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.

I wouldn't mind sources like Ars Technica being used to cite noncontroversial information, but I have a suspicion that this source and several other "tech blogs" are being relied on too much in the Suburban Express article, specifically in the "2013 controversy" section and to describe the company's reputation on Yelp and Reddit. I've brought up my concern on the Talk page, but I think it might help to get some additional opinions. HtownCat (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ars is owned Condé Nast who publishes some high quality magazines. I would probably put it on the same level as Wired for straight reporting and feature pieces. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Much of Suburban Express Wiki article relates to attacks on Suburban Express by Reddit users and Suburban Express response to same. ARS Technica articles relating to Suburban Express devote a large number of column inches to discussing Reddit vs Suburban Express with a noticeable bias in favor of Reddit users. Since ARS and Reddit are both owned by Conde Nast, there would seem to be somewhat of a conflict of interest. It is in the interest of conde nast if its subsidiary ARS supports Reddit users and drives traffic to subsidiary Reddit. It seems clear that ARS blog posts should not be used as sources in this, or any article which relates to Reddit (or any other conde nast media property). 2602:306:367E:C8B9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

^_Bold 185.156.72.9 (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

^_Bold 185.156.72.9 (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

^_Bold 185.156.72.9 (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

^_Bold 185.156.72.9 (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This organisation is used in relationship to a BLP, Wong Kiew Kit to claim he is "the fourth generation successor from the famous Shaolin Monastery of China, and a grandmaster of Shaolin Kung Fu and Chi Kung" in the article Shaolin Wahnam Institute and in his own article to state "grandmaster of Shaolin Kung Fu and Qigong." Google search doesn't bring up enough for me to see this group as a reliable source for a BLP in this specific instance. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be very skeptical. Perhaps it could be treated as an SPS... ie allow it, but attribute. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm skeptical as well, but it does look like an acceptable source for saying that he is grand-master-certified by the IKF. CorporateM (Talk) 13:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'd say not, as it says " fourth generation successor from the famous Shaolin Monastery of China," - which is Shaolin Monastery, not Southern Shaolin Monastery. So we can't use it as a source since it's got the wrong monastery, and it's not up to us to interpret it.

The article is Brahma_Kumaris. The reference used is supposedly a book written by "Anti-Om Mandli Committee" (Om Mandli is the previous name of Brahma Kumaris). The link for the book, named "An_Reply_To_Is_This_Justice", and also the only place it can be accessed, is the anti-Brahma Kumaris site brahmakumaris.info. The book is fully typed by brahmakumaris.info, an ex-members critical site which contains original research and exceptional claims. There is no original version of it available on the internet and none has been shown on the article.

The book, even if true, is self-published by the Anti-Om Mandli Committee. It contains heavy WP:Exceptional claims that are not mentioned in any secondary or reliable source, only in itself. And it is being used as basis for extraordinary and heavily controversial claims in the WP article, such as the following diff: .

The article is also under probation, which highlights the importance of verifiable, reliable secondary sources, in opposition to original research, specially on controversial claims.

I appreciate any attention on this matter. Thank you. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The text is available at via BramaKumaris. UMich had an original copy that has unfortunately gone missing. I'm not seeing any cites to this work on google scholar, which isn't unexpected given the rarity and the fact that work is dated from 1940.

As to your points: reference works are allowed to contain original research, and the fact that we only know of electronic versions of the work does not impeach its reliability. Given the absence of any press information I think it's reasonable to conclude this was self-published, but the work does contain several transcriptions of newspaper articles; do those articles contain anything of interest? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, LC, thanks for the response. The version you linked is the same typed by brahmakumaris.info.

According to WP:NOTRS, the Article Probation , WP:Exceptional and WP:SPS, an original research, or self-published source, may be used only for non-controversial points. In this case, it's being used for highly controversial and exceptional claims, that are not mentioned in any secondary or reliable source. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A few points. The articles in on probation as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris#Article probation, so it would be I guess acceptable to request ArbCom input as per that ruling. Also, it would really help if someone indicated exactly what was regarded as exceptional. The questioned material seems to, correct me if I'm wrong, refer to citation #19, which sources the following material:

• "Kripalani was reported to have learnt a spiritual practise from a Bengali sadhu at the cost of 10,000 rupees" - Not sure if that is considered controversial or not.
• "Lekhraj started holding satsangs which attracted many people and the group became known as Om Mandli. In the beginning of the movement, members considered God to be omnipresent, and their founder Kripalani to be god Brahma, the author of the Bhagavad Gita" - which I guess could be controversial, but I would like to know what aspect.
• "Kripalani claimed that he was the Hindu god Krishna reincarnated. The group was accused of being a cult and putting individuals into a trance by way of hypnotic or occult influences. It was reported that under the guise of high sounding philosophy, a systematic ridicule of Hinduism, worship and prayer was going on and priest and preachers of other religions were stigmatised as hypocritical charlatans and that followers were being duped into the belief that salvation could only be attained through him and the Mandli and within one week" some of which I could see as being controversial, but if it is referring to the accusations, I'm not sure that saying accusations were made is necessarily controversial

There is one fourth reference link, but it seems to link to the third quote above. So, honestly, I really would like to know exactly which statements sourced from the work are considered controversial. If we knew, it would be possible to find out if any other sources support it or not. Also, at least theoretically, if there is one or more problematic editor involved, it would not be impossible to ask for ArbCom to perhaps take up the matter. But we would need to know exactly what is being called exceptional claims here. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, John Carter, thanks for the response. What is being called exceptional is the claim contained in the book, that Lekhraj sexually abused the girls who participated in Om Mandli, and immorally touched and kissed them. Even if the book is true, beyond being self-published, that claim was only made by the anti-committee, which lost the legal case against Om Mandli. Even in the context of the book, the claims are not accepted as fact. Yet we have in the article, for example, the following diff presenting the exceptional claim as fact: GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed that one: "Some members of the local Sindhi people reacted unfavourably to the movement because of immoral and intimate behaviour between the founder and the young women who attended his ashram, and his encouragement that they leave their husbands and families and become his gopis. The situation was further inflamed when it founder challenged the authority of his local caste leaders during the marriage of one daughter and by taking back a second married daughter whilst leaving her child with the other family.". OK, knowing what is being argued helps. I could see maybe that some of the content be kept in, although perhaps changing it to something like "...Sindhi people reacted unfavourably based on allegations of immortal and intimate behavior...", if the material about that Sindhi reaction is considered significant enough to be included, which, for all I know, it might be. Local reactions to groups tend to be a big deal historically, depending on the size of the group. The second sentence, which I'm assuming is factually accurate?, might be less controversial, as it seems to be more about social factors than individual behavioral ones, depending of course who the male involved in those matters was. Or are you contending that the matter of the alleged Sindhi response is itself not significant enough for inclusion? Just asking for clarification here. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Changing the words might be something, but "immoral intimate behavior" (which means sexual abuse) is something contained only in the book we are talking about. WP:Exceptional says that exceptional claims need multiple high quality sources as basis. There is no reliable, secondary, high quality source to back up those claims, let alone multiple. The Arbitration case says there are quite enough secondary sources about Brahma Kumaris, and that WP:OR cannot be used to back up controversial claims. Just to clarify: My concern is precisely the excerpt "immoral intimate behavior" right now, and also using the anti-committee book as basis for controversial claims, as I read on guidelines and arbitration, that controversial claims require secondary sources. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, "immoral intimate behavior" could just mean indulging in "free love"-type sexual license, I don't know, and that isn't necessarily sexual abuse, although, admittedly, that is a really fine line there in the religious context. If there are no other sources alleging some sort of sexual misconduct, abusive or otherwise, though, then I don't see any reason for those words to stay in the article. The rest of the sentence, if it is better sourced, could probably stay, although it would be useful to indicate if the negative Sindhi response, if that is sourcable elsewhere, did have any sort of clear cause. Maybe, if that is the case, something like "Allegations from current or former members turned the Sindhi against the BK," or some other comment of that type that doesn't go into any particular dubiously sourced details. John Carter (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, John Carter. So, by your advice, I assume I can remove "immoral intimate behavior", as no reliable secondary source supports any sexual misconduct. I will do that as per your advice. Thank you very much. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Closing per a request at WP:ANRFC and also because this discussion is generating more heat than light. After 3 weeks of discussion, consensus was that comments from Callahan's blog inre: 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. While there are exceptions to this case, such as the publisher being an expert in the relevant field and having recognized third-party publications, no such argument was advanced in relationship to the study of cults or cult behavior. That Callahan was a member of this institute does not provide special exemption from our standard reliable source requirements. If there are other, reliable sources that describe the institute as a cult, they are, by definition, preferable. They are also required for this kind of claim; if there are no sources describing the institute as a cult within the article, it violates WP:NPOV big time. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

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.

---

FYI

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

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

1. Source: Callahan, Gene (January 2, 2012). "Murphy on LvMI"
2. Article: Ludwig von Mises Institute#The Institute as a cult
3. Content:
   1. "Gene Callahan has implied that the Institute is a cult and compared it to Scientology."
   2. Later modified to read: "Callahan rejected Robert's Murphy's denial that the Mises Institute is a cult, and compared it to Scientology.39" (Footnote 39 "Murphy on LvMI" remains))
   3. inserted Sept. 22 Context here: 7 SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
   4. inserted Sept. 22 Full paragraph reads: "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.39self-published source?404142 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.43self-published source?"
4. Article talk page thread: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Former Mises scholar repudiates Institute as .22cult.22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note, the archive default on this board is 5 days (not 30). I have requested WP:ANRFC. – S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich I would have expected you to understand that the archive parameter is not the same thing as closure of an ongoing discussion. There are questions which various editors have posed in the course of the thread in their responses to various other editors' comments here -- for example Miles' request that you summarize your view. Closure would not be constructive until the open questions have been addressed, and frankly it's hard to see what's to be gained by such a proposal. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A 5 day automatic archive means the discussion will disappear from the active board unless someone adds a new posting every 4-5 days. MilesMoney posted 3 days ago. Adding a timestamp for the sake of keeping a thread open, e.g., without adding to the content, serves little purpose. Next, if there are open questions, you might restate them. For example: Is it a question whether or not the blog is a personal blog? Is a question as to the fact that Callahan is commenting about another personal blog? Is it a question as to the fact that Callahan's area of expertise is economics? Indeed, because Callahan is talking about his personal experience at LvMI is there a question about whether he is a PRIMARY source? And is there a question as to whether he is talking about third parties and persons? (Or is there another open question that needs addressing?) Other editors seem to understand these issues, and I would trust the editor closing the discussion to do so with a considered determination. – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Miles asked you a question here. Unless I'm missing something, the simplest thing would be for you to give him the courtesy of a response. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I will quote Binksternet from a few days ago: "S. Rich made it abundantly clear that this thread is about whether the Callahan blog should be used in the LvMI article to say the Institute is a cult." That said, repeating myself (or seeking to do MilesMoney's homework) is not productive. But I will respond to Miles – "I'm sorry, MilesMoney, but you are wrong. Please read through the material above." – S. Rich (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked you a question and you refused to answer it. No matter how you try to spin it, you evaded the question. This is not productive. MilesMoney (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There are questions worth a response and there are other questions. This thread has gone on long enough to determine consensus against using Callahan's blog to say Callahan believes LvMI is a cult. In the end it is a matter of WP:WEIGHT: If Callahan has not been quoted by reliable secondary sources then how important is this single blog post of his? Perhaps it is like the tree falling in the forest with none to hear. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My questions are worthy of a response, it is premature to say that the thread has come to a consensus, and your response is unhelpful. MilesMoney (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Summarizing the points made (except for OP, are presented in order of first posting):

Editor	RS/Non-RS	Summary	Summary provided by:
Steeletrap	RS	Editors' views cannot be usefully summarized, out of context, in a table such as this one. Please disregard this table.	Steeletrap
Fifelfoo	Non-RS	Gossip. Expertise is not w/ cults	OP
Errant	Non-RS	Needs RS to show Callahan's opinion is notable	OP
SPECIFICO	RS	Editors' views cannot be usefully summarized, out of context, in a table such as this one. Please disregard this table.	SPECIFICO
Binksternet	Non-RS	Cult assertion should come from more reliable source; blog demeans identifiable 3rd parties; non-encyclopedic; undue weight (tree falls in forest)	OP; modified by Binksternet
Carolmooredc	Non-RS	SPS	OP
Jreferee	Non-RS	Extraordinary claim, not verified by high-quality third party sources, non-expert opinion	OP
MilesMoney	RS	Editors' views cannot be usefully summarized, out of context, in a table such as this one. Please disregard this table.	MilesMoney
OP	Non-RS	SPS, Callahan is blogging about another blog, references 3rd parties & living people, Callahan is not commenting about economics, changes to article text have not modified the nature of the blog	OP

If changes to the summary statements are desired, please let me know – or make changes to your particular section. – S. Rich (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)17:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The summary is not appropriate or constructive and you should redact it with a strike-through. Your table misrepresents or omits key points of several participants here. It creates the impression that you as OP are trying to control or influence the outcome of the thread in a non-collegial way. You are among peers in this discussion and you have appropriated an undue role for yourself. The discussion is ongoing. When the discussion has run its course, whoever closes it will be quite capable of fulfilling that function. Do you see other OPs acting similarly? The table should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• What points need revision & how? – S. Rich (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The summary is inaccurate and you still haven't answered my direct question. I'll ask it again: what policy stops us from presenting Gene Callahan's views as Gene Callahan's views?

Please tell me what parts of the summary are inaccurate – I shall be happy to fix. The policy WP:SPS. Callahan can give his opinion regarding his field of expertise – economics. We do not allow personal blog material that goes beyond that relevant field. Questionable sources "are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." – S. Rich (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're kind of missing the point. Well, multiple points, really. The big one is that WP:SPS can't have anything to do with this because it's not a WP:BLP and we're not using Callahan for expert claims in the first place. We're using him (and Murphy) for their statements about their own experiences with the Institute. They're talking about themselves and what they believe, which is something each of us is qualified to discuss.

So long as we properly attribute these claims to them, as opposed to silently endorsing them by speaking as Wikipedia, we're being fair and accurate, and we're following all the rules. The only legitimate basis you could have for claiming unreliability is if you had some verifiable reason to believe that Callahan and Murphy didn't actually say these things or that the basic background facts (such as their association with the Institute) were false. Is that what you're claiming? If not, you need to walk away, because you seem to be grasping at straws here in your attempt to obstruct material whose content you dislike. Wikipedia is not censored, remember? MilesMoney (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, your points have been incorporated into the summary. Please let me know if more addition or revision is needed. (While you mentioned Murphy, I left those out because the Murphy blog is under discussion in another thread.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Your summary is very much your summary; it's all spin and has only a tenuous connection to reality. In particular, it violates the talk page rules by falsely attributing views to others. For example, you excluded mention of Murphy which is central to my argument. You said it was ok for us to change it, and since you wouldn't do it when we asked, I took the liberty of collapsing it.

I keep asking you a simple question and you can't answer it. At some point, I just gotta conclude you don't have an answer. But not yet. I'll ask again: what policy stops us from presenting Gene Callahan's views as Gene Callahan's views? Before you answer, stop and read WP:RSOPINION. MilesMoney (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, I have incorporated your points about Murphy into the summary. Please let me know about other changes you think are needed. As for your question, I have cited SPS and WP:QS. Perhaps this quote from RSOPINION (the third paragraph) will help: "There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published ... blogs ... as a source for material about a living person,... bold in the original." Callahan is writing about what Murphy wrote and what Murphy thinks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you've been asked by other editors to remove or hat your table. You are misrepresenting the views of other editors in violation of WP policy. You are not our amanuensis. Please remove, strike-though or hat your table. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

When I repeatedly ask other editors to make comments on what changes are desirable, accusing me of misrepresentation fails WP:AGF. If you feel changes are warranted to the summary I posted in your section, please feel free to make such changes yourself. Please do not change the sections related to other editors. – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

insert@srichYou are taking an entirely inappropriate posture that you are in a position to command the behavior of other editors. I made it quite clear to you first that you misrepresented me, and second that the table itself was (is) inappropriate. Please strike your personal attack re:AGF. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I already pointed out, you need a single, valid argument against inclusion, not a hundred waving hands (or pumped fists). I asked you for a principled basis for your objection, for something supported by the rules and our sources, but you've kept tossing out easily refuted arguments while trying to shift the conversation to your dishonest chart/table thing. As further counterproductive distraction (not to mention intimidation), you're threatening me on ANI pages with accusations so baseless that you've had to retract them and go hunting for some place else to attack me. How is any of this going to help you prove your case? Just drop the nonsense and focus on the topic. MilesMoney (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What's going on here is that there have been a few opinions shared by editors who either don't understand the question or don't know the answer. Some just don't understand that we're quoting someone on what they believe, not stating it as fact. Others don't understand the policies that allow us to do this. And there are those who make both mistakes.

This is not a vote. It's a discussion. Opinions that are based on errors just don't count. If I argued that we must allow Callahan because he's the Pope, my opinion is worthless and should be thrown out. If I bring in a hundred other editors who likewise argue based on his Papal infallibility, they're likewise worthless.

All it takes is a single, correct argument. Incorrect ones are noise, not signal, no matter how many there are. But Rich's chart is a noise-amplification device, designed to drive out the signal under a flood of mistaken conclusions, to create a false consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Rich, adding an attribution column isn't enough. Now you have to remove everything that's written by you and summarizes someone else. After that, we can slash out each row that contains an invalid argument. When we're done, all that'll be left is SPECIFO's and mine. MilesMoney (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a note to each of the other contributing editors and asked them to modify the summaries of their comments. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

See, that's just another way for you to try to control the conversation, demanding that we fill in the blanks in your hopelessly broken table. No, thanks. There have been enough editors opting out that the table is doomed. And since you won't stick to the topic you brought up, this entire section has withered on the vine. I recommend WP:BLOWITUP: get rid of this dead end and start with a short, clear post that explains how the rules applied to the facts lead to your conclusion. If you can't do this (and I have my doubts), then you're just wasting everyone's time, including your own. You have gained no traction so far and you're not going to unless you come up with something better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO; to address your question (why can't we present Callahan's view as his view). The problem isn't so much that we can present his view (we can, he has published it, that's fine). The problem is that you've not presented anything to support Callahan's viewpoint as a noteworthy one. Anyone can start a blog. I do appreciate he was (or claims to have been, I am unclear here) a member of the institute. But even so, a SPS blog source isn't very strong. It's not our place (per, for example, WP:OR) to choose which views to present. So what you need to locate is an independent, RS, that discusses Callahan's view as noteworthy. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Just read Gene Callahan and you'll see that he is an adjunct scholar at the Institute and has published heavily in his field. There's absolutely nothing in the rules that says we can't quote him on the subject of what he believes about the Institute that he is a member of. Instead, it's obvious that he's qualified to speak on this topic and what he says is notable. We know for sure that it's notable because it was noted and got a response.

I'm going to say this again: policy permits and encourages us to use Callahan for an attributed statement. There is no element of WP:OR and WP:SPS just doesn't say what you think it does. I don't mean this as a personal attack, but your comment qualifies as noise. MilesMoney (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's borderline, but I think in the case of this contested information we would, yes, look for a secondary source to support the view as noteworthy. Per WP:SPS; Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so --Errant ^(chat!) 23:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean like this? It seems as though all of the criticism of the Institute is coming from its own members. This lowers the burden on us substantially. MilesMoney (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Again that's the blog of a former member; which fails the test of being independent coverage. Just to highlight the mistake you are making here, It seems as though - where are you getting that from? Yourself, or a RS? --Errant ^(chat!) 09:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Further on my post above, even if the claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult is an ordinary claim, it still needs to be verifiable against reliable sources. Being a cult is something capable of being prove true or false. You cannot verity a fact with an opinion, no matter what source opinion you use. Even if the claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult were verifiable using opinion, Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is not a Wikipedia reliable source for the proposed use or the target article. The opinion of Gene Callahan, of what he believes, characterizes Gene Callahan as a person, not the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The only place it could be posted is the Gene Callahan article, but since no third-party source has used it to describe what Callahan believes, the information does not belong in that article either.
  The problem is that editors want to use the charged, loaded word "cult" instead of taking the time to summarize how third party reliable sources are characterizing the institute. It is not a cult, but look at the definition of cult.8: veneration of a person and/or ideal. A body of admirers. Ideology. If you look at the collective of the reliable sources on the institute, you may not see these exact words or explanation, but you may see something along these lines: 'Those who oppose or question the Ludwig von Mises Institute assert that, as a body containing a mix of admirers and idolizers of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, they go beyond promoting the economics proposed by Ludwig von Mises to a point of veneration.' So which reads better? The Ludwig von Mises Institute is a cult or what I just wrote? What I wrote is not sourced so do not use it in the article. Instead, go though the reliable sources on the Ludwig von Mises Institute, get a sense/summary of how they are being characterized by others, the consider posting that in a verifiable, neutral way. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Good advice, Jreferee; you are a clear thinker. The only correction to make here is that the supposed cult leader would be Murray Rothbard, not Ludwig von Mises. Rothbard was a strong character who made certain that his views were foremost at the Mises Institute he co-founded. Rothbard is dead, so BLP considerations do not stop us from using blogs to call him a cult leader. However, I have argued that BLP applies to the people who are still members of LvMI, the ones who would thus be called cult members. As well, the blogs are not important enough for us to single them out for attention; they have not risen to the world's attention by way of mainstream media, so why does Wikipedia care about blog accusations? Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I see your error: you say, "even if the claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult is an ordinary claim", but we're not making that claim. We're stating that X says Y, not affirming Y. So you're using the wrong set of requirements. MilesMoney (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

We do several things in the editing process. We analyze the claim & source and, if the claim & source meet editing policy, we restate the claim based on what the source says. In this case, the claim that LvMI is a cult is WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Thus it comes under special scrutiny. As a source, Callahan is primary because he was there and he's talking about his experience with the people there. And as a blog, which is commenting about another blog, it fails RS – even if it were not making an extraordinary claim. In other words, we do not say "X says Y" – because X's comment does not meet RS standards (as a blog) and Y is an extraordinary claim. This would apply if Callahan was making an ordinary (or unchallenged) claim. – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

As User:MilesMoney implies, much of this controversy stems from shoddy reading comprehension. The claim that "The Mises Institute is a cult" is extraordinary, but does not appear in this article. The claim is that LvMI is a cult in the opinion of Gene Callahan, who is a notable academic that had a long, prolific role with LvMI. Similarly, we present the view that Democracy is "incompatible with wealth creation" on the Mises page; this is not an extraordinary claim because it is presented not as fact but as the opinion of Mises fellows. Steeletrap (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to think I was really clear but Rich's response doesn't make any sense or show he understands what's going on. I'll say it some more, until it sinks in. We're not saying the Institute is or isn't a cult. We're saying that these two members disagree on this topic. Until you understand this, nothing you say matters. Sorry, but I'm being blunt because you're just not getting it. MilesMoney (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I posted a variety of arguments above. In reply to the comment that "We're stating that X says Y, not affirming Y" - X's opinion about an unproven fact claim about Y is a characterization about X, not Y, so Callahan's opinion about an unproven fact claim about the Ludwig von Mises Institute does not belong in the Ludwig von Mises Institute article. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not a good argument. Even if we grant your reasoning -- which we can't because it doesn't seem to be supported by policy -- it fails because of the facts. You argue that X talking about Y belongs in the article about X, but in this case, X is a member of Y, so it belongs in the article on Y. Claims by members of the Institute belong in the article about the Institute, not anywhere else. Sorry, but that doesn't work for you. MilesMoney (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Two bloggers taking potshots? Not notable. If you can find a mainstream source mentioning Callahan's position then you have something you can bank on. Otherwise it is undue weight given to Callahan, who is not an expert on cults. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not based on an accurate summary of the situation. If you and I opened blogs that debated with each other about whether the Institute is a cult, it would be entirely non-notable. What we're talking about are two members of the Institute having a public discussion with each other about their own Institute. Callahan is, as a member of the Institute, qualified to speak about it. This makes your opinion here non-notable. MilesMoney (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksernet, what if their blogs said "Michael Moore is fat" or "Sarah Palin is stupid" -- would you insist they be notable experts in physiology or psychometrics? There is RS documented public discussion of vMI as a cult, see Time Magazine, Buckley, and other RS discussion. In light of the corroborating secondary sources, I feel that MilesMoney's analysis is supported by WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If Time magazine & National Review directly supported the material (the contention that the institute is a cult), that would be one thing. But they do not. Justin Fox (Time) talks about Rothbard, the Kochs, and gives quotes from Buckley, Gordon, and Rothbard. Fox does not come out and say anything about the institute. (He quotes Buckley who says the number of followers ("disciples") of Rothbard & Koresh are similar. But this does NOT serve to characterize the institute as a cult.) Jonah Goldberg (National Review) quotes Doherty, who does not discuss LvMI. The quoted material from Doherty again quotes the Buckley obit, expanding the sentence which reads "Yes, Murray Rothbard believed in freedom, and yes, David Koresh believed in God." (Thus we have Goldberg quoting Doherty who quotes Buckley.) Characterizing the support for the cult characterization as coming from Time & National Review (or even Buckley) fails the WP:RS#Context matters direct support requirement.17:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We're not contending that it's a cult. We're stating the uncontroversial fact that members publicly debate over whether it is a cult. This is a simple point that even a child could understand, but you keep missing it. Are you WP:COMPETENT? MilesMoney (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

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.

An Ethiopian Journal article indicates with regard to Matt Bryden, the former Coordinator for the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group (SEMG), that "the UN has also insisted on retaining and re-nominating Matt Bryden, Arnaud Laloum and Jörg Roofthooft despite objections from some quarters" (c.f. 9). This was used on the Bryden page to source the following wikitext: "Bryden was retained on the panel despite objections from some parties" 10. I would like to know if this is ok. If not, how can the phrase be amended to conform with wiki policy? Thanks, Middayexpress (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the concern? The wording or the source itself?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• 1. Source.11
• 2. Article Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world
• 3. Content. 12

Thank you for your opinion.Tritomex (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This question has been asked on this noticeboard at least 10 times before, but in the current case, the question as expressed is misleading. Nobody is trying to cite any fact to Electronic Intifada (and if they were, I would probably oppose it). The situation is that an interview they posted is being used for the words of the person interviewed, a leading expert on the subject. The opinions expressed by the person interviewed are fully consistent with his known views and I don't see any reason to regard the reporting as unreliable. Zero^talk 14:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, If the interview published by clearly unreliable source is "fully consistent with the known views of Achcar " than proper references regarding his views should be added through reliable sources. An unreliable, partisan source can not be reference for any scholar view, certainly not on subject which is directly linked to the reason of its unreliability. Otherwise, we could quote scholars, scientists, politicians from blogs, political pamphlets, self published articles etc.--Tritomex (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

While replacing an acceptable source with a better source at some point in the future sounds like a reasonable principle, I take it that such possible futures are not the question here. Zero0000's response looks like a correct answer to the more practical question originally asked.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Some editors have tried countless times to have "Electronic Intifada" branded as "clearly unreliable". They have never succeeded. Now Tritomex argues as if they have....so what does this do to his/her credibility? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

An activist source is more likely to be reliable for an interview with someone in broad agreement with their views, not less as Tritomex suggests. In this case there is a choice. Several editors (including me) have read Achcar's book and could summarise his views using more or less the same words, but that would just make it harder for readers to verify that the summary is objective rather than OR. It is better to use Achcar's own words as a summary of his views. If a summary just as suitable is found in a place less likely to be challenged, it could be used instead. Meanwhile, no case for suppressing the information has been made. Zero^talk 09:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Simultaneously, however, he did not publicly support the 1925 Nazi 25-point program; in his political biography, Mein Kampf (1925, 1926), Hitler only mentions it as “the so-called program of the movement”.Turner, Henry A. German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler. Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 77" Here is a link to a snippet view of the passage in Turner's book. He wrote, "Subsequently, even while proclaiming the correctness of the program as a whole, Hitler consistently refrained from citing its terms in detailed fashion. He conspicuously omitted its text from Mein Kampf, where he alluded to it disparagingly as the "so-called program of the movement."

An editor removed this line from the article National Socialist Program with the comment, "The absoluetly most reliable source as to the contents of a book are, and will ALWAYS be that said book. Turners claim cannot be verified (wikipedia rule), as infact it can be easily disproven."13 I have discussed this with the editor at Talk:National Socialist Program#An error.

Whether or not Hitler supported the program is relevant to the article. To me, if an editor disagrees with what Turner says, then s/he should find another source, rather than just remove the text based on his/her reading of Mein Kampf. I would appreciate any comments.

TFD (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR The IP's interpretation of a book is original research. Nothing else to discuss. There is probably an OR notice board where an admin can help you remove the IP's research from Wikipeia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC))

TFD, as you present it, your reasoning seems correct. It could be that other sources exist which give another opinion, but then they can be added later and that does not require us to remove mention of this opinion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As N-HH wrote on the article talk page, Turner did not write what is claimed, so Turner cannot be refuted by refuting what is claimed. (I.e. the difficulty seems to be a strawman.) What Turner actually wrote, that Hitler referred to the 25 points in disparaging fashion, appears to be true. I'll quote Mein Kampf on the article talk page shortly. Zero^talk 13:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

In Goniometer I recently added a new section- Doctor blade inspection- and the following text:

Used Doctor blades, used in gravure and other printing and coating processes, may be inspected using a goniometer, typically with a built-in light source, to examine the blade edge to see whether the blade has worn at the desired angle and whether there are signs of wear at other angles. A difference in angle from that set on the machine may indicate excessive pressure, and a range of angles ("rounding") probably indicates a lack of stiffness, or wear, in the blade holder assembly. ¹

The source supports most of the first sentence. The second sentence is verifiable in principle.

This was deleted as spam and since then there has been a bit of discussion about this source- see Talk:Goniometer.

I believe that WP:SPAM says "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia"

So- a couple of questions

• is the use of this source in this context acceptable?
• Widening out the question- Vsmith asserts a blanket ban: "A commercial webpage that exists to promote and sell a product is not a valid reference." in any circumstances apparently, as (s)he does not wish to discuss the particulars of this entry. IMHO, that creates particular difficulties for engineering, manufacturing, and technological articles. Is this a serious WP policy?

Gravuritas (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

True, but such a policy saves us from other difficulties. If we did allow those links, the engineering, manufacturing and technological articles would soon have little else (who could resist free advertising on the 6th most visited site on the web?). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm new to WP, but I'd be surprised if policy-making on WP is done by one man and a dog. So where does this policy appear? I asked VSmith and (s)he ducked the question despite posting a reply, which is either inconsiderate or implies that it's his/her invention. Are you arguing in favour of a policy that really exists? or are you suggesting that such a policy should exist?- in which case maybe the examples to discuss could possibly be better-known objects than goniometers.

Gravuritas (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Try WP:RS, particularly WP:QUESTIONABLE: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites .... that are promotional in nature... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

So firstly, we seem to have established that the words of VSmith's original assertion were his/her own invention. That's progress- thank you.

Now let's have the quote in full. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." So we are agreed that the only issue is that source was promotional in nature. Agreed, but so what? The WP policy continues "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities." So none of that applies. And finishing the quote- "The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited" Now finally we have got to something that might apply. I suggest that, in the absence of another non-commercial source, the existence of a commercial website selling goniometers is a perfectly reasonable source to back up my assertion from Goniometer that

"Used Doctor blades, from gravure and other printing and coating processes, may be inspected using a goniometer".

Gravuritas (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

For your source to be accepted, it's not sufficient to point that the guidelines allow links to promotional sites in limited circumstances. You could have just pointed to WP:IAR to establish that. What you need to do here is make a case as to why your source fits into an already-accepted class of exceptions, or why creating a new class will be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Given that you're asking for simultaneous exceptions to WP:LINKSPAM, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, I don't see how an effective argument can be made. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems the user above wishes to use commercial webpages as references for content in Wikipedia articles. If we allow such, as indicated above, commercial interests will jump at the chance to promote their stuff. I'm quite surprised that there seems to be a lack of direct advice on this in our policies. I was of the understanding that company websites could be linked in articles about the company, but other such uses as in articles about products or services shouldn't use commercial "references" to avoid "promotion" of a single company. Commercial websites lack independent editorial oversite, are promotional "designed to sell" and not neutral, and are self-published. So how can we use a commercial website as a reference in an article? I don't think the user bringing this question here has any connection to the website so WP:COI likely doesn't apply, but ... if we allow the use of such websites others with a conflict of interest will see a source of free advertising/promotion.

I also see the user is seeing this discussion as supporting his edits: see this and note ref #8 which links to this website which prompted this discussion following their use of this on the goniometer article as mentioned above. Vsmith (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me rewind slightly here and apologise to Vsmith for some over-the top language on my part. Let me say that, in my few weeks editing on WP I am beginning to understand the scale of the effort performed by many people just keeping up with vandalism, edit wars, etc let alone adding to the material and keeping it up to date. I'd like to avoid adding further to this load- but I do have a remaining issue with the consensus emerging in this section and the way it seems to unfolding in doctor blades- as follows-

In the Goniometer example, I added a section that boils down to "Goniometers are used for examining doctor blades" (say g.a.u.f.e.d.b.) and added a commercial link to verify that assertion. Whether or not Benton Graphics goniometers are good or bad, they _are_ selling them for that purpose and the assertion g.a.u.f.e.d.b. should be taken as verified by all. By all means delete the link- but for goodness sake a CN tag should not then be added. Similarly a link to a supplier of hard-chromed gravure cylinders demonstrates that at least some gravure cylinders are hard chromed; a website advertising chromed or ceramic anilox rollers shows that anilox rollers can be chromed or ceramic, etc. If I added to an appropriate article that, say, ceramic aniloxes can be laser-engraved, I could verify it in an instant by a link to an commercial website, but I might look for a long time before finding an appropriate printed article (and when I did it would probably be a puff-piece from a trade mag, which is only likely to be there if the laser anilox engraver has taken out an appropriate amount of advertising). I operate & have operated in some moderately obscure bits of technology and engineering, and sources of the preferred sort are hard to come by. Some of the recent edits I've done- Mimeograph, talk:punch press, electrical discharge machining; carbon paper are not wonderfully backed up by cites, though I've done my best- but hey- do you want this stuff or not?

Gravuritas (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't want citations to commercial suppliers. Allowing those links create more problems than they solve. Yes, this means coverage on a lot of interesting topics will be limited to nonexistent. That's ok.

There's a higher tolerance for accepting (non-controversial) edits that aren't (yet) backed up by reliable sources. However, since those kinds of edits can be reverted as soon as anyone challenges them, I don't know that adding unsourced material is a good use of your time.

Ideally, you'd be starting with an impeccable source and mining it for edits. Putting "doctor blades" into google books returns plenty of hits, many of which are preview-enabled. Not all of those are going to be reliable (particularly the "books" that are just reprints of wikipedia articles) but most of them will be. Start from that and all of this WP:RS annoyance just disappears. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that ideal sources are ideal, but that doesn't help us think through the sort of examples I was posing. I think this boils down to the difference between a reliable source and a reliable source. If I use a commercial website to show the existence of e.g. a ceramic anilox, then, for that purpose, the source is reliable- no reasonable person would doubt the existence of aniloxes which are ceramic. If the commercial link is not appropriate on WP, fine- let the link be deleted. But it is not reasonable for the same person to delete the link and immediately slap a CN tag on it. If a future editor happens to challenge the statement and add a CN tag, then maybe someone will dig up the commercial link to verify the statement and get rid of the CN tag (and then redelete the commercial link, if you like). If nobody traces the commercial link, or finds a better one, then the material will be lost in future- so be it. The burr under my saddle is that removing the commercial link is OK if it's found to be objectionable, but that removing a commercial link which genuinely verified something, and then immediately tagging the article with a CN is just wantonly destructive.

Gravuritas (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's try to get rid of the CN tags. Here's what I found.

Leach, R.H.; Pierce, R.J., eds. (2007), The Printing Ink Manual (5th ed.), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, ISBN 978-0-948905-81-0

• "The anilox roller is a crucial factor in achieving good-quality flexo printing, and yet there is still much to be learnt about it. Cermaic rollers and chrome-plated rollers have very different ink release characteristics, and supply different amount of ink..."^: 36
• "On modern presses the transfer roller and is likely to be fitted with a doctor blade for better ink film thickness control."^: 548

Are these helpful? Is there anything else useful in the book? I have no idea; you're the expert here. If that book isn't useful, let me know and I'll see what else I can dig up (and we'll probably transfer the conversation over to the article's talk page at that point). I'll be hitting multiple research libraries over the next month so we're not limited to what's on the web.

To sum up: You improved both articles, and I'd like to thank you for that. Now it's my turn to improve the article by digging up some cites, but I could use your help. I think we can have those tags replaced by cites in the next couple of weeks. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am steamrollered by relentless positivity. Thank you for the link and the thanks. I'll check the link out, try harder to find WP:RS cites, and appeal for help on the relevant talk page if I run out of ideas for sources. Gravuritas (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We are expanding Eknath Ranade and used this source. it just seems to be a personal fan site compiled by an individual, Paritosh Uttam, and not officially connected with any, say GoI, organization.. I feel the site is reliable and has all the information we need. Can we use it as source? --Tito☸Dutta 13:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we know anything about Paritosh Uttam as someone with expertise in this area? For example is he a cited author or expert?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• He seems to be a novelist. I do not know if he is an expert of this subject. --Tito☸Dutta 14:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Is he very well-known, so that his opinion would be considered notable? (But it is better if you can show his opinion is respected somehow.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• We do not have an article on Paritosh Uttam in Wikipedia (we should have one, it seems he passes WP:GNG. Anyway...). We have not taken his opinions, we are mainly using the site for basic biographical details e.g. Ranade was born on DMY^ref. He went to PLACE to do THIS WORD in YEAR^ref. --Tito☸Dutta 15:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The two Paritosh Uttams are probably different persons, especially since the author Paritosh Uttam doesn't mention Vivekananda or the memorials or the rockmemorial website on his personal website or CV and vice versa. Abecedare (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So, until we know more, we are in a grey zone. Best would be to find out more.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that the website saberequashi.com is a reliable source at all, but rather than get into any kind of embryonic edit war about it, I'll ask the collective expertise on reliable sources. Some of the links are frankly rather spammy in my opinion, and in no instance is the source reliable. There may or may not be a conflict of interest involved, but that's of secondary importance.

The articles involved are as follows:

• Yogurt, 14, where http://www.saberqureshi.com/blog813.html is used to support the statement "Some accounts suggest that Indian emperor Akbar's cooks would use mustard seeds and cinnamon in yogurt to add flavor."
• Online advertising, 15, where http://www.saberqureshi.com/webtrafficsource.html is used as a reference; this link is not only rather spammy, but the text it supports is a close paraphrase of the website text, so I am actually going to remove it per WP:COPYVIO.
• Naan qalia, 16, where http://www.saberqureshi.com/blog.html is used to support the statement "It is believed that Tughlaq's army used to bake naan every few days to avoid longer stop overs during their journey."
• Honey Singh, 17, where http://www.saberqureshi.com/bohemia-rap-battle-honey-singh.html is used to support the text "There was also a rumor surfacing in a magazine in Chandigarh that interviewed Honey Singh, stated that Honey Singh wanted to rap battle with acclaimed Punjabi rapper Bohemia, though he did not name him directly, but made indirect references to his music." (That content is problematic in itself, to my mind.)
• Storyboard, 18, where http://www.saberqureshi.com/storyboarding.html is used to support the text "Often storyboards include arrows or instructions that indicate movement."

In my head this is straightforward, but I could obviously be wrong. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 18:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is a spam. However I see some of the articles where this source has been used meets WP:RS, for example naan qalia, as the publisher of the website already has an article published about the same in a local magazine. The same applies for storyboarding as the publisher has credible sources mentioned in the article on the website, which again meets WP:RS. However, I cannot say the how reliable the source is for other articles such as yogurt and online advertising Mozem121 (talk)

Hmm. OK, thanks for this input. I'm afraid I can't see any of this on the website - neither the credible sources you mention, nor any mention of the magazine article (which might or might not constitute a RS) - but it's getting very late here so I'll leave this until tomorrow. --bonadea contributions talk 20:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think either that the source is not reliable. The content is pretty much clear and carries no controvertial material, but infact quotes sources in the article itself which makes it more legitimate. Article on Honey Singh is a bit off since the author himself claims that the article might be misleading, and this is usually done to attract readers. At the end the author has claimed that there was no such claim by any of the artists. But the rest of the articles are based on full facts and sources including yogurt as there is another source on the net which mentions the same.Nefirious (talk)

Quite clear that it is spam. From the services page: "saberqureshi.com is a professional domain evaluation website that will evaluate your domain portfolio and help you choose your premium domains, help you identify any copyright and TM violations, and advise you on how to monetize and develop your domain. Is it confusing for you to identify the valuable domains from your domain portfolio ? Not a problem. I will help you out with that." It then goes on to list the pricing of the packages. -SFK2 (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite clear this is no spam as "saberqureshi.com describes itself as a website belonging to a Journalist who has worked with leading newspapers and Film and Media Production companies. "I am expert in the field of Search Engine Optimization, Online Marketing, wiriting news stories and features. I have done a lot of research work on different subjects and all posts on my blogs have been written after thorough research from primary and secondary resources". -SFK2 (talk), have you read the contents of the website properly ? I do not remotely see anything that says it is a professional domain evaluation website. Please get your eyes checked. Arizonabhoot (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)— Arizonabhoot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nice try - changing the content after I posted it here. We don't need that to show that it's spam - it's obvious to most of the regulars here that the link is not appropriate. Even the admin went ahead and reverted your links.-SFK2 (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there is some misunderstanding. SFK2 is having difficulty in understanding the website's content. Please do not mislead the editors by making up words. There are no regulars here, only editors. Also do not revert any edits till the board decides. Nefirious (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, there is nothing wrong with SFK's eyes or understanding. I checked this site very carefully last night and it certainly said exactly that. It is clear that the site's owner has some kind of insight in this discussion or is participating in it directly; that is not forbidden, certainly, but it should be stated openly. In addition, when a new account is created and immediately join a discussion in a remote corner of Wikipedia, and another account with very few edits returns after two years in order to make a comment in the same discussion, it raises questions (and eyebrows). --bonadea contributions talk 06:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As far I think this user that goes by the name of SFK2 is not well versed with Wikipedia Guidelines. There are experts who are journalists and that host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write, please see WP:NEWSBLOG. Arizonabhoot (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)— Arizonabhoot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thank you for making comments based on Wikipedia policy. You are right, but this is a commercial website for a SEO professional, it is not a major news website. --bonadea contributions talk 06:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Just so that we're clear... 19. What do you have to say now? -SFK2 (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

FTR: Following this SPI, User:Arizonabhoot and User:Mozem121 have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of User:Nefirious, who got a temporary block. --bonadea contributions talk 09:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The work of Robert Parry (journalist) speaks for itself: Parry worked for Associated Press and Newsweek from 1974 to 1990, during which time he broke key aspects of the Iran-Contra affair, for which he won a Polk Award. In 1995, in frustration at mainstream media's attitude to tackling stories like Iran-Contra, he started consortiumnews.com, which he still edits. I've tried to use a Parry article published on consortiumnews.com as a source (as claim explicitly attributed to Parry, not as "fact"), and it's been repeatedly excised (eg). Can we please agree that Parry is a serious journalist whose reports can be taken seriously, and not dismissed as random bloggery even when published on consortiumnews.com? Podiaebba (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be rs, however WP:WEIGHT must also be taken into account. If the mainstream media has picked up on this story then I would use them as a source. If they have not, then it lacks weight for inclusion. The article should provide a similar weight to different views as what one would expect from a BBC analysis explaining what happened. TFD (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

similar weight to different views as what one would expect from a BBC analysis - um, no, this is an encyclopedia, not a news source. News sources are either for drama (TV, radio) or rent-a-quotes from whomever they can get on the phone, all organised under great pressure of time. This has absolutely nothing in common with how an encyclopedia should be written. And for God's sake: Parry had the guts and integrity to leave the mainstream media because of how they tried to cover up Iran-Contra - does this mean nothing? Podiaebba (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning it is based primarily on secondary sources. This is not the medium for righting great wrongs of all news media as you imply. That said, I think Parry's analysis merits a sentence or two in the article. VQuakr (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Its a thorny one this MSM pick up. He seems ok though. Far better than SOHR Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree that Parry is a serious journalist, but given that other reliable sources aren't citing his Syria work there's a problem of how much WP:WEIGHT to give his reporting. My first impression was that he shouldn't be cited at all, but if VQuakr thinks a couple of sentences are appropriate then I wouldn't object to that. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I respect VQuakr's position, but given that Parry's work is self-published and his "reporting" on Syria has not been cited, I have to agree with your first impression. If Parry were to write a piece or something for, say, Foreign Policy, or if Reuters were to report on Parry's work as a credible account, I would want to include his perspective. But right now we're talking about including some exceptional claims made by a person with no editorial review or oversight -- on his own website -- just because 1) we want some sort of "balance" and including unreliable sources is the only way to accomplish that to some editors' satisfaction, and 2) he did some notable reporting almost 30 years ago. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

riight. So highly respected journalist leaves mainstream media because they keep quashing or lying about politically difficult subjects, starts an independent news service that gets noted by Project Censored, but no, we must ignore him unless the mainstream media he left and severely criticised (which is hardly going to endear him to them) suddenly start picking up his work? Have I got that right? It's like we can't trust highly experienced and award-winning reporters, ever, but corporate machines which mostly spew out press releases always. Podiaebba (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's nice, but can you get off your WP:SOAPBOX now? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was addressing the issue at hand, which is the reliability of Robert Parry. My mistake. Podiaebba (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Can this work be allowed to stand 20, even though both the author and the work is highly controversial, and the method heavily criticized by leading scientists in the field 21? Athenean (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The guy's a crackpot. His 'theories' are only relevant in his bio. — kwami (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Concern as per - this article in the paper and as per this overview of the problem. -- Moxy (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Arnaiz-Villena's genetic research on the Greeks (and other peoples) is cited here. The gist of it is that his findings are controversial, critized amongst others by Luca Cavalli-Sforza. All in all, we can certainly discuss his studies in his bio, but should keep them out of overview articles especially, given their strongly disputed conclusions. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so the article is Dueling Network.

And links to sources are: http://deck-list.com/yugioh-online-dueling-network/ http://www.yugioh-card.com/en/rulebook/index.html http://www.yugioh-card.com/en/limited/ http://www.gameinformer.com/blogs/members/b/delancey03_blog/archive/2011/06/16/playing-with-you-39-re-nostalgia-a-dueling-network-review.aspx http://wikibin.org/articles/dueling-network.html citations from these websites are in the article.Bear with Cup of Tea (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• www.americanspecialops.com

• Being used at Special Mission Unit stub.

• Can't find any info about this site period, let alone editorial policy, ownership, etc.

Does anyone here familiar with WP:RS find this site to be reliable? Thanks - thewolfchild 06:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be used by many other sources; I can only find one Business Insider article.22 Of course that's not nothing. It seems a quality designed site, and chock full of information, but it's not clear who is running it or where they're getting their information. I wouldn't use it for controversial info, but I wouldn't necessarily consider unreliable either. However, for the specific Special Mission Unit article, it doesn't seem to be used for anything that doesn't have several other sources already, so I don't think that's going to affect that article either way. --GRuban (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• sofrep.com

• Being used at Special Mission Unit stub

• First problem; this is a subscription site, cannot access references. Site appears to be run by Special Forces 'guys', and content appears to be user submitted (by other Special Forces 'guys') and is published 'as is'.

Can anyone here familiar with WP:RS advise if this site is considered a reliable source? Thanks - thewolfchild 07:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be run by Brandon Webb (author) who is a published author in the field.23242526 So I'd say generally reliable. Of course it depends on the exact exact statement you're trying to back. If something seems to be a personal reminiscence then it is that, and not necessarily representative. --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• fas.org

• Being used for Special Mission Unit stub

• First problem, this is a subscription, may not be able to access content being used as a source. This site is run by what seems to be a Washington DC think tank with charitable status, and it appears it may be a blog of sorts for various 'scientists' to submit user content.

Can anyone here familiar with WP:RS advise is this site can be considered a reliable source? Thanks - thewolfchild 07:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This one seems clear. Just from our article, Federation of American Scientists, it seems quite reliable, established, and reputable. However what do a bunch of scientists know about special forces? --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In a number of pages - viz. Tony Blair, Kate Winslet, Peter Mandelson, John Major et all, it is stated that any newspaper published in a tabloid format is unacceptable for any use at all in a BLP. As all the major British newspapers are now tabloid or the very slightly larger Berliner format, this, taken literally, means no British newspaper is usable on Wikipedia. In fact, a majority of all newspapers worldwide are no longer full-size publications, so we could simply say no newspapers at all are allowed <g>. Is it proper to now delete all sources published in tabloid format as being verboten in BLPs, and presumably as tabloids verboten on all of Wikipedia? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I researched this topic a while back and learned that tabloid has two meanings. One is Tabloid (newspaper format), which has nothing to do with reliability and only relates to the size of paper the story is printed on. The other is "featuring stories of violence, crime, or scandal presented in a sensational manner" (Webster's) which does effect its reliability. I would think we would want to avoid a Tabloid style of reporting, but the size of the page isn't important. This would be easy to clarify at WP:BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 13:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We can not simply ban major newspapers from BLPs... While tabloids do tend to sensationalize their stories, even the most sensational of them can contain good reliable reporting from time to time. What we have to realize is this: reliability often depends on context. The same source might be reliable in one context, and not at all reliable in another context. We have to examine the specifics. Also, even the best of sources can contain errors. If you think a source contains an error, double check it against other sources, and assign them due weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all sources should be examined in context. And the context we are dealing with here is that British 'tabloids' use illegal information gathering techniques and regularly print falsehoods, rumours and sensationalist clap-trap, thus making their use on Wikipedia completely unacceptable in the vast majority of cases. For people who don't know which British papers are 'tabloid' (format) and which are 'tabloid' (style); here's a reminder of those to avoid (particularly in the case of BLPs): Daily Mail & Mail on Sunday, The Mirror & Sunday Mirror, The Sun, The Express, Daily Sport, Daily Record (Scotland), News of the World, Daily Star (UK), Metro. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Your list doesn't point out which are tabloid format and which are simply tabloids. As noted above, the two are not the same; many valid/reliable newspapers use tabloid format. Flyer22 (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Or are you stating that all the ones in your list are tabloids, no matter the format they use? Flyer22 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That list only shows those "bad tabloids", I believe they are all of a tabloid format too. All of these publications have a differing ethos than Wikipedia's (in theory if not in practice). Other UK publications should be treated cautiously, as there is a lot of inherent political bias involved, but the ones listed cannot really be described as reputable news organizations. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Times is a better newspaper for politics than The Sun. Both btw are published by the same company and have similar political views. We should favor the better source. Also, stories about major political figures that are only covered in tabloids lack the importance for inclusion. TFD (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The term "tabloid" is problematic not only because it has more than one meaning but because the adjectival meaning involving sensationalism and lurid reporting doesn't always lend itself to a dichotomous categorization of sources. There is a spectrum, and it includes no bright line but rather a sizable gray area. Some newspapers are tabloid in the worst sense of the word, others are tabloid only because of the size of the paper they're printed on, and others fall somewhere in between. It should be noted that on the other side of the Pond there are several major dailies published in a tabloid size that rank among the more reputable newspapers in the U.S. (e.g., the Chicago Sun-Times, Newsday, and the sadly defunct Rocky Mountain News) and are easily as reliable as their broadsheet peers. At the other extreme are rags such as the New York Post whose reporting should always be viewed with a huge dose of skepticism, to put it mildy. Occupying middle ground are certain papers, notably the New York Daily News and Boston Herald, that run giant headlines and employ a rather dramatic, lurid style but nonetheless do contain some legitimate stories written by competent reporters and checked by competent editors. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The New York Post is a "rag"? I didn't know that there exists such a harsh view of it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

'fraid so. Rivertorch (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I reverted one of those text deletions that you mention and, then, I was rereverted and told I should go find better sources. I thought it was BRD: boldly edit, revert, then discuss the edit....not boldly edit, revert, revert the reverter and then tell the reverter to go get better sources and not revert again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Liz, this is an unacceptable pattern that cannot become a habit – you are 100% right. Unless the source is undoubtedly harmful, you should not have been re-reverted. If the other editor wants better sources, godspeed to them with finding those sources. I'm having a similar problem with Hillbillyholiday81 (who, by the way, is the only editor in this thread who adamantly refuses to cooperate because of a self-admitted agenda). Encouraging such editors means opening yourself up to bullying. So far, the consensus in this thread is that a newspaper in a tabloid format is no different from a newspaper in another format, therefore no connection should be made between the format of a newspaper and its reliability. Hearfourmewesique (talk)

So, which part of this policy is troubling you: ::Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.?

You don't seem to understand that the sources you are continually reinserting into the Adele article are the epitome of tabloid journalism. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's you who doesn't seem to understand that these are merely differently formatted newspapers, which is substantially different from tabloid journalism. This is... what, the tenth time that I say it? You just keep playing dead. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In Britain, "tabloid" has acquired a particular meaning, independent of its physical format, which basically means a lowbrow mass market form of journalism, with a particular focus on celebrities (in which fact checking and lack of bias are strictly optional), and pictures of topless women. Hillbillyholiday has given a concise list of what you should avoid, and a full reading of The Sun (United Kingdom) will give you a better picture, as will It's The Sun Wot Won It, but in short you should avoid The Sun like the plague. The Daily Mirror is on the same level of intellect (example) and level of reputable journalism ("Oops, we screwed up"). The Daily Mail is not generally regarded as a tabloid per se, but it is very infamous for having an extreme right wing bias with a particular hatred for the EU, immigration and housing prices (typical target audience), to the extent that this game for generating headlines from it is funny precisely because it's uncannily accurate. Note, avoid does not mean never use ever - Neil Kinnock is one example where you might wish to directly cite The Sun, Fernando Belaúnde Terry is perhaps another due to a tangential link to the Falklands War. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please follow the normal recommendations of this forum and explain what is being sourced from where - concrete cases. Trying to make general rules on this subject is not the right approach. People are just talking past each other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was giving general rules - I certainly wasn't as I gave two counter-examples. It is useful to mention a summary, because people can search for keywords like "The Sun" and "Daily Mail" up front on RSN, without needing to necessarily start a discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Everything above is about the general concept of tabloid, which as has been pointed out, can mean different things anyway. But the general answer to the general question is that yes we can use tabloid sources, sometimes. So to have any practical discussion, we need to actually talk about real details. What source is being used to say what?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite. Part of the problem here is a baby/bathwater one. Though certainly many of the British tabloids do run exaggerated or misleading stories at times, they also run huge numbers of perfectly accurate stories, and for some topics (e.g. sports and pop culture) may be more detailed and useful sources than the more 'respectable' news outlets. Barnabypage (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we please remember that policy does not say "tabloids", it says "Tabloid journalism. I know this has been said before but we are still confusing the format with "tabloid journalism". Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think context matters too. It's hard to imagine how XBIZ and AVN (magazine) would not be classified as tabloid journalism given their nature, but for most porn topics there's usually nothing better, except in the case of the most famous performers. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Same thing: to see if something is tabloid journalism, we need to discuss context, real examples. BTW the discussion above makes it hard to claim that Hillbillyholiday81 does not understand the distinction about journalism, and so such claims should not be used to dismiss their concern. It is simply hard to say anything about the claim unless we may discuss real cases, with context.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this one a reliable source?

Arnaiz-Villena, A.; Gomez-Casado, E.; Martinez-Laso, J. (2002). "Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective". Tissue Antigens 60 (2): 111–121. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0039.2002.600201.x

The work of principal author, Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, was criticized, but the article in question was not retracted. It's not being cited in support of anything relevant to controversies.Cavann (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This is for use at Turkish people, yes? It's WP:PRIMARY, it hasn't been cited that much, and the primary author is controversial. There's also a red flag in that Arnaiz-Villena is publishing in Tissue Antigens while the other cites in that section are to J Human Genetics, J Physical Anthropology, Antiquity, etc. Given that we already have better citations in place, why include it? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The editor who removed the source also asked for Good Article Reassessment Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Turkish_people/1. It was more needed for this section Turkish_people#Prehistory.2C_Ancient_era_and_Early_Middle_Ages (see diff which was reverted: 27) Cavann (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph of that version of Prehistory has four cites to the Arnaiz-Villena paper. I'll also note that the Yardumian (2011) paper has only been cited once and is used three times in the paragraph. I think the question of undue weight needs to be addressed first. If these two papers are within the mainstream opinion in this field then we can probably dig up some better cites. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say they are, but I don't think this particular topic gathers that much attention. Yardumian (2011) is a review study. I guess I can find more sources within that. Cavann (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The claim that "Modern Turks descend primarily from ancient Anatolians" is not mainstream. No scientist worth his salt will make such a claim, because it is impossible to prove. Only kooks like Arnaiz-Villena would make such a claim. As far as I can tell, the consensus among the literature is as follows: 1) Anatolia as a land bridge, has been subject to numerous populations movements, and its genetic makeup is highly complex and varied, and includes neighboring peoples (Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, etc..), as well as Bronze populations and Central Asian tribes, 2) The genetic impact of the Central Asian Turkic tribes was small because Anatolia already had a large population (but this population was itself highly diverse and simply "ancient Anatolians"), and 3) Modern Turks are closer to Middle Eastern and Balkan populations genetically than to Central Asian populations. However, stretching that to mean "modern Turks primarily descend from ancient Anatolian populations", is well, a stretch, and is not to be found within the literature. Athenean (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It is also well-sourced that several million Balkan Muslims and Caucasus Muslims settled in Anatolia during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The genetic makeup up of modern Turkey is thus highly diverse, now that is amainstream claim. Not that the modern Turks are lineal descendants of the Bronze Age populations. Athenean (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I would roughly agree with your number 1, 2, and 3 assessments. That's why the article does not simply say "modern Turks primarily descend from ancient Anatolian populations." In case you did not know, if you are using quotes, it usually has to match something. The article says: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j›717273 Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups,68k›747576 but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples.69" Moreover, other sources talk about paleolithic and neolithic populations too, so it is not just "kooks like Arnaiz-Villena." Cavann (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, the author seems to have a history of controversial articles. Some of his articles have even gotten him fired from journal editorial boards for a topic very similar one here. I'd be VERY reluctant to call this a RS. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

He was not fired, the article was retracted. And controversy about Antonio Arnaiz-Villena has nothing to do with his research on Turkish people. The articles I'm cited were also not retracted. Stop making up outright inaccuracies.Cavann (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

2002 is not very recent in this field, and we do not have to use such a source if there is something "redflag" about it. OTOH I think that just claiming continuity from ancient Anatolians is not all that shocking? Nor can we really justify deleting reference to "primary" research articles in the human genetics field if they are important. (There is very little secondary literature in that field which is up to date. Attempts to rely on it always lead to strange results.) What is relevant:

• It sounds like the author is controversial.
• We should cautiously check to make sure this is not widely cited before deciding not to use it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Another article by the same principal author (this citation was also deleted from the Turkish people article), 28 has been cited 51 times. Also, the principal author is controversial on some topics, but not this one (ie: Turkish people), and the article has 10 more co-authors! Def does not look fringe. I had forgotten to include this one on my original post that started the thread. Cavann (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about the use of this source, being too lazy to investigate it. I just want to say that there is nothing "red flag" about publishing in a different journal from other authors. In fact it is a normal phenomenon across all areas of scholarship. Zero^talk 09:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. However, whether or not it meets WP:WEIGHT is a separate issue. It is better to use secondary sources that explain what weight academics have given to the report. TFD (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We have Cavalli Sforza's book, The History and Geography of Human Genes, but it is not detailed enough about a specific ethnicity, since it's about the entire world. I can have another look tho. Cavann (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Another question: We have Yardumian et al (2011). And it's a review article, which is good. But it has been cited only once, prolly due to the fact that this is not a very popular topic. It is in line with other sources, but in a lil more layperson terms. For example, other sources are talking about neolithic or paleolithic populations, or are talking about backgrounds of each haplogroups separately. Would the low citation number be controversial?

Yardumian, A.; Yardumian, T. G. (2011). "Who Are the Anatolian Turks?". Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia 50: 6–42. doi:10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101

Cavann (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is crucial here. I'm not going to say which work is reliable and which one isn't. Instead, we should go with the mainstream academia, not controversial authors. I agree with Athenean. Anatolia has been inhabited by dozens of various ethnic groups throughout history. The mainstream academia doesn't seem to support the view that Turks are solely descendants of Ancient Anatolians. Other groups such as Greeks, Armenians, Circassians, Georgians, Albanians, Arabs have definitely played some role in the formation of the Turkish nation too. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That's why the article says: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j›717273 Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups,68k›747576 but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples.69"

How did you get solely from that? Cavann (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that the word primarily which does not reflect what the sources say. Yardumian, who may have said this, is only cited once. If were going to talk about the descendents of Turks, we need to incorporate ALL cultures and ethnic identities they have descended from, including central Asian hordes and Balkan peoples, if of course academic literature supports this. The issue now is that the literature may not support such claims and that genetic makeup has become interchangeable with the word "descendents". Anyhow, I sent the article to page-protection and I think a RFC is definitely needed on this issue. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yardumian et al. is not the only one saying this. However, I'm not opposed to adding Roman and Byzantine era populations. Than it would be perfectly in line with all sources, including Cavalli Sforza's book, "The History and Geography of Human Genes." Cavann (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No...central Asian hordes as well. Stop being so reluctant as to mentioning that Turks invaded and conquered. Did those who came from central Asia to Anatolia in the 11th century not have genes? Did they not Turkify the native population? If you want to talk about such scientific genetic prophesies of these ever-so controversial "academics", I propose you go add this to the genetic history section under a given context. I think the RfC should be solely provided for that purpose. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"central Asian hordes" (!) are already there (Turkic people). This is the 3rd time I'm quoting this. Is anyone even reading the article? "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j›717273 Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups,68k›747576 but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples.69" This is what Cavalli Sforza says 29. Cavann (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, the sentence includes the word "primarily". You're claiming ancestry as a totally different social event by using the word "but". Therefore, ancestry should be removed and instead the sentence should use the word "in part" or "partially" while considering central Asian hordes or Turkic peoples for that matter. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Take it to Cavalli Sforza and journal articles 30 if you disagree with their conclusions. I will stop clogging the noticeboard with this discussion. Cavann (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No one here is disagreeing with anything. The only thing I disagree with is the terminology used in the article. I and others have already mentioned what terminology we are seeking a compromise for and you are still very reluctant to point out that central Asian hordes/Turkic nomadic tribes are also part of what you call "descendency" of the modern Turk. Therefore, as I and other have said already, your attempts of rejecting this notion is pushing this discussion overboard and will get you nowhere since YOU are the only person you stands for the current terminology. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what part of "but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples" you are not getting. Also, "No one here is disagreeing with anything" is quite nonsensical, since what you are suggesting (some sort of equivalency between indigenous and Turkic) is contrary to results of cited sources. Actually, that is something NO source suggests. Please remember WP:verifiability. You can't simply add material cause you feel like it.Cavann (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I need to set an example of what the sentence should be like:

I wonder if user:Proudbolsahye realizes that there would be no "Proud" "bolsahye" in Bolis or any Bolsahye if "central Asian hordes" had never invaded and allowed them to live in the previously exclusively Greek Orthodox Constantinople :). Povopoulos (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I also wonder where you suddenly appeared from. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Modern Turkish people partly descend from Turkic peoples and indigenous groups of people including Ancient Anatolians and Thracians.

It may or may not be a perfect sentence. Would need a second opinion in terms of its effectiveness of wording and terminology, but I'm just trying to convey the general idea of what were trying to say here. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That sorta equivalency is not in line with ANY of the sources. Eg, Hodoğlugil et al says only 9-15% is Central Asian 31.

As I said, you cannot just make up "terminology," especially considering you seem to be unaware of what any of the sources are saying.Cavann (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@Cavann. Unfortunately Cavalli Sforza is way out of date. If Wikipedia has to use only out of date materials we come into conflict with NPOV because we distort our reporting of reality. This dilemma has come up many times concerning human genetics. My point: we do need to use research articles if we report this field properly. OTOH, it does appear that this discussion is really more about whether the word primarily should be removed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster. There are other sources too: newer journal articles: 32 (5 of em here) and other ones like 33, which are in line with Cavalli Sforza. I'm using Cavalli Sforza too, because it's a secondary source (a book).Cavann (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable?

The above discussion got too long. Just to summarize, I would like to use these 3 sources in addition to other sources. Are they reliable: 34 35 36 ? Cavann (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No...Arnaiz-Villena A. got fired from his job because over highly controversial claims over the same topics we are discussing here. We have already pointed this out in the beginning. Yardumian is only cited once. We already pointed that out as well. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The news article says his article was retracted. Where does it say he "got fired from his job"? You are also aware that the retracted article was about research on Jews and Palestinians, and has nothing to do with his work on Turkish people? Cavann (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fyi, he got fired because he said various things about modern history like calling Israelis "colonists"... it wasn't about genetics at all. --Yalens (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

His findings regarding genes were presented in a highly politicized manner which got him fired. Whos to say his research regarding Turkish genes is any different. He is a very controversial researcher in his field and thus not reliable. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

On Antonio Arnaiz-Villena. A controversial researcher is a controversial researcher. I'd like to hear others opinion too, but I would personally avoid citing experts like him. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I would personally avoid citing experts who disagree with my point of view. I would discredit their sources to prevent their use on wikipedia by doing ad hominem to the authors. Povopoulos (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The author is clearly controversial. Come back with a better argument. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

ePodunk37 "provides in-depth information about more than 46,000 communities around the country". It is owned by Internet Brands. It's list of sources is here. It's very heavily used in our articles for demographic information.38 I can't see anything about it that makes me think it should be used as though it's gospel. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As an example, it is being used in North Miami Beach, Florida as a source39 for the Haitian population (40 shows before and after recent IP edits which may have been vandalism or just bad editing. But where is it getting this data? (and for Columbian, etc). Here41 is the 2010 census data, no data on Columbians, Haitians etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It does if you know how to use the census site. Here it clearly states that there were 9,807 Haitians in North Miami Beach city, Florida. Here it states there were 1,446 Colombians. No idea if or how ePodunk works (indeed, the valid reliable source SHOULD BE the Census.gov site, even if ePodunk were compiling from that site, the original data is better from the original source). But on the question of whether or not the Census has data on the number of Haitians and Columbians in N. Miami Beach, it certainly does. --Jayron32 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry if I don't understand how to use the census site. I couldn't find anything about Haitians though from your link, I'm clearly still doing something wrong. It will be interesting to compare the ePodunk numbers with the census. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Apparently, you can't link to the URL directly to get the correct link. Apparently the database calls are generated in a way that can't be copy-pasted from the URL. Sorry about that. Here's how I got the data: From http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml the main American Factfinder site, you click "Advanced search - Show me all" then on the next menu, under "item 1" click the radio button for "Race/ancetry" and then as you start to type "Haitian" it brings up a tooltip that lets you select "581- Haitian (336-359)" Select that. Under the other box, start to type "North Miami Beach" and likewise it brings up a tooltip that lets you select the exact name of the city. Select that, then select "search" and then on the next screen, you'll have like hundreds of "products" that have those values in them. About 5 options down is B01003 "Total Population" Click that blue link, and you get a page that gives you the value you're looking for, in this case the total population of Haitians living in North Miami Beach. So the data exists, and can be gotten manual, or for anyone smart enough, a program can be wrtiten to cull the information from the database automagically. ePodunk may have done this, for all I know. But the data should really be cited to the horses mouth, as it were. --Jayron32 16:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And Jayron and Doug have shown why I have in the past used ePodunk as a source (along with the US Census) as sources. When I used to use the US Census some editors had shown annoyance that they didn't know how to use the census website, which is very common, as Jayron shows above the steps can take awhile to explain. By sourcing to BOTH websites I was able to have the numbers shown quite quickly at epodunk but then also have the US census fact finder back it up. Perhaps some place we should have the discussion on how to source to the US census when you are actually listing a url to what is really no more than a fancy app that requires you to fill in fields to get the info you're looking for. Technically if I wanted to list that there were 100,000 Haitians in New York (made up number) I don't need a url at all, I can source the US census and require anyone who challenges to do the work to disprove it before they can mess with the numbers. URLs are not required. At least with epodunk we have a functioning url that gives the numbers in a handy immediate way that may be quite useful to our readers, and really we edit for our user's convenience, not our own fact checking convenience.Camelbinky (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If we can trust the "app" then I suppose the situation might be one like how we use google books as "convenience links"? (I also see people using Amazon previews sometimes.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The site http://digitaldreamdoor.com appears to be a blog, hobby or vanity site. http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/about_us_ddd.html seems to support that. If that's the case should we be

1. using it to support the statement that its "best of lists", such as http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_songs-rbilly.html, are somehow notable? See http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Earth_Angel&diff=prev&oldid=572956624
2. placing it on a blacklist so that it's not added as a RS?

I suspect that the editor who added that link above is one of the editors: "Bruce", but that's a different noticeboard. 00:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a 2010 RSN topic about this website (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 78#Digital Dream Door) but nobody answered User:IHeardFromBob's request for guidance.

I say let's blacklist it. The website accepts user-generated content without editorial oversight, making it completely unreliable. On June 24 this year I removed the website and associated text from 60 articles about music and musicians. (Example.) These were all I could find that needed removing. It appears that the links have crept back into the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisting it may be the best way to move forward then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed that digitaldreamdoor.com be blacklisted at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Digitaldreamdoor.com. Feel free to comment. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a TV documentary series that interviews experts and military staff about 'game changing technology'.

http://military.discovery.com/ http://military.discovery.com/tv-shows/combat-countdown/videos/top-10-fighters.htm

Synopsis of series: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2247584/

Reliable? Z07x10 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In which article would you like to use this, and to support what claim? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_156
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.

---