change my mind about People. (I note that the picture screwup was widely reported (even in India and so on), and that further indicates that this is not something People does with every issue. It's still a black eye though.) Herostratus (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The comment a little above "But if People is reliable, it's reliable. If it's not, it's not usable for any purpose" is a misunderstanding about the nature of sources. There is no source that is 100% reliable. There is no source that is unusable for all purposes. People is not the sort of reckless irresponsible source that we blacklist. It cab be used properly for clearly uncontested facts that do not deal with possible negative aspects of a person;s life. It cannot be used for negative BLP, or for evaluations of merit. (There is a potential problem that for many of the individuals it covers, even the apparently uncontested facts of their life tend to be in dispute.) Whether it can support notability depends. Extensive coverage there shows something is a matter of substantial comment, but if the comment is tabloid0-style gossip, we wouldn't include it in any case. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, that's all correct, and deciding which sources are OK for which material in which articles is a tricky and subtle thing. All I mean was this: if you accept the proposition "At no time may the Reference section of a BLP contain a link to People, ever, for any material" (the assertion of which is why we're having this exercise, I think), then what good is People to us? Everything except the activities of living people is outside their area of expertise. I suppose old articles might be used to ref facts on people who were formerly living. But WP:BLP doesn't imply "if the person's dead, screw it, just source your material to any old gossip rag". So I dunno. Herostratus (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• We must not confuse reliability with weight. While the information in People may be reliable, it may also be too trivial to warrant inclusion. Generally if the information is significant it will be carried in more reliable sources, which we should use in preference. TFD (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say reliability depends on the nature of the material, and how People attribute it in the first place. If it's straight from the horse's mouth so to speak, it's reliable with possible WP:SELFSOURCE concerns. Direct reporting where People were present for an event or similar, also generally reliable. The really questionable material is when they attribute to "a source close to the star" or similar. And this is probably a good chunk of their reporting (see google search.) When it comes to celebrity news media like People, their primary fact checking concern is whether they risk being sued or not. So they may publish good news or a flattering puff piece with very loose backing, since there is basically zero risk in doing so. But with lawsuits in mind, and their track record for accuracy and fact checking, I would actually trust them to have substantial evidence for any negative or potentially damaging reporting, even when attributed to unnamed sources. All that said, when People is the "heaviest" source a particular piece of information is found in, that's a pretty good indicator it does not carry the WP:WEIGHT to be included in Wikipedia. For contentious claims, I would also say WP:REDFLAG kicks in, and even if we trust People to be reliable, that is not sufficient to satisfy verifiability without corroboration from several highly reliable sources. Siawase (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• My understanding is that the reason we're going through this exercise is that some editors are asserting that People cannot be used to ref anything in a BLP, even anodyne material such as place of birth and so on. OK so far -- that's a reasonable (if wrong IMO) position which reasonable people can work out -- but some editors are pretty adamant about it, so we're working through this. It's been a particularly fruitful and interesting discussion so far, BTW.

So anyway, regarding the position "People? Never in a BLP, period". Well, look. I understand the spirit of WP:BLP pretty well I think. The guiding principle is "The Wikipedia does not exist to make people sad". Sometimes we have to, but let's minimize that and be sure it's for very good reason. We're very very careful with defamatory material, for instance, and other types of material. But there's a reasonable limit. Consider the following assertion:

• In our article on Evanston, Illinois, we can state "Evanston is a suburb of Chicago..." and source the assertion that Evanston is a suburb of Chicago to a normal source describing it as such, per WP:RS and so forth.
• But in our article on Joe Shmoe, we cannot use that same source to say "Shmoe was born in Evanston, a suburb of Chicago...". It's a WP:BLP! Normal reliable sources won't do. We have to have extremely rigorous proof that Evanston is indeed a suburb of Chicago -- the same level of proof we would need to assert "Shmoe is an alcoholic and wife-beater..." for instance. Just a line in some magazine or newspaper describing Evanston as a suburb of Chicago is not sufficient. We need AAA-level sources here.

This seems odd to me. The word "nonsensical" comes to mind.

But wait. Suppose the subject is (let's say) a musician who projects the persona of an inner-city tough-guy fuck-da-police type, and maybe his career depends on projecting this persona. He doesn't want people to think he came from a suburb.

So let's not have things "...born in X, a suburb of Y..." for anybody, absent AAA-level sources. Actually, since anyone can easily look up the nature of any town, let's redact place of birth altogether, absent very rigorous proof. Same for pretty much everything. Month and day of birth? It's possible that some article subject somewhere doesn't want their astrological sign known, so let's redact month and day of birth for every article, absent a copy of the birth certificate. And so on.

But look. We are not mindless pencil-pushers here. Great Darwin gave us brains to work these things out. Obviously things such as birthplace and birthdate are just anodyne harmless facts for 99.99 percent of article subjects. In a case where the matter is raised, that's different: "Look, based on such-and-such data, it's reasonable to infer that he's ashamed of his hometown/birthdate/mother's maiden name/whatever and would prefer people not to know it. So let's treat this as contentious defamatory material and make sure we're as close as humanly possible to 100% confident that it's true (and also carefully consider whether it's necessary even if we're sure it's true)." That'd be both reasonable and kind, and in that case it'd be reasonable to throw out not only People but any source which is not AAA-level (and there are very few of those). But absent data to the contrary, there's a lot of material that we can assume is harmless and can be sourced to AA- or A-level publications such as People. That's in the spirit of WP:BLP. Pointless pettifoggery isn't. Herostratus (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Hero. --GRuban (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question If we are agreed that People and its cohort (Hello etc.) allow "celebs" to pick and choose what they place in the publication, wouldn't we need to treat it the same way as we treat commercial links like Amazon and user-generated ones like IMDB? --John (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• People does publish negative/contentious information without confirmation from the subject, but they do so sparingly. Siawase (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Wait, tell me more about this. People allows people to choose what they place in the publication? I'm not disputing this (or accepting it without more info), but what do you mean? Is article space bought and sold? Do subjects sign off on articles before publication, or are they involved in the writing of the articles, do they have the right to refuse to have an article published, or to demand that one be published, or what? Or is it more of a symbyotic thing where there's an implicit agreement in some areas? Would people not publish an article that would increase sales, or publish articles that readers don't want, at the behest of a third party, and why? Again, all this could be so, but what exactly is going on here? Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we are not agreed that subjects have final control over articles, please provide evidence to back your assertion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wouldn't agree that article subjects (or their staff) have final control over articles. Yes, there is a dependent relationship (access to actors in exchange for not embarrassing them) but the same relationship exists between financial reporters and the companies they cover, between Washington reporters and politicians, between small town editors and municipal government and local businesses. I worked for several years for an entertainment publication that accepted no advertising so it could be seen as completely neutral but the subscription price was outrageous.

So, for most newspapers, magazines, TV/radio programs, websites there is always a trade-off. Without a link to some sort of expose of payola at People magazine, I don't think we can accept as true that there is some quid pro quo. Meaning? We need a reliable source for that claim. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heck no. The only evidence that I've seen that John's presented is that celebrities sometimes either agree to interviews or send publicity photos of themselves out to be used in articles. That is not the same thing as controlling article content. Consider - I wrote our article Barnaby Conrad III (in response to a request from the person that our article Barnaby Conrad in several places confused him with his father, also a notable author). I emailed the person, asking him to release a photo. He did. I put it in the article. Does that mean he controlled the article content? Heck no. I assume that means he didn't disapprove of it, since there's a good chance that if he was unhappy he wouldn't have released and mailed the photo - but that's not nearly the same as control. He didn't tell me what to write, and if I didn't like the photo he sent, I wouldn't have used it. --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Regardless, the answer to John's question is still no. WP:SELFSOURCE clearly states that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". So again, no, self serving publication of information about yourself, used in a Wikipedia article about yourself, is fine as long as it is not "unduly" self-serving nor an "exceptional claim". Regular old self-serving is just fine for basic biographical information. On the other hand, we have little clue who writes content for Amazon reviews and IMDB, so these are not "Selfsources" Dkriegls (talk to me!) 17:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time to assess consensus?

NeilN, this RfC has been open for 12 days (since Sept. 21) and the last comment was made 4 days ago (Sept. 28). Time to weigh the comments and determine a consensus? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A RfC usually runs for 30 days at which time it is closed and consensus is determined by an uninvolved editor (i.e., not me or you). I have no objection to this one closing early if everyone had had their say but others may feel differently.--NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, NeilN. I didn't know what was standard for an official RfC. I'm not sure how to gauge whether everyone has had their say. But, at least, I raised the question so let's see if anyone objects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do editors consider this index to be a permissible source for articles? The index is purportedly available through various genealogy websites. My view is that until you have a reliable source for a death date, the subject of the article is governed by WP:BLP policy. In this instance, the applicable policy is WP:BLPPRIMARY. That policy says specifically not to use public documents "to support assertions about a living person." Even more clearly, it says: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." Just as we can't use a birth certificate, we wouldn't be able to use a death certificate or, in this instance, an entry in a governmental database.

The battle over this issue is occurring at Joan Gerber. I've already cited the policy, but, curiously, @Beyond My Ken: asks me to cite policy in his re-addition of the index as a source. In addition, in BMK's edit summary, he analogizes the issue to using census records. Without addressing whether we should or shouldn't use census records generally, the analogy is fatally flawed as we don't use them in BLP articles.

An aside. The issue of Gerber's death has been a contentious one for some time now. She was a prolific actress but appparently, as a voice actress, not fodder for a lot of media attention. Therefore, no one has ever been able to find reliable sources supporting her death (usually they've been blogs, if I recall correctly, but I might be mixing her up with another actor).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we clear on what index is being sourced? Look at Social Security Death Index. Seems the "SSDI" is the commercial equivalent to the Death Master File (DMF). The DMF is available through the "official" SSDMF, another commercial database. – S. Rich (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] I'm reluctant to rely on the Social Security Death Index as the sole source for death information. Reasons are that it's a primary source that can be misinterpreted and it is periodically reported to contain errors (living people are sometimes reported dead); also, the online sources for the data are nongovernmental websites like [14]. In Gerber's case, IMDB and several online forums (none of which are reliable sources) say that she died in August 2011 -- and apparently have had that info for about two years. If she's still alive, it seems likely that someone likely would have corrected the errors by now. However, a user comment on this page indicates that an obit appeared in the LA Times on August 31, 2011. Can someone check that day's LA Times? That could resolve the matter. --Orlady (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall checking that LA Times thing out once before and coming up with zilch. Nonetheless, using the LA Times archive search, I searched for "Joan Gerber" or "Joanellen Gerber" from August 1 to September 30, 2011, and there were no hits.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a hunch about the August 31 obit, and it turned out to be correct. I went to the library and found the obit on microfiche. It's not an article, which, of course, is subject to normal fact-checking. It's a paid, very small obit placed by someone. It confirms the date of death (as well as the birthdate), along with some other details about her death and loved ones. The problem is it can't be considered a reliable source. Theoretically, anyone could place it. According to the LA Times, the only thing they edit for are "style and grammar". My guess is they wouldn't put anything obscene in, either, but the key thing is they don't appear to check the facts themselves. So, are three unreliable sources (IMDb, social security record, and LA Times obit) together good enough to put in the date? One personal side benefit, of course, is I wouldn't have to revert editors coming along and wanting to put in her death date.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The SSDI is a primary source and should not be used in articles. If a person is not notable enough to have their death reported by a reliable secondary source, perhaps there should not be an article about them. In this particular case, I send an email to a blogger who is a screenwriter and published comics/animation historian, perhaps he knows for sure. Gamaliel (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it also WP:OR? I've used primary sources to help me find secondary sources (ie. narrow a search on a maiden/married name or birth/death/marriage place/date) but I haven't included it unless I can find a secondary source that reports it. AnonNep (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources can be used and WP:RS#Context matters in determining whether the info is reliable. In any event, the SSA gets reports about deaths & (usually) stops paying benefits. But nobody at the SSA actually makes/produces the report of the death. – S. Rich (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment on how the index works; I have no idea. However, primary sources, standing alone, cannot be used per BLP policy, unless you see a loophole I don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, context matters but if every government source is ok to quote verbatim then thousands of 19th century biog pages will be deluged with 10 yearly UK census results that, at present, are generally considered, original research to use. WP:WPNOTRS says; 'Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.' So, if this is notable, why isn't there a secondary source that mentions it? AnonNep (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP? The SSDI, a very grave subject, is a listing of dead people. – S. Rich (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be 'a very grave subject' but, in genealogy terms, western death records are generally considered the most unreliable because those providing information are bereaved and relying on what they've been told by those in aging years who might forget/mistake/want to mistake things. If the primary source is notable it will have been mentioned in secondary sources elsewhere, if not, it shouldn't be used as per WP:OR. AnonNep (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, but BLP applies because one adds the death date to a BLP. Otherwise, you've bootstrapped your argument.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree that WP:V should be applied for every biography. Even more so when there is some doubt about the person being dead or alive. But if the article is about someone that could not possibly be alive, then the SSDI might serve as one possible source of info. It seems that a non-commercial, earlier version of the SSDI had a parameter that described the source of info for the DOD. (Being cheap, I have not purchased a SSDI report for quite some time.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Here ya go, big bad bobblehead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You get a gold star.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to the discussion, but I'd have to agree with User:Beyond My Ken. The Social Security Death Index is not a primary source — that would be the death certificate itself, not the SSDI, which is reporting what the death certificate says. I think we'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face to disallow this reporting tool based on a faulty characterization of it. And certainly, there are many notable individuals who might not have been recognized during their lifetimes and received no formal obituaries, whose birth and death dates could not be verified any other way. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming for the sake of argument that the SSDI is not a primary source, it is still a "public record", which is the term used in WP:BLPPRIMARY. Therefore, it can't be used in BLPs. Also, it is interesting to read the SSA FAQ on the death master file here. It explains how deaths are reported and then inserted into the file. It never says that the SSA does any kind of independent fact checking. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing there may be some decisionmaking in the process depending on the reporting source, one of which includes family members. In that example, I wonder how it determines that the "family member" is who they say they are and that the person really died. Finally, it acknowledges that "in rare instances it is possible for the record of a person who is not deceased to be included erroneously in the DMF."--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and in rare instances it's possible for otherwise extremely reliable sources to report someone is dead who actually is still alive. Extreme cases - "rare instances" - are not (and should not be) a criteria for determining reliability, because everyone, even the vaunted The New Yorker in the heyday of its fact-checking, makes mistakes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

This was mentioned above and brushed away as "bootstrapping", but in fact, it is not. Ms. Subject is presumed to be alive, so we cannot use "other public document" to assert anything about her. Now, however, we see that Ms. Subject has been included in the SSDI list -- now Ms. Subject is presumed to be dead, so no BLP policy is being violated. That's not "bootstrapping:, that's simply new facts changing the circumstances.

An editor above also asserts that if there's no RS reporting someone's death, maybe they weren't notable enough to begin with, but that's absurd. It's hardly unusual for someone to be notable, even famous, even world-fanous and then virtually disappear once their career is over or their time in the limelight has ended. What do we do, then, when the tree falls in the forest and no one is there is publish the obit? Do we carry on regardiong them as "living" when they would be, say, 130 years old? 150? When can we make the reasonable assumption that they are no longer subject to BLP rules? (Not to report that they are dead, of course, since we don't report speculation unless it comes from a RS, but simply in how we deal with the subject.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, I hope everyone is aware that in the specific case that brought up this question, Joan Gerber, a RS for her death (her union's magazine) has been found and inserted in the article, so the discussion at this point is about policy and not editing driven. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is notable enough and is deceased, then the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) is at best a concurrence. It should not be proof that someone has died, especially if many different persons share the name.

An example of what is contained should show its limitations with a notable person (Harry S. Truman, the 33rd President of the United States of America whose biographical details are well known, and whose Social Security number could never be used for fraudulent purposes:

Given Name: Harry

Middle Name:

Surname: Truman

Name Suffix:

Birth Date: 8 May 1884

Social Security Number: 488-40-6969

State: Missouri

Last Place of Residence: Jackson, Missouri

Previous Residence Postal Code: 64050

Event Date: December 1972

Age: 88

What isn't shown? Where he died. SSDI could not show that he died in an auto accident near St. Louis or in a hospital far from his home (of course we know otherwise, but from other sources). His last place of residence is well known but the city is not named. In many cases the exact date of death is not shown. So is his middle initial, also not known.

Now here's another "Harry Truman", a crusty character who refused to leave Mount Saint Helens when the going was good and got much media attention at the time, and is thus notable:

Given Name: Harry

Middle Name:

Surname: Truman

Name Suffix:

Birth Date: 30 October 1896

Social Security Number: 535-20-8745

State: Washington

Last Place of Residence: Castle Rock, Cowlitz, Washington

Previous Residence Postal Code: 98611

Event Date: May 1980

Age: 84

He surely died during the eruption of Mount St. Helens. But note that his middle initial and his exact date of death are not shown. The town in which he was listed as having his last place of residence is clearly not where he died. That was a mailing address. I can only guess that the Postal Service was not delivering mail at the lodge on Spirit Lake where he was staying because delivering mail to a volcano known to be in imminent danger of eruption is unduly hazardous duty.

SSDI really says nothing of great usefulness to Wikipedia. It might be good for stopping some credit frauds such as assuming the identity of a deceased person and for filling blanks in genealogy. The Social Security Number of a deceased person is at best a means of distinguishing one person from another given other information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a (talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I get your point. In the Joan Gerber case, we knew when she was born and where, so unless there was another Joan Gerber born in the same place on the same day, it was unlikely that we would confuse two listings in the SSDI. We don't necessarily need to know the circumstances of Gerber's death, just that she died, so I'm not getting how you think the index "says nothing of great usefulness", when it establishes that someone is dead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Beyond My Ken. The SSDI as a source for a death date does not violate the living persons policy, by definition — the odds of it reporting someone dead who is alive is astronomical and well, well within the margin of error we'd give any other source in terms of reliability, including, as someone mentioned, The New Yorker. Other personal factors such as place and date of birth are, equally obviously, pertinent factors in identifying a person.

And as already mentioned, taking an ideological hard line and saying, "No, I'd rather not source someone's death to the Social Security Death Index and instread give the misimpression they're still alive" goes against the mission of Wikipedia and misses the forest for the trees. As Wikipedia policy makes clear, we follow the rules only up to the point where it becomes absurds to do so (i.e., suggesting someone is 130 years old). Obits are preferable — of course. When no obits exist, however, ignoring a source that institutions and the rest of real life uses, and knowingly leaving a misimpression, seems a very bad option. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this discussion is grappling well with the biggest problem. Many times on this noticeboard, documents such as parish registers and censuses have been discussed. The secondary/primary terminology is sometimes used in a confusing way, but we do not need that terminology. The question is this: do we need to use non-obvious "original thinking" in order to apply this data source to the subject matter of our articles? The answer is unfortunately yes. For example: Lots of people have the same name. These are good sources for conducting genealogical research, but we are not conducting research as WP editors. We need such data to be a bit more pre-digested in most cases. Of course there might be specific examples where my general remark here does not apply, but the question appears to be general.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please look above, where you will see that the name is not the only identifying information. There is also date and place of birth. Many people indeed have the same name, but add the date and place of birth and the odds of misidentification drop sharply to an acceptable level, on the order of the Times or any other reliable source making an error. This is no need for "original thinking" here, and more that it's "original thinking" to reject the use of an obit in the Times of a person of the same name as the article's subject, but without any of the other identifying information. We do not ask that sources be absolutely foolproof, just that they be reliable, and the SSDI is indeed reliable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to deal with Kourgm22 (talk · contribs) about this. I put what I thought were useful comments on their talk page, they replied to me on their talk page and then reverted the discussion. The current statement is "Some historians speculate that the Queen of Sheba visited Solomon in order to obtain his consent to travel her caravans through Jordan, which at the time, Solomon controlled", sourced to Fisher, Eugene M., and M. Cherif Bassiouni. Storm Over the Arab World. This is better than "historians believe" which was the original edit. M. Cherif Bassiouni is a notable legal scholar, I don't know anything about Fisher, and the book is about the colonial and post-colonial Arab world. In the deleted edit the editor states that " it clearly says that some historians speculated on why the Queen of Sheba wanted to visit Solomon" but without the context it doesn't actually tell me much, and isn't what the Bible says. And of course no page number despite my request, possibly because the student wrote a paper for college (as he/she says) but didn't put the page number in and no longer has the book. At the moment it seems that if I remove it again it will be replaced, and I've got no good reason to think that we can accept it at face value and I don't think we can word it this way. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page 200 of the 1972 edition. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher is/was a member of the Indian Bar - see this. I'm not sure that two legal types are going to be great authorities for such a book. I note that the foreword was provided by Arnold Toynbee, which might nowadays be considered a kiss of death. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, given the dates it would seem that should link to Arnold J. Toynbee. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gather the diff is at [15]. The source, St. John's University School of Law, is RS. I suggest a quote from the law review article to put the material in context will help. – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused now - the publisher is Follett. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm the one who's confused. You linked the bar review article, and that got me diverted. I'll guess that the bar review piece (1970) served as the precursor for Follett. Either way, would a quote help? (Also, Fisher is listed as a member of the Indiana Bar, not Indian Bar. ) – S. Rich (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S. Rich, the source would clearly be reliable for the politics, etc of the modern Arab world. But sources aren't reliable necessarily for everything. How can they be a reliable source for what historians say? I also see that the Law Review article states the biblical stories as fact, which gives me more concerns than I had before. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor's talk page quotes the source as saying "Historians who concern themselves with the long ago speculate that Sheba made her journey to Jerusalem to win Solomon's consent for the travel of her caravans through Jordan, which then he ruled." It's my opinion that even quoting and attributing this doesn't help much as we have no idea what they are referring to. It begs the question 'what historians" and gives the reader no way to find out. As I've said, we should have academically recognized historians commenting on what historians say. Til, while arguing that we have no definition for historians, has found this [16] from the Cambridge Ancient History by Otto Eissfeldt which is the sort of source we should be considering.

(edit conflict) My apologies for the typo - I'm making a lot of those at the moment and yesterday even tried changing keyboard mid-edit to resolve the problem. Still, a member of a Bar is a member of a Bar. From the introduction to the 1970 paper, neither appear to have any qualification in a theological or history-based subject, unless you count law as history-based due to research/reliance on past rulings etc. Furthermore, it seems likely that the Sheba comment in the book is in the nature of an aside to their main thesis.

Page 200 is the first page of a chapter titled "Yemen the Land of the Queen of Sheba". All I can see of it is first first paragraph, reconstructed from searching the snippet views: "In biblical history the lady has long been known as the queen of Sheba. Secular historians often call her ancient realm Saba. She traveled from this country in the southwestern region of the Arabian peninsular northward along the Red Sea to visit Solomon in Jerusalem, and there, the scribe reports, "she communed with him of all that was in her heart". Of this communion, tradition has it, was born a son who became King Menelik. Historians who concern themselves with the long ago speculate that Sheba made her journey to Jerusalem to win Solomon's consent for the travel of her caravans through Jordan, when he then ruled. When one takes into account the Hebrew king's seeming obsession with sex, it is possible to imagine that the use of her body was part of the price she paid." There are no footnotes to that paragraph. I know almost nothing of the Bible and definitely nothing of this, but the wording all seems a bit fluffy to me. I think I would prefer to see the words of the "historians who concern themselves with the long ago" - if there are a few then presumably it should be possible for someone to track them down ... eventually. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with others above: we would need to quote or cite the historians concerned. Moreover, we would only do so if those historians are experts in the field (or highly notable for some other reason). If those conditions aren't met, the speculation isn't worth mentioning on Wikipedia. Andrew Dalby 09:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole page needs a copyedit, since it is written by someone without a native knowledge of English.

Its neutrality is flawed, also as a consequence. I.e. for example:

Among other things it was the home of the biblical "Queen of Sheba"

No one here surely needs to be told that the 'Queen of Sheba' story is almost unanimously considered legendary, and therefore 'she' cannot have an historical home. The tale of course, like many legends, probably contains traces of ancient trade information, the spice route etc. There is no evidence for Solomon's vaunted kingdom, and this is a post-Persian era fairy tale, grounded on the historicization of semi-legendary moral tale, much as occurs in Early Roman history.

the article by Otto Eissfeldt in the the Cambridge Ancient History is encyclopedically useless. A fine scholar of course, but that edition came out in 1973, and the whole Eissefeldt piece was written much earlier, and smacks of the 1930s. The assumptions made throughout it are simply not shared by archeologists anymore.

'Historians who concern themselves with the long ago speculate'. That is horrific writing at any level (a) all historians deal with what the writer ineptly calls 'the long ago', which sounds like a fumbling attempt to imitate in an English country vernacular the Braudelian longue durée. One writes, if one must, the 'deep past'. (b) It is grammatically untrue: since the class of historians who study the deep past is a huge one, whereas its subset, historians of Sheba, is a very small, restricted field. 'who' here confuses the subclass with the main class. (c) When 'some' is used one must have a good specialist source that uses it, or name at least two specialist historians.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nishidani. I'm a bit embarrassed by the Eissefeldt gaffe, especially as I'd already commented on the original editor's talk page about using old sources that have since been shown to be wrong. I hope you'll make an attempt to deal with the neutrality issues. Andre Dalby is also right - we can't use 'historians' in general, as you both say we need current specialists who are known in their fields. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Otto E. point, the linked edition is dated 2000, although the first edition was 1973. This footnote says that the first four sections were originally published as a "fasicle" (?) in 1965. Do Cambridge regularly reprint without amending for modern research? - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Til Eulenspiegel seems to be encouraging the original editor to use Eissfeldt and doesn't seem to want to participate here - see User talk:Kourgm22. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where he's dismissed RSN, saying "That's how I remember the place. If they are now instead telling people - "No - any source that doesn't pass our POV litmus test xyz cannot even be mentioned on wikipedia", then the wrong people are now lurking around there". He's been edit-warring at the article and made it clear at Talk:Sheba he rejects anything coming from here. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there are multiple questions here. One, about how and where to present material relating to the Kebra Nagast and other material which is supported by a few religious groups relating to the alleged prehistory of Abyssinians/Ethiopians. It might, I don't know, present a basically similar story. It is accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Rastafarians, and a few other groups which arose out of a broad "Ethiopianness" of the mid 20th century, and I assume any historians affiliated with those groups officially or otherwise would support it, thus qualifying as "some" historians. I don't know how broadly such stories are credited in outside sources. I've also seen sources saying that these beliefs tend to be supported primarily by two ethnic groups in Ethiopia, who according to some sources I think I might have mentioned to Doug earlier apparently use the Kebra Nagast and related works to give themselves a basis to assume a higher position in society than other groups. Certainly, the belief is held by the EOC, Rastafarians, and whoever else, and it should be somewhere. The question is how much and where.

I also remember, some years ago, a report on the BBC about how someone claimed to have found some archaeological remains in Yemen (I think) which were taken as indicative of the Queen of Sheba being ruler there. Unfortunately, don't know anything other than this kinda vague memory of an old news story.

At this point, I could see, somewhere, content saying that these groups believe the story, but I would have serious reservations about including anything about "historians". There are a freaking huge number of reference works, encyclopedias and the like, on religion in general and Christianity in particular, including at least a few on the Coptic-Ethiopic Christians. I think the best way to proceed would be to check the basic reference books on the local history first, see what they say, and then the religion based reference books. But, based on at least what I know from having gone over a few reference books in the various fields, I don't myself see that this topic necessarily merits much weight in any overview articles, at least content about what "historians" say, until content from historians who haven't been counted as tied to the believing religious groups is presented. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't aware of an Ethiopian connection. It perhaps explains a couple of things. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the article linked above, are two articles in the New Republic and Mother Jones to be considered reliable for the statement that certain laws are aimed at closing abortion clinics? Particularly in preference to self-published sources supporting a statement that "there is disagreement as to the purpose" of these laws. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern with the TNR commentary and MJ article is that relying solely on them excludes a significant opposing viewpoint. But that's a POV issue. I don't object to their reliability.

As for the three sources I added in the given diff, I'm persuaded by Roscelese's advice that these sources aren't the best choice in this situation. These primary sources' viewpoints, whether reliable or not, are significant enough to have secondary source coverage, so can be replaced by citations to secondary sources. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that Roscelese is using these articles as references for the Wikipedia article, Matt. The problem is the way she is using them: to support as fact in Wikipedia's voice a contention that is eminently an opinion; the OPINION that these laws are aimed at closing abortion clinics. All Roscelese needs to do to correct the problem is to attribute this OPINION to one or both of her sources in-text. See WP:RSOPINION. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC) PS: By the way Roscelese's complaint about Matt Fitzpatrick's "self published" sources is something of a red herring. Those sources present the contrasting takes (i.e. the OPINIONS) of certain interested parties in the abortion fray as to the purposes and effects of these laws. These sources are reliable as to the opinions of the organizations they represent and not being used to support contested facts which Wikipedia's guidlines warn us against.Badmintonhist (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RSOPINION should be used with caution in all cases. It can not be used for instance to say in an article about African-Americans that- "African-Americans have lower intelligence, according to the KKK." except in a specific subsection dedicated to, and clearly demarcated as being about, racism and racist claims clearly meant to be fringe. When dealing with many subjects it is not always necessary to mark two opposing views as "equal" opinions. Climate change, evolution, racial equality are all good examples where one side is science, one side is fringe. One wikipedian once said in an argument about climate change- "Any compromise between science and "not science", is not science." Now when it comes to politics, it may not be a "hard science", but last I checked my degree is in Political Science; so there is a component of science to it. There surely are, somewhere, perhaps even direct quotes from people/organizations involved in the legislation (the legislator who proposed the legislation) that makes it clear-cut one way or the other. Basically- we don't have to give equal time to each "side". One side is right, the other can be labeled as "according to the opinion of xx, it was (was not) meant to be anti-abortion" Camelbinky (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually clear on what you're saying here. Are you saying that these secondary sources should be used in preference to the self-published statements, or that it is the self-published statements that should be used? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's saying neither Roscelese; nor is it a matter "either . . . or," though you have tried to frame it that way. Both the opinion magazine sources and the so-called "self published" sources can be used provided that they are used properly. That means Wikipedia presenting their views as opinions. As for Camelbinky's point that something approximating objective truth can be found on this issue he's either being overly naive or overly sly. Legislators may vote the same way on an issue but have very different purposes in mind. Moreover, we aren't talking here about a single law in a single state but a variety of laws in a variety of states considered by a wide variety of legislators. By the way, I also have a post graduate degree in political science but I always basically considered it a degree in political philosophy not in "science" of any kind. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC) PS: You might consider the question of the purpose(s) of laws that expanded the ability of women to obtain abortions in a number states (and the District of Columbia) prior to Roe v. Wade. Was that purpose to enhance sexual freedom? protect women from unsafe abortions? reduce the number of the great unwashed? or perhaps all of these things and more?[reply]

Why don't we let RSN serve its purpose and allow uninvolved users to comment? I know you were opposed to bringing the matter here, but that's not a good reason to derail. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note, in case it's not clear from the diffs, that I did not delete any references. The section cited all 6 sources now being discussed after my last edit. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the stated purpose is protecting public health but the motive is to restrict abortion. In order to challenge this assessment. The bill drafted by by the anti-abortion group "Americans United for Life" - their reason for being is stopping abortion. TFD (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a rather recent and more balanced source that might be used: [17] in place of news commentaries in opinion periodicals such as Mother Jones and The New Republic. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would you use it? It makes no comment on the motivation of anti-abortion activists. TFD (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Badmintonhist (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC) PS: The topic of our article isn't the motives of anti-abortion activists. It's laws regulating the practice of abortion.[reply]

I think this noticeboard needs a bit more information to comment more effectively on this.

• It seems there is no disputing that we can use the New Republic and Mother Jones sources. Correct?
• It seems there is dispute about whether those two sources, which apparently say the same thing, need attribution as opinions. Correct?
• Therefore the obvious question is whether we have other good sources which show that these two are only one opinion and do not represent any mainstream consensus. Do we have any that we can discuss?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No sources of similar quality have yet been produced that show otherwise, although obviously if any had been, this situation would be quite different! Do you happen to be aware of any? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again as others stated -- it is far better to cite opinions as opinions and not to make assertions that an opinion is a fact using Wikipedia's voice. The "KKK example" given does not apply here, and using arguments of that type do not advance the purpose of this noticeboard. Collect (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Collect. If there really were no controversy about the purpose of these laws, we should be able to find voices from all sides, life, choice, and neutral, saying the same thing. The fact that only pro-choice sources are saying something is a reason to cite it as their opinion. --GRuban (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the July 2013 New York Times article [18] for a reason that is seemingly being ignored here. It cites "sharply tightened oversight of Maryland abortion clinics that have won praise from both sides of the political divide." The Maryland regulations voted in by both pro-life and pro-choice legislators are also, of course, "TRAP LAWS," they just aren't necessarily the kind of "trap laws" that Roscelese had in mind when she created this section and assiduously selected her sources. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to overstate the obvious but, are these TRAP LAWS, then, always about trying close down abortion clinics or is it a bit more complicated than that? Badmintonhist (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Collect, you're absolutely WRONG. The KKK analogy is exactly what is going on here. NO we do not have to give everyone's opinion an equal weight. You are dead wrong. Wrong. I think it is terrible you and others would state here that we should "find voices from all sides"... We don't do that with climate change, racism, or evolution. The same is here, either the laws are drafted by politicians/groups whose reasons are xy or they are not. The other side is fringe. It is not naïve, nor is political science "philosophy", if someone has a degree in poli sci and they were taught to consider it a philosophy that allows free thinking and "opinion" instead of a science with numbers, facts, hypothesis that are testable with theory then they went to college over thirty years ago and haven't kept up. Most of poli sci courses now are statistics and have more math than hardcore science degrees like biology.Camelbinky (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using the KKK as an analogue for every opinion source is reductio ad absurdum ... insisting that this is "exactly what is going on here" gets no points as an argument. That you know the truth on an issue does not, unfortunately change Wikipedia policies and guidelines to conform with your own personal knowledge. It would be nice if we had editors with such perfect knowledge that we could eliminate WP:RS and the like, but I rather fear this is not yet the case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course we don't give "everyone's opinion equal weight." You're right there, Camelbinky (any connection to Binksternet??). However, you are as wrong as wrong can be in saying that "either laws are drafted by politicians/groups whose reasons are xy or they are not." Different lawmakers often have very differing reasons for passing the same piece of legislation. I have just produced an example, reported in the New York Times, of TRAP (Targeting regulations of abortion providers) laws in Maryland being praised by those on both sides of the abortion issue. Besides the common goal of protecting patients at abortion clinics, pro-life legislators may think that the regulations will make it more difficult for doctors to set up clinics in the state while pro-choice legislators (who obviously don't want to shut down abortion clinics) may think that such laws will help the reputation of abortion providers in the state. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC). PS: Oh by the way, which source would we normally be expected to give more weight to . . . a New York Times article giving an example of TRAP laws being supported by pro-choice legislators or a an article in a magazine of political opinion broadly stating that such laws are intended to close down abortion clinics? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Badmintonhist if I understand correctly the NYT articles is not exactly saying the opposite of what Roscalese's two sources were saying? Would it not involve non-obvious synthesis to say that "pro choice legislators think ok" means "has nothing to do with closing abortion clinics"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking me here, Andrew. To a large extent the NYT article does contradict the assertion now found in Wiki's "Types of abortion restrictions . . . " article, that "these [TRAP] laws are aimed at closing abortion clinics." If that were always the case why would certain laws fitting this "TRAP" definition be supported by pro-choice legislators in Maryland? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"To a large extent" seems a little vague and your closing rhetorical question reinforces the impression that you are coming to a non-obvious conclusion. Just to give an example of an answer to your rhetorical question: pro choice people might be happy with a law which closes particular types of abortion clinics. But it would be pointless to argue about all such possible ways of interpreting the situation you describe. So is there anything in the NYT source which literally says that the laws are not aimed at closing abortion clinics?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the NYT article does not "literally" say that laws regulating abortion clinics are not aimed at closing those clinics but it would be rather odd if it did. Straight news article aren't generally written that way. They tend to present certifiable facts and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. The issue with the Mother Jones and New Republic opinion magazine articles is whether we should be presenting their broad conclusion that "TRAP" laws are aimed at closing abortion clinics as fact (though I think only the New Republic article "literally" says this). It's not as if they are the only sources for the subject. Here [19] for example is a Politico article on state regulation of abortion clinics. As one might expect, it says that pro-choice advocates say this about such regulations, and that pro-life advocates say that about such regulations. It doesn't adopt either view as gospel. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we have two sources claiming the same thing, and none contradicting, I can see an argument for reporting it as fact. OTOH, if both sources are known be of the same political colour, then I can see counter arguments. Using attribution appears to me to be a common approach in such situations, in order to avoid circular arguments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the thoughts on the reliability of this source for the article Randy Rhoads? The material was researched and compiled by the International Guitar Research Archives (IGRA) staff and appears reliable. --ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 21:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the title of the archive on this page naming the archive William Randall (Randy) Rhoads (William before Randall) as compared to the second page where the biography starts : Born Randall William Rhoads (Randall before William). Issues of accuracy.
• Also note : "The information contained on the following pages was researched and compiled by IGRA staff and has been approved and edited by Mrs. Delores Rhoads." Approval of content by a person with an inherent conflict of interest. Issues of independence.
• I would also point out that the content linked to is not so much "published" as it is promotional-ware describing their archives.

Given all of that, the source should be treated with care and not used for anything that is contested. Particularly anything regarding the name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines do not say "Any material that has been vetted by a scholarly community is regarded as reliable." They say "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable." and "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community;" And these are only guidelines and not policy. For instance, we always have to ask "reliable for what"? An off-topic comment in a peer-reviewed journal article may not be considered reliable. Not all PhDs are created equal - I know of one from the American University of Bosnia for instance which we'd never accept as a reliable source. And I agree that content on a university website can't automatically be considered academically published. Ditto some university's magazines, newspapers, etc. ChakaKong wrote "The term academic press in the 21st century has evolved to include the gathering and transmitting of information in forms which include the academic institution's official internet site. And the guidelines state that in such instances, generally the information has been vetted by one or more other scholars and is thus sufficient as a reliable source" but I can't that statement in our guideline.

I'd like to know what this source is going to be used for. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question is for use in the Randy Rhoads article, a deceased musician. There are no contentious or controversial claims; it's largely some background material about the subject's early life (i.e where he went to school, his musical training, etc.) and I honestly don't see why the input of the subject's own mother makes this type of relatively negligible information so unreliable. What reason would his mother possibly have to lie about which middle school he attended? Editor TRPoD, as he seems fond of doing, has turned a non-issue into a protracted and frustrating dialogue that didn't need to take place. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 15:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you notice and read my first post on the topic: "Given all of that, the source should be treated with care and not used for anything that is contested. " which was followed by " fall far short of anything other than WP:SPS - usable for non controversial content about self. " and ", so no, it would not be reliable, outside of perhaps WP:SPS non controversial content about the author of the SPS" and "any content that has been run through "final approval by mother" is in the exact same category as "self published" and "and in this case we know the vetting is FAR from the basic level of academic (or as pointed out above journalistic) publishing in that they clearly state that mom had the final editing authority. The use of the webiste as a source needs to be carefully bounded".

We initially came here because someone wanted to use the site as a claim for an official name and yet this site had TWO versions of the name and so any authority of the site to be used as a basis for one and not the other was completely unacceptable. Thats the only thing that I have been adamant about non-use of this site. And other reliable sources for the name have been produced and so that is a complete non-issue.

The only reason that this is " protracted and frustrating " is because YOU and the IP keep attempting to claim that the website is a fully academically vetted site that will meet all RS guidelines. No it wont. The contents of the site going through a final vetting by the mother cause real concern for its use as a source for other claims, but I have from the beginning laid out its potential for use for non controversial claims and to paint protraction on me is a completely false representation.

What specifically are the "non-controversial" claims other than the name that you wish to cite from this source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, RPoD, you have it wrong, again. The only reason why this is "protracted and frustrating" is because like your history has shown, you enjoy making a dramatic, big deal over nothing and have a knack for controlling articles you know very minimal about. There is absolutely nothing controversial on that CSUN webpage either, like I said before, everyone seems to have the same story regarding the late metal guitarist Randy Rhoads. The only thing that can be deemed "controversial" is that issue with the birth name which has since been resolved. Jawzey (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey[reply]

Beating the dead horse again: What specifically from the University website do you wish to source in the in article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not care if the name is William Randall or Randall William; that fight was between you and the IP from day one. This discussion only happened because of your firm insistence that the source was unreliable. You, TRPoD, clearly get off on playing the devil's advocate and stirring up arguments (not discussions, arguments) over the smallest points. The combative nature and overly rigid interpretation of the guidelines by people like you makes it difficult for sincere editors with intentions of good faith to want to bother continuing with the project. Yes, that's the effect you have on people. Your confrontational nature is fully evident in your editing history for all to see. You can rest assured that when the inevitable RfC/U is filed against you, there will be no shortage of editors lining up to bury you. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 21:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly was an unreliable source for a specific version of the name when it included two versions of the name. What specific content do you now want to source in the article based on this website? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your question was answered earlier in a response from myself to Dougweller. If you still want an answer go back and read it. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 21:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your answer there was anything but specific. just your position that it was non controversial. as stated in the guidance under the orange notice " Before posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available: ... 3. Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <:blockquote>text<:/blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y"."

Please provide the specific content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about you lose the sanctimonious attitude and actually go the the article and look at the points that currently cite that particular source. It might be the most useful thing you do today. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 22:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I feel like this whole time, RPoD decided that the article is worthless because of the birth name debacle, not even caring to read over the rest of the great information it contains. If you clearly read the entire CSUN source, you would realize that it contains valuable information that is not even least bit controversial regarding Randy. I have studied Randy Rhoads for over five years now and I am very knowledgeable in regard to the subject, the CSUN source does not have controversial information about him in it. So even though Mrs. Dee Rhoads contributed to it, it shouldn't matter as the article does not even contain controversial information that Mrs. Dee Rhoads would potentially revise! No, I am not "beating the dead horse again," RPoD, I am restating this to you because you clearly do not understand and you are stuck in your "I am always right" mindset. Jawzey (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey[reply]

Jawzey, it is pretty clear that you do not understand reliable sources as it pertains to Wikipedia. "mom said" is not how we judge sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) YOU are the one who brought the issue here. As the points of the instructions for bringing a disagreement here say, bring the specific content that you want to discuss here as well. If the only thing you want to source to the site is the Name which was the item under discussion when you first sought help here, NO it is not a reliable source for that ( and besides, there is now a reliable source used for the name).

If it is for the high school, then you are wrong again about "non controversial" because this undeniably reliably published source by Bob Gulla which says that he went to John Muir High and it contradicts the IGRA site which says he went to Burbank High. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, RPoD, you lack of reading comprehension is showing. Junior High is NOT the same as high school here in the United States of America. Junior high equates to middle school, grades 6-8, while high school is grades 9-12. So yes, Randy did go to John Muir for middle school while he went to Burbank High for high school. Thanks for the laugh. Jawzey (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey[reply]

Both sources are in agreement that he attended John Muir Junior High. So much for your latest bullshit attempt to prolong the non-existent controversy. Shite man, you are the most combative wikipedian I've ever encountered. Give up the coarseness and find a real issue to devote your energy to. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 23:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Oops too many windows open, it was a different source that had the John Muir High School. But, there is no reason to use the less reliable non published website source than the ABC/CLIO source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As if anyone believes that. Care to share the source that said he went to "John Muir High School" instead of "John Muir Junior High School?" Jawzey (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey[reply]

@TRPoD: I think I've reached the point in this discussion at which I politely tell you to shove the keyboard in front of you up your ass sideways. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 00:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion reads to an outsider like a waste of time. A publicly accessible website is "published". An informative introduction to an archival collection, published by the academic library/archive that owns the material, should not be dismissed as "promotional". The statement that the subject was "born Randall William Rhoads" may yet be true (or do we have a source that denies it?), so the argument based on that leads nowhere.

It's generally agreed above (currently in the collapsed section) that the reliability of these biography pages, published by a respected academic institution, is somewhat compromised by the fact that they were "edited by" the subject's mother. OK. To be used with care. Reliable for non-controversial issues. Other sources to be preferred for controversial issues. Is there honestly anything else to be discussed? Andrew Dalby 09:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. This discussion has most certainly run its course. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 14:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has indeed run its course. The only reason why this became an issue is because it is not necessary for RPoD to delete valuable information off of the Randy Rhoads wikipedia page, only because he personally deems the CSUN source unreliable. Jawzey (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Jawzey[reply]

A Wikipedia dispute resolver has reviewed and assessed a content dispute (dispute & result here) about ancestral certitude in the Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge article and concluded that the disputed source fails RS. The assessment turns upon the reliability of the source cited by footnote in support of an asserted fact, which the resolver maintains cannot substantiate a factoid in Wikipedia because the source includes the disclaimer, "Opinions and statements expressed herein are attributable solely to individual authors and are not endorsed by American Ancestors or the New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS)." My understanding is that, for liability reasons, such disclaimers are common even in highly reputable and entirely reliable publications. They refer to the publication's refrainment from "endorsing" POVs or assertions made therein which, given that it regularly includes adverts and two unfootnoted sections (the "Upfront" commentaries and "Family Focus" book notices) is unsurprising. However, the cited source in question here is an article on pp. 35-36 in one of the journal's two main, fully-footnoted sections. Signed and footnoted articles by columnists and guest authors stand on their own: the publication of such articles never implies endorsement of specific views or allegations, even in respected newspapers and peer-reviewed journals -- nonetheless editorial selectivity and review are normally exercised. The disclaimer on p. 4 is not unusual in reliable sources and constitutes no proof that the content has escaped the periodical's editorial review. The publisher's reputation for accuracy in the field is more relevant to a determination of whether the source meets Wiki's RS standard for reliability than a boilerplate disclaimer. In this case, the publisher, NEHGS, is of the highest scholarly reputation in the field of genealogical research, is a long-established entity, retains identified professional staff to edit content (incl. 4 staff proofreaders). Surely it therefore passes RS muster? FactStraight (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the New York Time's website: The New York Times Company will use reasonable efforts to include accurate and up-to-date information on this Web site. However, by accessing or linking to this Web site, you assume the risk that this Web site and the content it contains, or may in the future contain, may be incomplete, inaccurate, out of date, or may not meet your needs and requirements. The New York Times Company assumes no obligation to update the content.

From Nature's website: The information contained on the Site is for information purposes only and does not constitute advice. You should check any information on the Site and use your own judgment before doing or not doing anything on the basis of what you see. We make no representations or warranties with respect to the Site or its contents. All warranties, express or implied, including without limitation the implied warranties of satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose relating to the Site and/or its content and/or any web site to which it is linked are hereby to the fullest extent permitted by law excluded. No representations or warranties are given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information provided on the Site, or any web site to which it is linked.

You are correct that such disclaimers are common for even the highest quality sites. I'm certain most large western media groups (be they academic or journalistic in nature) will have similar disclaimers. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the looks of it Conyers is a 'gateway' ancestor (when you hit one of those the family tree goes back to gentry & nobs based on established research) but in the article itself that hinges on two lines ("Mr. Pattison found the baptism (11 August 1816) of Anthony Liddle at Chester le Street, son of James and Jane Liddle, and the christenings of Anthony’s seven siblings.[2] Also in this parish register was the marriage (6 May 1815) of James Liddle, from Newburn, Northumberland, and Jane Hardy, aged twenty, from Chester le Street, witnessed by William Hardy. [3] I found Jane’s baptism (3 May 1795) at Penshaw, Durham...") of two pages. The rest of the article is about the 'discovery' in those two lines. But that's just a genealogical view. I think additional sources - those who have independently verified the data and reached the same results - would be preferable. Otherwise its weasel words and the Duchess of Cambridge is 'reputed' to be descended from Conyers (and so on). Genealogy is a messy business and when it appears in Wikipedia articles about historical figures its usually well trodden ground and the sources (generally) agree. But using a single source for a genealogy of a BLP back to the 1400s doesn't seem to be reliable or necessary. AnonNep (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly worth reminding everyone that there is no obligation for us to include everything that every appears in reliable sources in Wikipedia. So for example it is not necessary to argue about the details of reliability forever if there is cause for issues of notability. Gateway ancestor claims are published light-heartedly all over the place, and I tend to agree with the idea that only the strongest of them are worth being considered for inclusion in an encyclopedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NEHGS is one of -- arguably the most -- respected scholarly institutions in American genealogy, receives tens of thousands of submissions, and typically doesn't publish articles that haven't been vetted enough to appear under their aegis. Your input nonetheless convinces me that attributing the finding in the article, in addition to footnoting it, may be appropriate here, something like, "According to an article published by the New England Historic Genealogical Society's journal, American Ancestors, Kate Middleton descends from King Edward IV of England". And while the more RS citations for any fact, the safer, Wikipedia does not require multiple sources for inclusion of info, especially when the source cited is of high quality, as in this case. The issue relevant here is whether the generic disclaimer, "no endorsement of content" ipso facto precludes citing their journal as a reliable source -- which is the sole ground on which all mention of Kate's documented descent from Edward IV has now been excised from the article. Is it your experience that if reputable sources, whether journalistic or scholarly, generically disclaim "endorsement" of article content, that implies they don't subject articles to competent editorial review -- which is all that our RS process mandates? The one comment in this discussion addressing this issue cites several major publications widely considered "reliable" and much-cited in Wikipedia which nonetheless disclaim responsibility for contents. More? FactStraight (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed all of that sounds reasonable to me. I was indeed making an aside, but nevertheless an aside with practical relevance, but actually more related to WP:NOTE. I think your suggestion of using attribution is probably a good way to reduce potential controversy. I agree that as a general rule normal types of cautious disclaimers do not necessarily mean we should delete anything sourced from a publication. But I am not expressing a strong opinion about this particular case, not having looked at the details.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that proposed wording return to the original problem that NGHS doesn't endorse any article (& shouldn't be seen to endorse this inclusion)? Therefore the original ruling stands? Especially given the 'leave it out if in doubt' of WP:BLP)? I could see it as a clearly labelled (very) narrow untested one author view but nothing more. And, given WP:BLP, and the convoluted wording required, tend towards not including it, at all as per original decision. AnonNep (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does that jibe with Someguy1221's cites, above, which show that even the most respected periodicals, such as the New York Times, include generic disclaimers, yet are frequently cited as reliable sources on Wikipedia? In this case, the assessment was that it does not matter whether the journal in question states "Kate Middleton descends from Henry IV" or "Sailors on the Mayflower have living descendants" because it has been concluded that the disclaimer makes the source, however reputable or footnoted, completely useless as a cite for any statement, being no more than "a blog". Are you agreeing that any such disclaimer discovered in an otherwise respected or footnoted periodical renders it an unreliable source? FactStraight (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't only about a publication or its disclaimers, its about the nature of the publication, the section of the publication its in, what the content is and how its being used and cited in a Wikipedia article. As WP:NEWSORG states '"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact' but their 'Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces' are not. That includes the NYTimes. There's another level, even a NYTimes blog, as per WP:NEWSBLOG where you must 'attribute the statement to the writer'. In your example it isn't the opinion of NGHS but one author that they expressly do not endorse and it would need to be cited that way. The next issue is how you propose to use this source - to make a claim about a living person. Under WP:BLPSOURCES 'unsourced or poorly sourced... whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable' has to be removed. You can't look at one side (the source) without evaluating what's its used for (a BLP). Its a close call but the BLP context forces caution. That's why the dispute resolution decision came down the way it did. AnonNep (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don't understand this. The resolver explicitly stated that it is not a "close call" because s/he construes the generic disclaimer to be an absolute negation of the validity of the journal as a "reliable source". Moreover, the disclaimer appeared on page 4, and was in no way specific to the article in question -- which was published in the section reserved for footnoted research, whereas there are two other sections which include uncited commentary. The NY Times disclaimer refers to all of its content published on its website, not just to the Opinion section or blogs. You seem to be ignoring or sidestepping the point which brings this matter before this board: whether or not generic disclaimers render sources unreliable. I think it's already been demonstrated that they do not. While more is always better when it comes to reliable sources, a disclaimer such as made in this NEHGS journal should not discount a footnoted article published therein as a reliable source because Wikipedia doesn't expect or require that sources "endorse" or "vouch" for the veracity of their contents, but applies a much lower threshhold: is the source subjected to editorial review, and if so, of what quality? With respect to BLP criteria, the sole (and, obviously, real) objection voiced was not methodological, but that the source supporting the datum was only published in an American journal -- rather than in a British one. That's not a legitimate BLP objection. FactStraight (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Close call' is my opinion, I'm not speaking on behalf of the resolver. Short of repeating what I've said above, I really don't think there's anything useful I can add. AnonNep (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Source. Yeakley, Flavil (1988). The Discipling Dilemma. Gospel Advocate Company. p. 206. ISBN 0892253118.

2. Article. International Churches of Christ

3. Content. In the past, its focus on evangelism, high commitment expectations of members, and use of "discipling" partnerships have caused some researchers, observers, and ex-members to label the organization a ‘cult,’ ^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Churches_of_Christ&diff=574506497&oldid=574446969

4. Discussion. The Gospel Advocate Company's publishing of Flavel Yeakley's 1988 book is being used, among other sources, to make some weighty claims about the ICOC in the lead section of this article. I am not concerned about the other references in this case, as there is a lively discussion already ensuing over those references and what they actually say and do not say at the Talk page. However I would like to know if Gospel Advocate is a RS for these type of claims in the lead section of this article?

The Gospel Advocate Company is found here: http://stores.homestead.com/GospelAdvocateCompany/Page.bok?template=about JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This International Organization for Standardization working document[20] is being used to interpret and inform readers of the history of the Armenian Eternity sign. Specifically it is being used to say the symbol originated from the swastika (a claim it doesn't make nor does any other source I can find). I don't think it's RS for even the suggestion that it is related to the swastika. There is some text that should perhaps be removed as copyvio - I've done that once and was reverted. There has been long term edit-warring at this article, perhaps by supporters of the Borjgali page which claims the symbol as Georgian. Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The document you link to doesn't actually state that the symbol originates with the swastika, so it isn't reliable for that information. However the document now in the article does say so, quite explicitly. If I read it correctly, that information comes from the National Institute of Standards of Republic of Armenia (SARM). The question thus boils down to: (1) is SARM a reliable source, (2) is ISO an trustworthy publisher. My feeling is that the answer in both cases is "yes", although admittedly the only thing I know about SARM is that it was taken seriously by ISO. Zero^talk 11:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is The Sikh Times a reliable source? If not, I would be grateful for an explanation why. I used an article from that source as a citation when adding text to Forced conversion here. This was then reverted here with the comment "The Sikh Times is not a reliable source". (There is also material to do with an "Inside Out" BBC documentary, which was removed: while I accept this is not directly about forced conversion, it does substantiate the claim in The Sikh Times article that girls are drugged before having compromising photographs taken of them. I accept this may be WP:OR, but still not sure The Sikh Times should be so readily dismissed as "unreliable".) Alfietucker (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its Website doesn't smack of professional editorial oversight. In fact, at a glance it looks like a lot of the content has been culled more or less verbatim from elsewhere anyway.

However, the good side of that (from your POV) is that a little Googling will reveal that the story quoted as being in the Sikh Times appears to have originated in The Times (definitely a reliable source) in or before 2007. It's reproduced here, for example: http://muslimvillage.com/forums/topic/32438-muslims-accused-of-blackmail-to-make-student-girls/. Barnabypage (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's really helpful - thank you. Alfietucker (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Source: http://splashpage.mtv.com/2013/05/20/update-jeremy-renner/
2. Article: The Avengers: Age of Ultron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3. Content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron&diff=575702120&oldid=575684304
4. Discussion: Would like some additional opinions regarding this source. I also have some alternate sources (or additional, if multiple sources would make a difference). These other sources are:

• http://screenrant.com/avengers-2-age-of-ultron-hawkeye/
• http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Avengers-2-What-We-Know-So-Far-About-Age-Ultron-32405.html
• http://splashpage.mtv.com/2013/07/25/avengers-age-of-ultron-black-widow-hawkeye/
• http://www.mstarz.com/articles/16836/20130723/avengers-2-news-jeremy-renner-s-hawkeye-receiving-bigger-role.htm
• http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/03/elizabeth-olsens-age-of-ultron-casting-confirmed-by-samuel-l-jackson-4133029/
• http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a519517/james-spader-on-avengers-age-of-ultron-itll-be-a-lot-of-fun.html

Thank you for your opinions. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Metro citation seems decent. Shii (tock) 19:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section Korea_under_Japanese_rule#Social_inequities quotes a complete magazine article. Is this magazine article from 1905 a reliable description of a political regime that began in 1910?

The original article is located here: http://www.unz.org/Pub/Outlook-1905nov11-00609 Shii (tock) 16:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously an article from 1905 cannot be a reliable description of something that began in 1910. However, our article doesn't seem to present it as such - it seems to clearly state that this is a description of Japanese attitudes and behaviour in the run-up to 1910, not thereafter. Whether it is given too much WP:WEIGHT I'm not qualified to say, having very little knowledge of the subject. Barnabypage (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a WP:SYNTH use of the source; shouldn't we be quoting a reliable history here? Shii (tock) 17:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. source: 'Drafting the blueprint for Palestinian refugees' right of return
2. Article: 1948 Arab–Israeli War
3. Content: The Diff page

• The veteran said also:

1. "They didn’t think they were fleeing for a long time. They didn’t think that they wouldn’t return. Nor did anyone imagine that an entire nation wouldn’t return...
2. We expelled them because of Zionist ideology. Plain and simple: We came to inherit the land and that’s why we didn’t bring them back.

Is it acceptable to quote a veteran, talking about issues which he has not experienced and are not within his credentials?

I said in the "citation needed": "Mr Neumann is not a RS in the context of his OR. e.g. why they did not fight, was Zionism purpose to expel Arabs etc. Am I right or wrong? Ykantor (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Simply being a veteran of the conflict doesn't make him any kind of authority on it. He might be a usable source on the narrow details of particular engagements in which he was directly involved, but that's about it, and even then I don't think he'd be an ideal one. (He would be a primary source; see WP:PRIMARY.) Barnabypage (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is a primary source, the raw material which historians of Israel have analyzed in many books. Shii (tock) 17:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnabypage ,Shii, Thank you for your prompt replies. Ykantor (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a repeated behavioural problem. Ykantor doesn't understand the elementary rules of editing, and has repeatedly put up cit needed tags when the sources that support the statements are already provided. He does this because, as he boasted on a talk page today, he is not concerned with wiki policy on RS as much as with 'the truth'.

'you have, as elsewhere, consistently failed to distinguish what RS say from what the truth might be'(Nishidani). 'I consider it as a personal compliment' (Ykantor

He doubts the truth of this statement. Well, I am just interested in RS and verifiability of quality sources.

With regard to the incident, Neumann was a direct eyewitness to much of the southern front where he fought. What he says is well known, and if you read below you will see that his statement is confirmed by a major Israeli historian, David Tal. Immediately after the Neumann attributed statement (not direct, but as gathered by two notable Israeli journalists, Gideon Levy being one, which was published in a major mainstream Israeli newspaper, I provided a second quote which says exactly the same thing.

What slight resistance was offered was quelled by an artillery barrage, followed by a the storming of the village, whos residents were expelled and houses destroyed.

This is from David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy, Routledge 2004 p.307. who writes:

11th Brigade's movement along the southern arm was easier. ... The slight resistance offered by the villagers was quelled by a barrage followed by the storming of the villages.'

The incidents Tal refers to are in the upper part of the same southern front, but confirm what Neumann says was the general trend in the south.

Most disturbingly, Ykantor was reverted on this and immediately he quietly came here, and entitled the question ' A newspaper quotes a veteran who speaks about issues other than his experience?.' That is completely deceptive and prejudges the answer expected. The veteren is speaking about actions in which he directly participated. So Ykantor 'framed' or 'distorted the issue', and once he received the answer his twisting of it expected, reintroduced his {cn}, in the face of other editors who have noted that though Neumann is the primary source, his remark is quoted by a reliable secondary source. If we challenge secondary sources for quoting human participants in an historical event, then we are going to throw out virtually every historical source so far written.

Note further that Ykantor is so confused he says the primary source is engaged in OR. I.e. the opinion on a war zone given by someone who fought there, as cited in a secondary source, is unacceptable because it is, in his view, an example of original research. He confuses what editors must not do, with what participants in a war are reported as saying happened to them. It is an attributed opinion and has nothing to do with original research. Proof if ever, that Ykantor has no grasp on the most straightforwards elements of wikipedia policy. Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that you are the only one that does not understand the question, and reffers to other issues. Hence I repeat: the question is concerning the 2 Mr. Neuman quoted sentences only, which are differnet from what your issues.
• Please stop with personal attacks. Unfortunately, I have repeatedly asked you to stop it, but to no avail. Ykantor (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal attack. Several editors of long experience have noted on many pages your consistent misuse of, or failure to understand, wiki policy. To note that is to note a general perception. I respect the judgements of the two editors above, from other cases outside this field. But I suggest they reexamine what is going on, without relying on your biased description. Thirdly, the quote in the footnote (not the actual article page edit I made) is there provisorily, as I did for you on several other pages. I gave the full quotes in order to ensure that you have read them. That note can be removed when you have done so. But this is quite a distinct matter from the key issue. Is it proper for Neumann's retrospective account as a participant in the war for us to use him via a secondary source dealing with that period? The answer, unequivocably, is yes. In Vietnam War we read of 'Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara wrote in Argument Without End (1999) that the new American patrons of the ROV were almost completely ignorant of Vietnamese culture.' He is reflecting back on events thirty years earlier. Examples of this are manifold.Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing to see anything wrong with the source or text. There isn't any OR here, nothing here goes against wp:primary, his knowledge and views are important enough for Haaretz so it's not like it's a case of a self published source. There is nothing wrong with this sourcing. Sepsis II (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like we're dealing with a couple of separate issues here. For the diff provided (general lack of resistance), I don't see a problem; Neumann's being cited here as an eyewitness of these particular events and not as an analyst of the conflict as a whole, and the statement is attributed to him. Additionally, it seems that a historical source backs him up. If other sources contradict, there could be a problem. I would not consider him a reliable source for the other two statements in the original post in this thread. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Among other questions, It is very important to establish weather the "eyewitness" is reliable, objective and non biased for claims which have political and historic repercussions. Unfortunately this is not the case here, so this can not be used as WP:RS in the context provided. He is also not an authority on this subject. --Tritomex (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Third party impartial editors can respond in the revised version of this query two sections below. This is a policy issue, not a POV pushers' bunfight.Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose I count as an impartial editor, but I am an RS regular. This article is a train wreck when it comes to sourcing. It needs to be pulled back to the academic history only. I'm not happy about the source at issue here, but it's by no means the worst offender. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There were 13,000 Palestinians killed in the war, almost three times the Arab army casualties, but the article is organized to depict the major battles between Israel and foreign states, and to ignore the real high-casualty battles in which several hundred villages were devastated. My one edit to adjust this oversight has generated Ykantor's fussing.Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know "who is in which party" based on your categorization, but as I see exactly because POV pushing should be avoided, this edit based on this source is against Wikipedia policy of WP:RS and WP:NPOV.--Tritomex (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the policy or for ever hold your piece. Just waving names will get you nowhere.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As user:Nishidani has deleted the problematic sentences ,The issue is fully solved. It is a pity that user:Nishidani has used the problematic quotes, since he is an experienced user and knows the rules. Anyway in my opinion as the editor who posted this question here, this section should be closed. Ykantor (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've told you before, English is not your first language, and several times you even posted cit needed tags when we had an impeccable source. Therefore, I added, provisorily, the full text to ensure that you would read it. All of this nonsensical waste of time would have been saved had you had the simple good sense to say, 'okay. I've got it. Do we need the full quote?' and I would have said, 'No. Fine. I'll remove it.' Take this as a lesson. Engage intelligently on the talk page and don't forum shop. We are all responsive editors on these pages, and, actually, enjoy tracking down stuff, as you should have learnt by now.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you admit deliberately entering unreliable information to the article. And , NO, your claim of provisorily, is not true, as you inserted it without any provisorily, note, as seen along around 10 editing sessions (The Diff page of the first and last of the 10 sessions ).

As you claim to know Wikipedia rules, is there a rule that support you in deliberately entering unreliable information to the article? Ykantor (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please realise that the text Nishidani removed was never visible to the reader in the first place. It was only visible to editors when viewing the wiki-source. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. It is always visible by either hovering with the mouse around the in line reference number , or by clicking the reference number and reading it in the footnotes section. Please verify before you write. Ykantor (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I stand corrected. But still, most people won't ever see the footnote. People read the text, not the footnotes. That was the point I was trying to make. --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you admit deliberately entering unreliable information to the article

If you violently distort what I do, and maliciously assert nonsense like the above once more, I'll break a self-imposed rule and ask that you be suspended. Deliberate falsification of an article's information, which you say I did, is a major infraction of wiki protocols that almost automatically, if reported and verified, earns the abuser a longterm band. I entered that information to ensure all editors could immediately check the source I was synthesizing. I removed it once its use-by purpose had passed. I've always suggested till now that your grasp of the niceties of both English and logic is frail at times, in mitigation of the evident incomprehension of what other people say or do in editing. But this attack on my bona fides should be struck out. I did not such thing, and if it is not struck you, it will form an important, perhaps damning, diff if someone eventually reports you.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source: news story from CVT published May 25, 2013 6:32PM EDT about March Against Monsanto, a global event which had yet to begin in places like Hawaii at the time of publication.

Statement printed in March Against Monsanto:

On May 25, 2013, hundreds of thousands of people participated in the march.

The source claims that "200,000" is an estimate. The number coincides with the expected turnout given prior to the event, but differs wildly from all other coverage of the event by larger media outlets, which state that around 2 million protesters participated:

• This May, during a global day of action, more than 2 million protesters attended rallies in more than 400 cities across 52 countries.. From Miami New Times

• CNN: Millions protest genetically modified food, Monsanto, organizers say

• IBTimes: ‘March Against Monsanto’ Draws As Many As 2 Million Globally

• Guardian: Millions march against GM crops

• RT: Over two million march the streets of 436 cities, 52 countries

• LA Weekly: Millions worldwide join March against Monsanto

Editors were able to find one other source that they thought supported the lower figure (can be found in Talk page archives), it is a NYT article about genetically modified oranges. The piece is not about the protest, but mentioned it in passing near the end of the article. [Later edit: one additional source follows the statement in question, but does not give a number, I'm unsure why it is being used.]

If the "hundreds of thousands" claim is found to be unsupported, the March Against Monsanto article would be left with: "Organizers estimated that two million protesters in 436 cities and 52 countries took part." In my opinion, this wording seems to best reflect RS and is sufficient.

Further, statements claiming there was a "range" from 200,000 to 2 million, based on the CVS article, would also be unsupported; two other articles would then require some editing: Monsanto and Genetically modified food controversies. petrarchan47tc 01:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what is so wrong about being honest with the numbers, if we said something along the lines of according to organizers 2 million people participated in 436 cities blah blah blah....independant sources have stated that hundreds of thousands participated. (citing the New York Times GMO Oranges article, the Washington Wire truth in crowd size estimates Article and others). [21]. In addition mentioning some specific marches: Las Vegas Nevada 2000 - [22] Salt Lake City Hundreds - [23] San Diego, CA - Over a 1000 - [24] Vancouver, BC - Hundreds - [25] etc. To me this seems more reliable than just parroting the organizers. VViking_TalkEdits 00:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - that looks like a good neutral way to present it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The number claimed by the organizers is fine as long as it is clearly said that way. Then this is clearly coverage of a claim, not of attendance. It would be automatically known that such will be a wildly inflated number. But other sourced information about attendance estimates should CERTAINLY be included. Otherwise there is no coverage in the article of actual estimated attendance. And the sourced data on individual marches certainly helps. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is an example of OR/SYNTH and does not support a case for presenting a "range" which is mentioned in no media besides Wikipedia. petrarchan47tc 18:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I vas hoping to get some input from uninvolved editors on whether the CVT or the NYT oranges article are reliable sources for the lowball number, especially in light of the majority of RS stating a few million. It is not an opinion I am seeking, but a guideline-based assessment, thanks. petrarchan47tc 17:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uninvolved and I have no strong personal opinion in the matter. I looked at each of the sources cited above. My take:

• The CVT article does not specifically say that the "hundreds of thousands" figure is the number of people who took part in the MAM event; it refers to people "targeting Monsanto". My sense is that the article was based on forecasted estimates of the participants prior to the event, and worded in such a way as not to require correction if the actual number of participants turned out to be much different. I do not regard it as reliably supporting any estimated figure for the actual number of participants.
• The NYT article says, without qualification, that hundreds of thousands took part. There is nothing to indicate how they came up with this number, but the NYT's reputation for fact checking does weigh in favor of regarding this as one reliable (albeit imprecise) figure in describing the number of participants.
• The Miami New Times article states without qualification that the number of participants was two million. I am not as familiar with the MNT's reputation for fact checking but, assuming it is equal to that of any other mainstream reliable news source, it can be regarded as another reliable figure in quantifying participation.
• All the other sources offered a figure in the millions, but they were pretty uniform in attributing it to the organizers' own claims within the article text, and (aside from headlines, which often omit context and detail) do not adopt the figure as unqualified fact.

Based on this, the article should probably state that the number of participants has been variously estimated as "hundreds of thousands" or a couple of million. Attribute the lower figure to the NYT article (footnote it, quoting the pertinent sentence since it's buried deep in a large article) and the higher figure to the MNT. Don't over-complicate the article text with discussion of how reliable the figures are, but an explanatory footnote might be appropriate that explains something along these lines: the predictions were for 200,000+, the organizers' estimates were ~2M, and no independent reconciliation of these figures is known. alanyst 18:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would we be able to call the NYT mention an "estimate"? I wonder. Because of the context: (yes, NYT is reputable, but) this is a very long article specifically about genetically modified oranges. It wasn't remotely about the March, and mentioned it in passing in such way that it is hard to believe any research went into the statement. They may have found the number by looking at Wikipedia. The NYT didn't claim it was an estimate. The fact is, no other media gives anything but the "2 million", so it doesn't seem a strong enough source, in this context, to counter all the RS listed above by introducing the idea of a "range". My understanding of RS guidelines was that to make a claim such as this one (that there was a range, or any estimates made that called organizers numbers into question) especially if it runs counter to all other RS, it would have to come from an article dedicating much more space, if not entirely dedicated, to the claim being supported. petrarchan47tc 19:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The objection to the NYT figure can apply to the MNT figure as well: neither source makes it clear how they vetted the figure they cite without qualification. It's possible the NYT reporter did a cursory search for attendance estimates for the protest and adopted it as fact without further checking; it is equally possible that the MNT used the figure provided by the march organizers and adopted it as fact without further checking. It's also possible that one or the other did independently verify their figure and did not see fit to explicitly say so. Without additional insight, we are left with the two figures that differ by an order of magnitude, each adequately but not incontrovertibly supported by one independent news organization. All other citations are inconclusive, because they are either too equivocal (CVT) or provide no independent support for the estimate (the remaining citations, which all cite the march organizers). However, I do not think the article should suggest that the number of participants was in a range between those two numbers; there is no authority cited to suggest it was, say, 1.2 million. Rather, simply say the protest size was "variously estimated" at those two numbers. The march organizers' estimate should neither be privileged nor contradicted by such a statement, and the reader can decide for herself/himself which, if any, seems more likely. alanyst 19:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only base source for "two million" is "event organizers" which is a very weak source ... which cited event organizers.(AP), 1.700 locally (the Miami New Times source), CNN organizers say, Guardian Organisers say that two million people marched, RT.com is "Russian television" and has not been vetted here as RS for much of anything, Louisiana Weekly got "millions" from Millions Against Monsanto movement and did not make any estimate at all on its own. In short -- all the "estimates" on the high side are from the organisers, and not independently presented by reliable sources. Collect (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC) ,[reply]

The two million claim seems quite dubious and should probably be only be presented as a claim made by MAM if contrasted with the reports by the non-partisan sources which are stating a tenth the numbers. If one does the math on MAM's self proclaimed numbers, the average city which took part would have had a crowd of 4600, but when one looks at MAM's reports on individual cities they are reporting only a few cities which reached the low thousands. Major cities such as London, Paris, San Francisco, and Tokyo were reported in the low hundreds, a few hundred for all of South Africa, a dozen in Argentina, protests in the hundreds, low thousands in the US. The only city that MAM itself reports to be above, or even near, the 4600 number was Portland at 6,000. I think it's safe to say the 2 million number is false and the numbers coming from NYT et al are much more reliable. Sepsis II (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article in science magazine by one of its writers who sent a really crappy, bogus scientific article to hundreds of open access publishers to see who would accept it for publication and 157 different journals accepted them. Should these journals be flagged for some sort of review in Wikipedia?AioftheStorm (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such journals are probably unreliable, but I don't think you'll find many citations to them on Wikipedia Shii (tock) 13:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(please note this problem was badly mangled by a manipulative section heading above. )

1. source: 'Drafting the blueprint for Palestinian refugees' right of return
2. Article: 1948 Arab–Israeli War
3. Content: The Diff page

• A veteran of the southern front in this war was cited in a major Israeli paper for his impressions of that front that resistance was negligible.
• The veteren's comment coincides with what military historians like David Tal, who remarks that resistance was slight.Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not being entirely sure exactly what material is considered for inclusion, although I'm guessing it relates to the lack of resistance at least in some way, I can't see any reason to rule out inclusion of material, provided it does, more or less, concur with that of the academic sources and/or historians who cover the field. WEIGHT and other matters would also have to be considered as well, of course. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impressions, yes, but not authoritative historical statements.

"We encountered very little resistance in the advance on X" - fine. A primary source.

"The enemy only fielded 1,000 troops, commanded by the inexperienced Colonel Z, to defend X" - not fine, because he probably wouldn't have known these things through direct personal experience. So he wouldn't be a primary source, and (presuming he's not a military historian) he might well not be reliable as a secondary source either. Barnabypage (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. source: Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine, vol.2, Fayard 2007 p.96
2. Article: Kfar Etzion massacre
3. content:

   "the villagers' onslaught, which was motivated by ...the destruction of one of their villages several months earlier"

   . The source says that Kfar Etzion "opened hostilities in December by destroying a nearby village"
4. The Diff page

I hope that this noticeboard is the right place for the question.

a summary: The quoted text is well supported by a respectable RS. However, the statement seems to have a mistake, as all destroyed Arab villages around, were destroyed much later (after March 1948*(1)). Looking at other RS, we have not found (yet?) any evidence for such a destruction. We can not delete the statement, since it is well supported. However, as is, it is probably mistaken. What next? Ykantor (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (1)Benni Morris,The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, ISBN 0521009677, p.12. a map of abandoned Arab villages. Ykantor (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source is making a clear mistake, then you can just not include it per WP:IGNORE. You may want to contact the author of the source to 1)confirm it is a mistake, 2)if it is a mistake let them know so they can correct it.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If. If my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt.This is the second or is it third time, today, that Ykantor has skewed the question to blindside editors and get the answer he wants. It is his WP:SYNTH/WP:OR conclusion that the distinguished French historian has made a mistake. He introduces a map by Benny Morris of abandoned Arab villages? What's the connection? Morris knows no Arabic, Laurens uses Arabic sources little known in the West. A first rate secondary scholarly source cannot be questioned on a priori grounds, or mere suspicion. Lastly, Laurens is recounting the Israeli version and then the Arab version of events. He makes no judgement: neither should we. If expert secondary sources correct Laurens directly, the text will be modified immediately. To date, no information has been produced to permit such a challenge by wikipedians to that source (WP:V) Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page 65 of the Benni Morris source seems to confirm that Arab villages were being destroyed from December 1947 onwards: ".. the period December 1947 - March 1948 was marked by Arab initiatives and attacks and Jewish defensiveness, increasingly punctuated by Jewish reprisals. ... The Haganah initially retaliated by specifically and accurately targeting the offending terrorist, militia group or village...". The cited map doesn't have a description but judging by the key seems to be "abandoned" Arab settlements, and there are some with "unknown" dates. There are a number of possibilities why a December 1947 "destruction" isn't listed (it could be one of the "unknown" ones, the list might not be 100% complete, the list might start in March 1948 and the village was already destroyed, people might have remained at the village until later so it's "abandoned" date was later than the initial attack etc. etc.). I don't see a direct contradiction between the two sources here, it's much more likely that Ykantor's "no villages destroyed before March 1948" is a (mistaken) assumption. Tobus2 (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laurens may refer eg to the Balad al-Shaykh massacre. 20 to 70 people of this village were massacred during the night from 31.12.47 to 1.1.48 and a part of the population left the village in the afterwards. I would have expected a village in the Jerusalem area but I could not identify this. Maybe he refers to a village in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. We could ask him but I don't want to disturb this historian for such a futility.

Anyway, I agree with Nishidani that Ykantor's behaviour has become a persisting problem.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nishidani, please stop personal attacks. The question is accurately presented.
• Tobus2, it would be beneficial if you spend your time verifying Laurens claim, rather than trying to prove that Morris is not really against the claim. Please read the cited discussion, and find that even a pro Palestinian site, does not claim for such an early destruction.
• AioftheStorm, thank you for raising this great yet simple initiative to contact the author. I should have done it earlier. Could someone find out his email address ? I could not find it in his page. Ykantor (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contact him if you want to, but be aware that editors will want to scrutinise the authenticity of any reply you receive. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nitaf, also known as Khirbet Nataf, was depopulated on April 15 one month earlier. It was in the Jerusalem district about 1km from the present Israeli town of Nataf. I don't know if this is what Laurens had in mind but it fits the description. Saris, depopulated and largely destroyed on April 6, fits even better. It was 10km from Kfar Etzion. There were other possibilities slightly further away, like Khulda that was completely leveled in April. There is no basis to this objection whatever. And, yes, Ykantor's behavior is a serious problem. Zero^talk 08:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Itsmejudith: I will appreciate it if you advise me how to email him in a verified method? To my knowledge, there is no such a method. Hence it does not worth to ask him, since the reply might not be accepted here. It might be better that someone else will ask Prof. Laurence.

• Zero: it would be beneficial if you read the source before writing your opinion. It is rather frustrating to be blamed for irrelevant evidence. Laurens says that this Arab vilage was supposedly destroyed on Dec 1947, while you mention destroyed villages during another and not relevant time frame. Ykantor (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zero's information was very enlightening, but does not resolve the crux, since Laurens writes:'c'est la colonie qui a ouvert les hostilités en décembre en détruisant un village voisin' (It was the colony (Kfar Etzion) which opened hostilities in December by destroying a village).

Where Ykantor goes wildly wrong is in making the header here read: 'respected RS has a factual mistake?' That is a total twisting of the state of the argument, which, by the way, is not appropriate for discussion on this page. Ykantor suspects Henry Laurens made a factual mistake, i.e. he asserts that a palmary RS by a leading expert gets this wrong but, at the same time, has no evidence to show Laurens is wrong. All we have then, is Ykantor's suspicion. No evidence. Since we have several editors active on the page who delight in resolving mysteries like this, and don't care which side new evidence favours (Pluto, Zero), this issue can be returned to the talk page. We'll all try to identify by name the village near Kfar Etzion alluded to. None of this affects, for the moment, however, the notice in Laurens. Lastly, this is given as the 'Arab legion' version, not as a 'fact', something Ykantor overlooks. Laurens is not necessarily stating the facts, he is reporting the versions by both sides. So, Ykantor, stop abusing several notice boards with false representations of issues best discussed on the various talk pages. Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity that user:Nishidani write incorrect statements.

• user:Nishidani:"All we have then, is Ykantor's suspicion. No evidence". This is not true. I have provided an evidence. I suggest user:Nishidani to read the section before writing.

1. As I already said here, Morris abandoned villages map, does specify the date for each village, and I could not find a village that was abandoned on Dec 1947 as stated by Laurence. Moreover, the earliest date seems to be as late as April 1948
2. As already said in the talkpage, even a pro Palestinian (but probably not a RS) internet site, does not list any village around Jerusalem that was destroyed before (as late as) Apr 1948.

• user:Nishidani: " this is given as the 'Arab legion' version, not as a 'fact'. This is an interesting idea. I would like to hear the experts here, when a respected RS quote a third party, what kind of responsibilty (if at all) he has to the quote's content? Ykantor (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you are talking about. Your understanding of the rules is, to put a fine gloss on it, is chaotic and subjective.Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed the "December" aspect. There was a village depopulated near Jaffa in December, and some other stuff, but as far as I know Kfar Etzion was only attacking traffic on the nearby roads. If indeed Laurens is just reporting a story put out by a party to the conflict, that's only an error if that party didn't say it, and not a problem for us if we report the claim correctly as a claim. All sides to this conflict told whoppers. Does Laurens give a source? I can consult "A Soldier with the Arabs" if it might be there. Zero^talk 12:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the very detailled map of Palestine in 1948 that you provided to us some time ago.

Except a village north of Kfar Etzion for which no name is given and that I could not identify, all the other ones were depopulated much later.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I too exaggerated. I'm editing today between teabreaks while cutting timber and pruning a neighbour's overgrown garden, so I didn't have time to check Laurens, but relied on my memory. Let's reexamine it:

'le massacre de la part des villageois désireux de venger Deir Yassin et leur pertes depuis le mois de novembre (il faut rappeler que c'est la colonie qui a ouvert les hostilités en décembre en détruisant un village voisin).

So Laurens says the Arab Legion version has the villagers motivated by a desire to revenge both Deir Yassin and 'their losses since Novembre' and then adds his own judgement as a historian, adding in parentheses: 'One should recall that it was the colony which had opened the hostilities in December by destroying a nearby village). So the second part is not in the Legion's Arab version, it is Laurens's comment.

From the notes it looks like he is drawing on David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948 pp.434-461and FRUS (Foreign Relations of (the) United States) 1948 V. pp.1680-1685. If you could chuck a shufti at the latter, then Robert would be a very close affine. I've just edited in Royal Institute of International Affairs. Perhaps their yearbook for 47 should also be consulted. Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FRUS has nothing on it. Other interesting stuff though, like Bevin telling the Americans that Israel would be a communist state within 5 years. I can't find my copy of Tal at the moment... One thing to note is that bedouin communities were not counted as villages on maps or in official documents even when they were quite large and had been in the same place for a long time. So that is a possibility for what Laurens meant. Zero^talk 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have some opinions on Snooker.info being used to source this table at Century break.

This site seems to be run by a single person with no professional oversight who has admitted to using Wikipedia and making mistakes (see "Daily Updates" section at [26]). Several editors have restored the information sourced to this site a few times now so I need an independent opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

webs.com is never a reliable source. Shii (tock) 13:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if Yahoo! News is considered RS. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RS for what? Please be specific, as the notes at the top of the page ask. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Source: The website Victorian Maritime Centre and its subpages
2. Article: HMAS Otama, specifically the section HMAS Otama#Decommissioning and fate

Is the website of the Victorian Maritime Centre reliable and independent enough to be used as sources for information about the efforts of the VMC and related organisations to preserve the submarine HMAS Otama? As context, there's been back-and-forth at HMAS Otama, with a new user Terrence3915 (talk · contribs) adding unsourced content to the article, and myself reverting (initially) or tagging the content as unsourced. The page Victorian Maritime Centre website contains some content that supports the additions to the article, such as The Hunt for Otama page showing a breakdown of the grant funding spending, which is currently in the article but uncited. However, I'm not certain that the site qualifies as a reliable source, because its not independent of efforts to preserve the submarine by establishing the Victorian Maritime Centre, and Terrence identifies themselves as the websites primary author at Talk:HMAS_Otama#Concerns_about_recent_additions. Opinions and suggestions appreciated. -- saberwyn 07:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The website would be a reliable source for the "Victorian Maritime Centre"'s claims and views, but I'd suggest not presenting these as Facts. I've got no idea if it's happening here, but the proponents of new museums can sometimes over-sell things and their statements need to be taken with a bit of salt (eg, whenever a major US Navy warship is decommissioned groups appear claiming that they have a rock-solid business case and guaranteed funding to put her on display permanently, and it generally turns out that they've under-estimated the complexity and costs involved and the project falls in a heap). Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article and section are Brahma Kumaris The concern I want to get some extra and more experienced opinions about is whether the second reference used (The Keimyung Gazette) is sufficient to substantiate the somewhat controversial claim below:

• The BKWSU is accused of fraudulently claiming that its current leader and relative of the founder Dadi Janki Kripalani is "the most stable mind in the world".^[6] Journalists quoted archivists at the University in question and "found no mention of the experiments performed on Dadi Janki in 1978". Indeed, they could not even "find any University of Texas organisation called the Medical and Science Research Institute."^[7]

The concerns with the supporting reference are: the 'published journalist' openly goes under the handle "Captain Porridge" (not a concern in itself, but links the journalist to the evidence below):

1. This individual has posted on Wikipedia requesting other editors to help him in writing his anti-BK article/s [27].

2. He participates in the advocacy group run by the disgruntled John Allan, respondent in the Arbitration dispute mentioned in the BK Wiki article reference [28], and

3. He also openly names the people supporting the Applicant in the Arbitration dispute in what appears to be an attempt to injure their reputation [29].

4. He writes for a student university gazette (Keimyung is the correct spelling) - hardly a credible source in itself

5. Januarythe18th has produced evidence that the journalist rang the wrong university. In the last 2 paragraphs it is stated that the testing was in San Francisco, not Texas.

It would be great to hear if other editors think that reference is sufficient to substantiate the claim, bearing in mind the person in question is still alive. Regards Danh108 (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]