This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The page of the band 'Penumbra' on wikipedia, says that the band is active from 1996 till present. But I did some reasearch on some different information sources, and I came to the conclusion that the band has split-up in 2009, cause the only sourses that say Penumbra is still active, are wikipedia and sites based on wikipedia. Metalarchive says they've split-up, and their last.fm biography stops at 2009. Their Myspace has a comment about them being split-up. So I think it's pretty clear Penumbra isn't active anymore. I edited the wikipedia page saying "1996 - present" to "1996-2009". I would appreciate it when this edit gets confirmed, except if anyone thinks the band is still active, I don't know them personnaly, so I'm not 100% sure, but I'm like 90% sure they've split-up in 2009.

Hi. Please sign your posts in the future with brackets and four tildes ~.

Your edits won't stand in the article if they are not sourced to a WP:RS. I'd suggest you check out WP:Five Pillars to start with. This Notice board helps readers determine whether sources are in fact reliable and can actually be used to support content in articles. So you might look for reliable sources to support your contention that the band is no longer active. (olive (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

Correct, if you have been reading sources and found this information by all means put it in Wikipedia, but mention where you got it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The book The Making of Modern Israel by Leslie Stein has been cited in 1948 Palestinian exodus, and other hot-button pages, in support of contentious and novel assessments of the historical narrative. I have never before heard of the book or the author, and am struggling to ascertain its reliability. Although there are nearly 70,000 Google hits for the title, almost all are Amazon or other bookshop sites. Looking closely, I have found one critical review on Tikkun, and one, possibly supportive, behind a pay-wall at Social Science Research Network. I have found precisely 0 reviews at Google News archives. Although Stein is described on the Amazon website as a "Senior Research Fellow at Macquarie University", he is neither a historian nor a Middle East expert; his field of studies appears to be development, and in particular the Japanese economy. Given this, and in the apparent absence of any serious peer reviews of the book, can it be regarded as a reliable source for contentious statements? RolandR (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's some stuff I found in a 2 minute search. Not sure how you only came up with Tikkun.

• polity 12 quotes blurbs from various reviews in some reliable sources.
• Israel Studies Review 13 (can't read the actual review, but someone took the trouble to review the book)
• The Australian Jewish News 14

Then I stopped looking. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As TDA notes, Google gives different results, depending not only on geography, but also on previous searches. I had seen the first site you quote, but blurbs are certainly no evidence of anything. I too can't actually read the ISR review. It's significant that the review in Australian Jewish News (which I had not found in my Google search) states "He is unashamedly pro-Israel, and at times some readers may feel he is too one-sided"; this does not inspire me with confidence in the book's reliability. RolandR (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I found these links: 15 16 17 18 19 20. Sometimes Google doesn't give us the best results first time around and different countries may have different issues searching for sources. Stein appears to be mentioned in a few notable places. Of course, that does not make Stein reliable in general. However, there is a tier system of reliability in my opinion and, in this case, Stein certainly meets the threshold for inclusion as representing a prominent view on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He should not be treated as an authoritative source on what actually happened, but his views are worthy of inclusion with the typical considerations we give partisan sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

How did you came to the conclusion that he is a partisan source?--Shrike (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from reviews: "Stein’s work is in many ways a partisan account of the early years of Israel’s existence"21; "While Stein takes pains to declare himself a dispassionate historian, he is clearly making an argument"22; "He is unashamedly pro-Israel, and at times some readers may feel he is too one-sided"23; "He remains cocooned in his avowedly unashamed sympathy for 'Israel's general plight'."24; "Stein is a proud Zionist and never questions the murderous rampage of Zionist fighters against the British before Israel's birth"25. Thewre is barely a mention which does not note the author's bias, and the author himself states that he is "unashamedly sympathetic to Israel's general plight". This is clearly a partisan source, whether reliable or not. RolandR (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This should placate the editor who opened this discussion

• The book is from a well-known publisher Polity that publishes scholarly texts26.

• It is subject to a vetting process and peer review which makes it compliant with WP:RS. It is readily available and verifiable per WP:V.
• The author has published a number of scholarly texts27
• The book has been listed as a “good read” on the Barnes & Noble website28
• And here is the publisher’s Synopsis and exhaustive list of peer review and accolades (cut and pasted):
  • "Israel moves forward. Palestine stands still. Israel builds its future. Palestine guards its past. Stein's work provides a good introduction to this sad saga for the perplexed and the uninitiated." History Today "This volume could very well last as required reading about Israeli history for the next decade to come." Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies "Stein takes us on a fascinating tour, highlighting major and lesser events in the history of young Israel." Democracy and Security "Balanced, well researched and will substantially extend the knowledge of any student of Israeli history." Birmingham Jewish Recorder "Leslie Stein explains in this eloquent, highly readable and well-researched study how the Israeli state overcame the threat to its existence and emerged as the most feared military power in the Middle East ... Stein's account of the events leading up to the 1967 war is one of the most masterly and lucid to appear in years ... There is little doubt that his study will be viewed as an indispensible authority on one of the most intractable conflicts of our time." Tribune "This book can serve as a refresher course for more knowledgable readers and a sound introduction for novices." Hadassah Magazine "There is little left uncovered in this up-to-date and meticulously researched book. Anybody wanting a quick and easily understandable account of Israel's formative years would do well to read this refreshing, informative and concise telling." Canadian Jewish News "He offers a good historic overview of the respective period, his book is elegantly written, easy to read and his knowledge of the material is broad." H-Soz-u-Kult "Any reader of this book, however familiar he or she is with the history of this crucial period, is bound to learn something." Jerusalem Post "The deeper into the twenty-first century we get the less we know about the twentieth. This ignorance has so distorted even educated people's grasp of the conflict between Israel and its Palestinian and other Arab neighbours that public discussion of it routinely descends into half-bias, half drivel. Leslie Stein's elegant and learned book is, first of all, truthful, a rare enough quality in this research area. Beyond that, it is well written and argumentative in the sense that his topic requires. The years 1948-1967 constitute the crucible of discord. Without a clear understand of these two decades, which this volume so amply provides, the citizen is in the desert with only mirages to (mis)lead him or her." Martin Peretz, Editor-In-Chief of The New Republic "With great verve and a robust appreciation for the Zionist achievement, Leslie Stein accurately captures the drama, excitement and danger of the fledgling Jewish state's first two decades, thus putting its current tribulations in perspective. Daniel Pipes, Director of The Middle East Forum (Pennsylvania) and Taube/Diller distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University "The Making of Modern Israel is an invaluable contribution to our understanding of one of history's most extraordinary and inspiring stories. Leslie Stein is to be commended for authoring what is certain to become an indispensible resource for scholars, decision-makers, and students." Michael Oren, Senior Fellow at the Shalem Center, Jerusalem and author of Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East "Continuing his masterful previous history of Israel before statehood, Leslie Stein tells the complicated story of the state's first nineteen years in this highly readable, admirably concise and eminently fair-minded account. Threading his way deftly through controversial minefields with sure footing, Stein manages to convey the best up-to-date scholarship with unusual clarity. This book is strongly recommended for the general reader and as an excellent introductory text for the classroom." Alan Dowty, Emeritus Professor of University of Notre Dame and author of Israel/Palestine "Anyone who wants to find the way through the internal politics and external wars that accompanied Israel in its early and formative years can rely on Professor Stein. He gives it straight. This ought to become a standard work on the emergence of Israel to the place it holds on the international scene." David Pryce-Jones, former senior editor of National Review, former literary editor of the Financial Times and of the Spectator and author of The Closed Circle--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The contentious information is :

Some historians have argued that if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs who were seeking to ethnically cleanse the region of its Jewish population.¹ They point toward the ever-increasing vitriolic rhetoric espoused by various Arab leaders and commanders in connection with their plans for the Jews of Palestine.¹

As mentionned here above, this is a wp:rs source.
But more, this is not totally speculative. It is true that the wording could be neutralized : the sentence : if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs is pejorative. But the information that some historians argue (this part is important !) that Arab and some of their leaders wanted to exterminate the Jews is true. Benny Morris in his last book 1948, Efraim Karsh in Palestine Betrayed, Zvi Elpeleg in his biography of the Mufti, Klaus-Michael Mallmann in Nazi Palestine argue this. To be perfectly NPoV, the arguments they use to justify this and the arguments given by others against this should be introduced too. Eg, Yoav Gelber wrote that it is speculative (and not scientific) to try to give the aims of the Arabs given we don't have access to Arab sources of the period ; Benny Morris support the idea that Islam is antisemite ; Karsh choses some quotes (and forget others) such as the fake Azzam one, ... 87.66.170.243 (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the author, Leslie Stein is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics, Macquarie University. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the reviews above says concerning Stein's book that "Stein estimates that the victorious Israelis expelled half of the 800,000 Palestinians displaced." This doesn't dovetail very well with the text that's being proposed based on this book. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

@Dailycare : on the contrary. It proves this guy is very neutral.

• about half of the Palestinian refugees of '48 were expelled (particularly during operations Nachshon, Dani, Hiram and Yoav). Morry writes this in his book 1948 and this explains why several historians compare or claim Israelis performed an ethnic cleansing.
• but Morris also claims (and several others given here above) that, would the Arabs have won, they would have done the same.

If Leslie Stein reports both these points of view, it is good for his reliability.

(It seems it is a tertiary source).

@RolandR : "This is clearly a partisan source, whether reliable or not."

He seems to look a little bit like Morris. He is one-sided as a person but reliable and more neutral in his profession. I underline I don't know this author but he seems worth reading even if disappointment could come after this reading. A good review by Daniel Pipes is of course a very bad point.

@all : another review : "On the whole, it is not easy to judge Stein’s “The Making of Modern Israel”. He offers a good historic overview of the respective period, his book is elegantly written, easy to read and his knowledge of the material is broad. The strong points of the book are to be found when he describes domestic developments and political decision makings. Yet the book is troublesome in the sense, that he is at times overtly Zionistic and thus in his judgments often very one sided and apologetic. Consequently he rejects findings of the so called New Historians like Avi Shlaim or Ilan Pappe right out of hand, with the partial exception of Benny Morris. But even the latter’s works are hardly incorporated when reaching critical conclusions. Thus the weakest point of the book is the almost total declining or ignoring of most of the findings of the New Historians."

91.180.49.186 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If Stein says that the Israelis expelled half of the refugees directly, then does Stein really say that it was really the Arabs who were seeking to ethnically cleanse the area? I think that's a key question. If Stein says both things, then it would be easy to agree with the reviews of Stein that say he's very partisan. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Stein doesn't really try to hide his partisan orientation. But I just want to call attention here to what he writes in his preface:

"Based mainly on secondary sources, this book is grounded in a wide study of the received literature, both in Hebrew and English. Hopefully its strength lies in a judicious synthesis of the published material yielding the reader a reliable and novel account of Israel's fateful and turbulent infancy. Although unashamedly sympathetic to Israel's general plight, I have not stinted in reporting the country's blemishes and occasional misdeeds."

Hmm. "Fateful"? "Occasional misdeeds"? So Stein has no training or academic credentials in history, right? And he's not done historical research himself to produce this book, i.e. his comments indicate he hasn't interviewed people who actually took part in the events he narrates, nor has he read, investigated, or compared primary source documents, either. What he did do was read the results of actual historical research and find a publisher for what he thinks is a "judicious synthesis" of what he read. So if any of us did exactly the same thing to produce our own "judicious synthesis" that was "unabashedly sympathetic" to the side we each prefer, how would that be different? And he's "unashamedly sympathetic" to the plight of Israel, but makes no mention of sympathy for the plight of Palestinians? Maybe that's because the conditions they live under are so much better than those Israelis live under? Unashamedly sympathetic, indeed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Per WP:HISTRS, Stein's absence of historical training, Stein's poor reviews (Shofar 29.1 2010 says, "for students and sophisticated lay readers. ... revisit in overly lavish detail the few topics which will be familiar to many or most readers, while neglecting topics which are prominent in Israeli culture and society but are somewhat less known outside of Israel." "On some topics, Stein's discussions might have benefited from reference to literary texts or recent scholarship." Don't use, it doesn't represent the standards of historical scholarship. Especially per IP91's review. Why not try Benny Morris One State, Two States Yale University Press ISBN 978 0300122817? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. How does one economist become "some historians"? Even if Stein is a reliable source, this opinion should be reported as "According to Leslie Stein..." or "According to one economist...". Zero^talk 10:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree. Nothing wrong with using a source like this in most cases, even if Fifelfoo is right to point out that it is not perfect. But for this subject obvious caution is necessary and it needs to be kept quite firmly in mind that the source is not ideal, especially if other editors are raising objections. For partisan (or arguably partisan) bits, attribution can at least be used, but other sources might be better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Based upon the request of another editor, I would like to know if this reference link is acceptable to confirm the actress in question's date of birth. Given that these records are based on those of the Social Security Administration, while they are not 100% accurate due to either human error (I have a sadly deceased personal acquaintance whose date of birth was January 17, 1935, but appears on SSDI as January 18, 1935) or false dates provided, it appears to be a reliable source, certainly reliable enough to use in the absence of any source. Thanks for your advice. Quis separabit? 19:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm the "another editor" (sounds vaguely naughty). I was noting my concern for its use in this particular article as a review of previous discussions on this board revealed a hesitance to fully accept the reliability of many of the online genealogical databases, and it contradicts the New York Times obituary that I had included as a reference. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand Ponyo's concerns but beg to point out that the Associated Press (AP) merely (and I don't know how) provided an estimated age due to a lack of info. Shawlee was not particularly famous and apparently had no close family or children to provide any date of birth so it was not pursued. However she died in 1987, and we all agree the world has changed a tad since then. In this instance there is no competing year of birth from any reliable or semi-reliable source, only an age estimation from the AP from a quarter century ago.

Just to add my two cents (or five cents, whatever the going rate is these days), it is a tad concerning that information gleaned from such sources as the U.S. Social Security Administration (Social Security Death Index), census records (ancestry.com), Burke's Peerage (thepeerage.org) and the General Registry Office of England and Wales (findmypast.co.uk) are apparently seen by other Wikipedia editors and my peers, whom I respect, as generally semi-unreliable sources. There are some editors who rely on Caskets on Parade/Book of the Dead (http://daggy.name/cop/bkofdead/index.htm), which is replete with errors. I believe, as a rule of thumb, then, that unless a competing date/year of birth is proferred from an equally or more reliable source that information gleaned from these sources be allowed to stand until/unless a valid challenge is raised,and then each case be handled on an individual basis. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that you have commented above about findmypast.co.uk and I will put in a reply up there. The case isn't quite the same (I think).

In general, I'd say, it is useful to be able to cite intermediate sources that mirror or reflect solid reliable sources that are otherwise inaccessible online. I think, if we are confident that the mirroring is reliably done, we should be prepared to use such citations. As we do, for example, with Google Books and archive.org. Of course it's much less attractive, and less useful to our readers, if these intermediate sites set up a paywall. In such a case, they are not in fact increasing the general availability of the information. So, without banning paysites, we should prefer sites that are free and contain reliable information. Andrew Dalby 09:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh I agree. I don't like having to spend my own money buying credits, etc. Findmypast.co.uk is £6 for like 50 credits or something (I don't remember exactly) and Intelius is $1.95 per individual search (it's cheaper if you buy a package, but I choose not to since I don't use it that often), but it is what it is. Sometimes curiosity or the need to confirm something leads me to have to pay. Isn't that what information is coming to anyway, like the New York Times's digitization? Yours, Quis separabit? 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmm ... I know what you mean; but we don't quite know whether it's going that way or not. The jury's out. There is also vastly more free information on the Web than there was, say, three years ago. Since we as Wikipedians are providing free information, our best friends are other good sites that provide free information :) Andrew Dalby 09:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hah, so the California Death index at Rootsweb 29 gives the same date but 1927 as a YOB. Perhaps a footnote would work in the article? – Connormah (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How is www.familytreelegends.com even close to being a reliable source for this date of birth? It claims she was born on 5 Mar 1926, and died in May 1987. The problem with that is the Associated Press article of March 31, 1987 saying she died March 22. So are we planning to ignore the fact they have her death date completely wrong and assume they have her birth date correct? 86.183.59.192 (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem with all primary sources, but sometimes citing a primary source is acceptable. If it is one filled with errors or there is some other reason for doubt, we can attribute it ("According to...") and let readers understand where it comes from. Note that I am assuming this site is one of those genealogical sites which contains lots of old published records. User generated content on such sites, such as family trees etc, is another more difficult matter. I basically think all Andrew Dalby's comments are about right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: If a newspaper article is a blatant copyvio of a primary source (i.e., a verbatim copy of a primary source), can one claim that the newspaper article is a reliable third party source for the information?

Some context:

1. User:TopGun added several references to back a claim in the article Rashid Minhas.
2. I showed that the original source of the info is a COI/POV source (the subject's employer/Pakistan Airforce), and the other references either copied from it verbatim sans any attribution, or are from the non-RS Pakdef.info site (See here for the consensus on Pakdef.info's non-RS nature).
3. TopGun now claims that, since he considers one of the venues of the plagiarized content to be a notable news source, therefore the information has been "published" by a reputable reliable source, and hence can be used directly without qualifiers.

My question is: when a news article demonstrably plagiarizes from a primary source (and has no content other than the copy-pasted text), does it become (a) a third party source for the information, and (b) a reliable source for the information?

More details of the context can be found here. --Ragib (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A copyvio is not "cured" by saying "someone else committed it". If it is a copyvio, it is a copyvio. If we know it is a copyvio, then it is still a copyvio. Collect (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of a copyright violation, and to call it plagiarism is to misconstrue what is really going on. Having glanced at the RSN Archive linked above, I see more heat than light. I see this situation as comparable to the instances, which we see all the time here, of a press release simply being printed by a news organization verbatim, without it being identified as a press release. The best practice in such instances is for us to treat the publication of something by a legitimate news organization as a RS but, where we know it is a press release, attribute it even if the news organization does not. Fladrif (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If the work is a verbatim copy of a primary source, treat the work as primary (and note in the citation, what the source copied is). Republication of a primary source does not change its primary nature. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-publication of a press release is not necessarily a copyright violation. People issue them for the express purpose of getting them published, after all.

What changes when the periodical re-published the press release (perhaps verbatim, perhaps with minimal tweaking) is not the primary-secondary-tertiary nature of the source—it's still a primary source, and you may still WP:USEPRIMARY sources in limited ways—but the addition of editorial oversight and subjecting the content to the same (perhaps minimal) fact-checking that the publication normally employs. That means that it is technically a legitimately published news story (and still a primary source).

We have had a problem in the past with editors saying, "Oh, but I magically know that they didn't fact-check this paragraph in this newspaper story, so we can't use that material", and that's Not Okay. If the newspaper editor approved the story, then you have to assume that it meets their (possibly low) standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a confusion here. There was NO press release. The news site essentially lifted content verbatim off the Pakistan Army/Air Force's website without any attribution. --Ragib (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

An organization might issue the same text in several forms, for example, as a press release and on its web site. The fact that a newspaper article is virtually the same as an organization's web site does not prove, by itself, the newspaper didn't get the information from a press release. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No confusion. I didn't say this was a matter of reprinting a press release; I said that this was comparable to reprinting a press release. I think that, in this context, the issues and analysis at RSN should be pretty much the same as with reprinting a press release. Fladrif (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Because this noticeboard is not about copyright, which is a complicated subject, the most important thing to say is that yes, when something gets taken up and printed by an RS it does give it some respectability. I think the question of whether it becomes "secondary" is a good example of why trying to define reliability based on the primary/ secondary/ tertiary distinction is like trying to define a fixed point on something moving. It is often easier to define whether something has a reputation for being reliable than to say whether it is secondary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Do genealogical articles (such as Romney family and Pratt family requires sources for the genealogical claims? Or is WP:PRESERVE paramount over WP:RS? The articles at this point are heavily unsourced genealogical OR and SYNTH as far as I can tell, and past practice has been that Wikipedia does not use commercial "genealogical sites" for sources. Ought this be changed? Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd start by suggesting that they need sources to establish notability. Everyone has ancestors (lots of them), but so what? If there isn't a source for the genealogy without resorting to WP:OR, we shouldn't have an article in the first place. And with regard to commercial "genealogical sites", given their propensity to scatter disclaimers over their 'data', I'd be inclined to treat them with scepticism until evidence to the contrary is proffered. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Posit that the "family" is notable - do claims made in the "genealogy" need genuine WP:RS sources, or is the existence of the family sufficient to obviate the use of sources for genealogical claims? Thanks. Collect (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think not. Genealogies are basically OR performed by various family members, which explains why different family members can come to different conclusions in their own genealogical research. If they ever stuck their heads together and did more serious and expert research, they might discover who is making errors and come up with a definitive, single, version. If such a version were conclusively endorsed by known historical experts in such matters, IOW third party sources, we might be able to accept such a version, but otherwise its basically OR which we can't endorse. We just need to be cautious and depend on third party sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course these articles need citations -- why would they be any different to the rest of the enyclopaedia? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question - Whereas the Romney family article, mentioned by the OP, is, as of now, reasonably well-sourced in its content, that pertaining to the Kennnedy-Shrivers contains en toto a mere half-dozen citations for its entire, exhaustive listings. Rather than WP's merely appending {{fact}} tags, per wp:PRESERVE, to so many of the names listed, would we be perhaps better off were we to jettis this article's pedigree table and many of the entries included in its various lists and start from scratch? What do other editors think?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reasonably sourced? About half at most - with a huge amont dependent on OR at best. The Pratt one? Virtually all unsourced per WP:RS. Huge leaps of genealogical research based on flimsy material - kuje Mitt Romney saying his or great-great-grandfather was Parley P. Pratt "maybe" and similar strong genealogical sourcing. The policy requires that the unsourced stuff be simply removed - that much is clear. Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com. Collect (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

    The policies require that unsourceABLE material be removed, not that unsourcED material be removed. If it is possible to provide a reliable source for the information, then you are not required to remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, WP:V states that "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." (my emphasis) Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• And WP:BLP has rather more strict words (not just "may be removed") - recalling that many of those in the "genealogy" are not yet dead. This is not a matter of simply saying "someone may be able to find a source" since the only source proffered in much of this is not WP:RS by a mile <g>. Collect (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Or not: BLP only applies to living people (I'll bet that Parley Pratt has been dead for a number of decades) and it only applies to contentious claims. And even then, BLP does not prohibit you from supplying a reliable source yourself. "The only source proffered in the article" is not the same thing as "the only source that's ever been published in the entire world". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, Collect would be perfectly justified in removing the unsourced material. Anyone who wanted to restore it would face the WP:BURDEN of finding sources to verify it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and there is no need for articles on notable families to carry the whole genealogy. They should concentrate on the notable family members, and if possible should be a narrative rather than a family tree. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, many (most?) notable individuals have only non-notable ancestors. Thus including a genealogy at all should only be done for the few that really do qualify. Roger (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The removal of notable wives' names (eg Ann Romney|Ann, Lenore) names I thought was simple institutional wp:BIAS. But now that the name of principals have been removed, there appears to be an actual bigotry at play. But, pushing that impression aside and resuming an assumption of good faith, I offer the questions: The lede, as sourced, at Pratt family defines it as descended from P.P.Pratt, so what would justify removal of him from ensuing list? And the lede at Romney family (US) defines it as notable primary due to G.Romney, so what would justify removal of him from that article's list?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• The P.P. Pratt listing was contributed in the Pratt family article's very first edit in 2005, by User:Dr U and was there for five years, until its recent deletion. Yet in the article's current references #s 2 and 3 (Reuters use of info from Mormon studies scholar Brooks and the article by historian Bowman) are quotes referencing notable familial descents from, specifically, Parley Pratt.
• (And, as for the Romney family article, George Romney, Mitt, or both are mentioned in, for example, just about each one of the article's current first dozen references, so I don't follow the reasoning behind deleting their respective entries in the Romney family article's list, either.)
• WP is a tertiary source and can but rely on the available sources. So, the bottom line is, since the "Romney family" article's sources amply demonstrate that George's mom, Anna's, (paternal) grandfather was P.P. Pratt, this relationship between the two families is what the Romney family article should continue to reflect. Sure, per user:Collect's argument (taking it at face value--which may ohl=enr may not be a fool's errand)...it's absolutely within the realm of possibility--no matter how infinitely small--that George was misinformed/lied about this genealogy. Indeed, if a source is found that calls this relationship into question, then the text can and perhaps should be edited to shade in this doubt arising from the sourcing: eg, via "according to George" or some such formulation. Otherwise, WP should simply state the relationship, per the article's existing, ample sourcing on the point.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This diff is an open-and-shut case of improper removal of sourced content, when user:Collect deleted two citiations to a Jennifer Dobner and Glen Johnson Associated Press story when deleting the article's summaries about George Romney and Mitt Romney.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

.....Btw a google search of news sources turn up dozens of hits for "parley," "pratt," "romney." Here's ten I picked out at random:

1. (from 2 days ago) Nat'l Review
2. (from 2 days ago) George Mason Univ
3. AP
4. CNN
5. FOX
6. LA Times
7. Time
8. Boston Globe
9. NPR
10. SLC Tribune

Google Books produces 810 hits. Google Scholar even produces 180.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS does not mean that every article with "pratt" and "romney" in it is a source for specific genealogical claims. Nor does it mean that claims not found in a source suddenly become usabe in any article at all. I fear that is the problem here -- but Wikipedia != Ancestry.com. Collect (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Broad statements not hewing to the facts at hand may convince the ill-informed but Wikipedians as a whole will be more convinced by interpretations of logic and events supportable by actual fact.

1. Wrt the erroneous claim that Collect did not remove sourced material: Note the fact that, e/g: (A.) There is a Pratt family article because George Romney's mother belongs to a family that is notable in its own right; yet, despite the score of sources that establish this connection, Collect insist that the two families have no connection. (B.) There is a score of sources that George and Mitt are in the Romney article, some providing individual vitae--yet Collect removed both entries in that article's list, along with the additional AP source, providing an accouting of the Romney clan's genealogy, which source had been appended to both.
2. Wrt the erroneous claim (wishful thinking?) that Wikipedia does not provide notable genealogical information: Note the fact that, e/g, the following categories are among those included below the article on Wikipedia about the Dunham-Obama-Robinsons (a combined article under the rubric of "Family of Barack Obama" because neither the Dunhams nor the Robinson families are notable independently from their relationship to the current US president):

   -Obama family
   -African American genealogy
   -African-American families
   -Families
   -American families
   -Genealogies of individuals
   -Family trees
   -First Families of the United States

   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is not a reason to violate Wikipedia policies. You are using such sources as "jared-pratt-family.org" which are blatantly not "reliable sources" for a genealogy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, a url need not even be provided. But I provide two for each citation. Double. Twice as many as just one. An infinite amount more than the number..."required."

The material in question was pubished in the late 19th century by the Improvement Era magazine and the Deseret News newspaper. The Association merely hosta a transcription of the same. Thus one can access the originals, via the citations, or one can review transcriptions of the same. (Btw, the Pratt Association was founded in the late 19th century by mathematician and scientist Orson Pratt. The associaion's historian, Matt Grow, co-authored (with preeminent Mormon studies scholar Terryl Givens) the biography of Parley Pratt that was published by Oxford Univ. Press in 2011. An entity is considered a reliable source about itself. In this case, the entity only hosts a transcription. The orig- .. -inals are accessible via the citation, along with the transcriptions. How can you delete photographs of 19th-century newspaper articles and an official Improvement Era webpage that hosts a copy of the magazine's old article--merely because the Pratt Association also provides a copy of this information? Is the Pratt Association some kind of tar baby for you that forever mars anything it touches? Things that were valid sources suddenly become invalid merely because the Association also hosts a transcript? --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

When user Collect engaged in the pointy prank of the removal of entries for Mitt, George, Lenore, Ann, et al, from the Romney family article's list, he simultaneously deleted a citation that was attached to both of the entries for Mitt and George referencing an AP story that had been hosted on the Fox News website. The AP story goes as follows:

Gaskell Romney, Mitt Romney's grandfather, was not a polygamist. He married Anna Amelia Pratt, the daughter of polygamists and the granddaughter of Parley P. Pratt, the apostle with 12 wives. Their marriage took place Feb. 20, 1895, in Dublan, Mexico.

Gaskell Romney had moved to Mexico with his parents in 1884 amid the proliferation of U.S. laws prohibiting "unlawful cohabitation." Anna Pratt was born in Utah but had emigrated to Mexico and lived in one of nine colonies established by the church over the border.

Gaskell Romney and Anna Pratt had seven children, including George Wilcken Romney, the former Michigan governor. He lived with his parents in Mexico until 1912, when the family returned to the United States.

George Romney married Lenore LaFount, who does not appear to have polygamy in her family tree. The couple, now deceased, had four children, including Mitt Romney.

If Collect has a source calling into doubt that Helaman-Pratt-daughter Anna begat George R., he should bring it to the fore (and we'll inform celebrated genealogist Gary Boyd Roberts, who henceforth can asterisk the same!).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA and note that the material I removed was unsourced or improperly sourced for the full claims as made in your genealogy article. Please finally read and understand WP:RS and the fact that a source must back up the entire claim being made. The edit you cite as being improper removed a link you created for the "Pratt family" - which was unsourced. It removed Miles Alonzo Romney which was unsourced. It removed Thomas Cottham Romeny also unsourced. It removed Vernon Romnay which was sourced to "politicalgraveyard.com" which is a site run by a single person and is not RS. And so on. Most did not even have an attempt at citing a source. Curiously enough, Wikipedia likes to have claims being sourced. This is not a "pointy" obsession of mine, it is not a "prank" - it is the rules. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

How does a family article that had been on Wikipedia for 6 1/2 years belong to me (who has hardly touched the material at "Romney family")? I am pointing out to the community that you had removed, for whatever your rationale and motivations, notable, sourced data from the article on shaky grounds.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to impute ownership only that this is the article at issue. Moreover, the fact that an unsourced or insufficiently sourced article existed for any period of time does not change what Wikipedia policies state. Lastly, WP:RS is not "shaky grounds." Collect (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the original question of this posting, I think the answer is clear enough? Yes, articles about families should be verifiable and they should not be original research, just like every article. Of course we have many articles with no obvious sourcing, but they do not all necessarily need to be deleted. Many can be verified, and verifying is better than deleting when possible. Deleting things should not be justified by saying "its the rules". Every edit we do should aim to improve the encyclopedia. Consider WP:PRESERVE and WP:IAR. If a deletion is contested then in any case it should not be rushed through. Use the talk pages or noticeboards like this one. There should be no rush to delete.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What do we do when we have a paper that is presumptively an RS, but we know that the writer of the article in question, appearing in the paper, is not reliable but rather is questionable. For example, would we rely on an article in The New Republic that was written by Stephen Glass?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The reliability calculation has many factors and is unique to each situation. One thing to look for would be corrections or other responses from the editors. Stephen Glass's reporting was carefully reviewed and the editors determined which articles had problems and which didn't. The fact that he made up some facts didn't mean he made up all of them. So even with that example the answer depends on the exact source and the assertion it's being used for. How do we know that this writer is unreliable?   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Which would be nice if we knew whichfacts weren't. Not all problem articles had full corrections made, which means use of such articles is problematic at best, and another source would outweigh it by an order of magnitude. I believe it is dictum that a person once convicted of perjury will not be believed on any issue at all? Collect (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. And this noticeboard doesn't answer hypothetical questions. Epeefleche, do you have a specific question relating to the use of a particular source as a reference for a particular statement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no useful generalizable answer to this question. The specifics of the case must be examined. What writer, what citation?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Given the above, I should come back when I have more specifics. I noticed that we have articles that list, inter alia, journalists who engaged in fraudulent activity. See, for example, Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair and some (though not all) of the other entries at List of hoaxes#Journalistic hoaxes and Journalistic scandal#See also. I was considering that -- if articles by such authors in RSs are not themselves considered RS material -- I would look to see if we have any such refs at the Project. But before I started looking, I thought I would check here as to how such refs would be considered at the end of the day. It seems that some editors would accept a Stephen Glass article as an RS ref in certain circumstances, and others might instead view him as having rebutted the presumption of reliability by his actions. Perhaps the issue is premature for this page, as a couple of editors suggest.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Stephen Glass' articles have been corrected or retracted by the New Republic, as have Blair's by the Times. Reliable sources are reliable not because they never print errors, but because they have a system in place to prevent or at least correct errors which do make it into print. We shouldn't be citing retracted work (unless we make clear that it was retracted). And we should strongly question the reliability of sources which fail to retract or correct errors when they're identified. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. One issue (premature for this noticeboard, I understand) is whether or not the work of an author such as Glass or Blair loses the presumption of reliability (even if published in an RS) once he has been revealed to have written articles of this ilk. As to your point that the RSs have retracted or corrected these editors' error-ridden articles, we have the challenge that our online sources may carry the older articles. And don't necessarily indicate that the pieces that contain fabrications have been corrected or retracted by the RSs in question. See, for example, this article in Highbeam Business, which our wp article on Glass suggests (pointing to a questionable RS?) and which a NYT article indicates was one of Glass's fabrication-laden articles. But I understand that some editors consider this discussion premature.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • That's an excellent example of why we need to link the original source, not a copy of it hosted at marijuanalibrary.org or HighBeam. But I think you've identified a real problem, and I didn't mean to dismiss it. The problem isn't unique to Wikipedia - for example, a recent survey of the scientific literature found that retracted papers continued to be cited at an impressive rate, even after their retraction. The bottom line is that we need to be careful with sourcing. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• There is no useful generalizable principle to be found by discussing Glass or Blair. Even for evaluating an article by one of those two there is no generalizable principle. What source, what citation?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliability is an attribute of the publication not the writer. We expect that these publications will publish retractions for errors or false information. TFD (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UT/p>C)

Reliability can be an attribute of a publication or a writer. See the policy page. Perhaps a useful point to remember is that our policies do not say that we must include all things which can be reliably sourced. The policy works the other way around. So whenever we have reasons for doubts about a source, we can rightfully aim to avoid being controversial. Having said this, the area where this can go wrong is if a controversial source is a well-known one which needs to be mentioned in order to avoid breaking WP:NPOV.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I came across a citation:

Charles Cawley, Medieval Lands, Earls of Kent, Holand, retrieved on 2 May 2010

in Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter.

On further investigation it turns out to be:

• Cawley, Charles (3 June 2011). "Earls of Kent {1352}-1408, Holand". http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/Intro.htm Medieval Lands. Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help) (Contents)

As can be seen by this search Medieval Lands is used as a reference in over 500 Wikipedia articles.

The introduction says:

It must be emphasised that many areas still remain to be checked as the research is still incomplete. When consulting the documents, it should be assumed that any information which does not include references to primary source material falls into this category and should therefore be treated with the appropriate caution.

Also:

The "back-to-basics" approach to primary source material has produced many surprises. It has enabled numerous new discoveries to be made and many challenges to traditionally accepted family relationships to be proposed. By way of example, browse for Æthelberht King of Wessex (ENGLAND, ANGLO-SAXON and DANISH KINGS) and the wives of Péter Orseolo King of Hungary (HUNGARY, KINGS). The approach has also highlighted many cases where little supporting source material has so far been found, despite extensive research, indicating the possibly dubious nature of some supposed connections.

Is Medieval Lands a reliable source? If not then can it be used as a WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? -- PBS (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any indication that this website is reliable for history. I can't see who the authors are or any affiliation with a university or reputable research institute. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The author appears to be Charles Cawley; the site states that "Charles Cawley is a retired corporate lawyer who now devotes himself full time to historical research".30 So not a historian or an authority on medieval genealogy. RolandR (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• per WP:HISTRS, nope. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We can't cite it as a reliable source because (so far as I know) Charles Cawley and his site aren't referenced as scholarly by academic sources. If I'm mistaken there, and they are so referenced, then that would change.

We can certainly cite it under "External links" -- it is an extremely useful site to serious readers because it cites primary sources scrupulously and because it says honestly where the sources have not yet been found. I don't know any site more useful for someone who's beginning to investigate a medieval family connection. If we only have 560 links to it, that's far too few, because many such people would start from Wikipedia and would be helped by a link to Medlands. Andrew Dalby 10:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not rs, it is hosted by a genealogical website which is run by amateur volunteers. TFD (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK then the unanimous consensus from the few who have expressed an opinion here, it is not suitable as a secondary source how about for those facts in the source, where the source cites a reliable source under the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT rule? -- PBS (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's a middle way among the requirements of Saywhereyougotit, Reliablesources and Wereallydontmuchlikeprimarysources, I don't know what the middle way is. My method has been (a) if I have time, to check the sources that Charles Cawley cites, and cite them; (b) in any case, to ensure that Medieval Lands is among the external links. I expect someone else will come along with a better solution :) Andrew Dalby 12:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As it is not a personal website, given the description of how it is made I see no problem to cite the entries which name the primary sources, as these are the checked ones, (and the other ones comes from non primary sources as I understand it) but then we are basically dealing with a good collection of primary sources. There is no absolute ban on using primary sources, but they are not ideal. When it comes to medieval genealogy I would say this type of imperfect source should not be shunned too much. Even professional writings on medieval genealogy are often full of assumptions and traditions, and the best ones often also just collect primary sources and let readers see the options. So that is probably what we will end up with too in some such cases. (I see no reason to prefer blithe reproduction of traditions such as can be found in well-known publication such as Burkes or whatever, just because they are well-known and frequently cited.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Does citing Amazon.com in order to support the publication info (date, publisher, etc.) or release info for a film or TV show violate WP:NOTADVERTISING? I cite Amazon sometimes in order to support such info, but on editor is arguing to me that this violates WP:NOTADVERTISING because Amazon is a vendor whose sole purpose is to sell things. My position is that just because Amazon is a vendor does not mean that this is our intent in citing it, since we may have a function for an Amazon item page that is distinct from Amazon's function for it. Such links, after all, are always placed in the Infobox and External links section of the articles for such companies, so that would seem to underscore the fact that different people can have different uses for a given webpage or website: The page on the website of a vendor may have a business function for that vendor, but it obviously can, in some limited instances, have encyclopedic value for Wikipedia. The same would hold true, I'd imagine, for WP:EL, which says the same thing about links included in the EL section not being purely promotional. Any thoughts? Agree or disagree? Nightscream (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please follow the instructions at the top of the page. We do not deal with hypotheticals, but in concrete reliability issues. (In particularly I would suggest that deposit libraries and the bibliographic page / credits / object cover are suitable places to find bibliographic information. Amazon's bibliographic perfection is far from inerrant) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Until something is released, it falls into the "crystal ball" category. Amazingly enough, sometimes things are not released on time, or ever. Collect (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What Amazon says about such things is perhaps notable enough that we could use them with an "According to Amazon.com..."?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

While looking for reliable sources that first season of The Looney Tunes Show, this site was brought to my attention. My natural instincts are that this is unreliable as it appears to be a blog run by a guy named Peter Vidani who doesn't appear to have any real ties to the show beyond a simple fanbase. Although, there was a message by one of the show's writers Tony Cervone mentioning the season finale but with no mention of a source. Still I can't be for sure, so what's the verdict? Sarujo (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable, it is an unedited blog. The post purporting to be content authored by Tony Cervone cannot be reliably demonstrated for wikipedia purposes to have been written by Tony Cervone, and is published on an unedited blog, and is therefore unreliable. Thanks for your question, sorry about the delay in answering your inquiry. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This relates to research done by a WMF fellow on oral citations. Are oral citations now accepted on en.wiki as reliable sources? They seem to have been used in this article, maybe others as well. Cheers, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe. Have they been published in a reliable source? (It seems that the answer is "no" in this particular instance.) ElKevbo (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• My inclination is that they aren't good enough for notability, but are good enough to be used as sources. Even in academic research audio sources are acceptable: notability though is an entirely separate matter, and must be decided separately. In this case specifically I do not feel that it establishes notability, as the person interviewed has no academic authority in the field. He is simply a layperson, who has played a game of unknown notability.NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• I guess the question is whether Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hall Ball would suddenly be notable if one of the hall residents mentioned having played it in an interview. The issue isn't whether audio sources (WMF funded or not) are "enough", but whether they establish notability. I think in this case, as with Hall Ball, the answer is no. And would still be no if the interview transcript in question, proving that one interviewee claimed to have played the game, appeared in Nature. Pakaran 05:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Primary sources cannot be used to demonstrate notability. The "oral citations" in this case are primary sources, and the person being interviewed is not an academic authority on the subject. In the absence of multiple, independent, secondary reliable sources, notability is not established as per en.wp standards. Primary sources can only be used under very limited circumstances. There are two other articles incorporating "oral citations": Dappa Kali and Neeliyar Bhagavathi. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_115
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---