Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Per Anders Rudling

Time for Per Anders Rudling to be taken to the WP:RSN believes User:Iryna Harpy.

1. The article Per Anders Rudling has been described as multiple issues: POV and too few opinions.
2. A revert has been made [1]

Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

See both the Per Anders Rudling article and discussion on the Per Anders Rudling talk page as to how a relevant historian is being used as a WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But what about Volhynia? Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for this. I just made a few touch-ups here and there because that's how Wikipedia works. See my comment at Talk:Per Anders Rudling. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• This conversation provides an overview of Rudling's "objectivity": [2]. He's a credentialed historian but has a POV and has been caught with inaccuracies and perhaps dishonesty. He should be avoided when he makes controversial statements or claims. There are some pro-Ukrainian nationalist historians who should be treated equally carefully.Faustian (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: Yes, I appreciate that you've modified his bio a little, but I am still concerned with the use of Defending history com as a reliable source. It certainly presents as being an interest group WP:INDY. See authors, about us and even their indictment Wikipedia's article about them from when it was purely sourced from their own site information to being reworked with other sources. Their indictment of Timothy Snyder is a thinly veiled attack on his works and him, as a person.

In other words, while you've toned down the language to an extent on the Per Anders Rudling article, considering that the "Treatment of Ukrainian nationalism" section is based on information paraphrased from the Defending history page, I don't even see the section name as actually being relevant to the information it carries. Members of Canadian-Ukrainian community groups objecting to Rudling's public announcement infers (very, very strongly) that they are automatically "Nationalists" per Defending history's hysterical definition of 'nationalism', reflecting in that section as WP:LABEL. If Defending history org can be considered to be a WP:RS (which I don't believe to be the case), it should only be used with "according to" prefacing the opinion in the body of the article, not hidden in a footnote as has been done. Anything less can only be understood as being extremely misleading. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume that at least one community group isn't nationalistic, which one?Xx236 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Poeticbent has already addressed that issue in modifications to the article. The remaining issue is that of Defending history com (represented by the The Seventy Years Declaration article in Wikipedia) as a reliable source from which to base the major portion of an article (being the Per Anders Rudling biography) without questions of neutrality or a highly problematic imbalance in the content being raised. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I see how Rudling is Swedish, but how is he "Swedish-American"? --Hegvald (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea as to where that came from, nor can I see any sources for it. I can see that he's was educated predominantly in Sweden and has credentials from Canada and the US (although that doesn't actually even mean that he's had to spend any time there as primary postgrad supervisors aren't even necessarily in the same country as the candidate). Being published by the University of Pittsburgh means nothing as it's simply a matter of having an honorary position for the research quantum - a byline. Cheers for pointing that out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know that he does have dual citizenship, Hegvald. Poeticbent has pointed it out as being on his CV: Citizenship - Sweden/ USA.--Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

" has been caught with inaccuracies" by whom? I think he should be criticized by historians, not only Wikipedia editors with special POV And article mentions "response to the Canadian-Ukrainian complaint about Rudling, an open letter was published in his support, signed by 38 scholars of the Holocaust and professors of leading universities supporting him, including Omer Bartov, Kristian Gerner, John-Paul Himka, Dovid Katz, Alexey Miller, Ruth Wodak, and Efraim Zuroff." So, you have to deal with all these researchers to prove Rudling POV. Cathry (talk)01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

His own words are contradictory:

Here: [3], an exchange in the Globe and Mail between Rudling and professor Lubomyr Luciuk in which Rudling largely smears most of the Ukrainian-Canadian community. Rudling quotes:

"Ukrainian Waffen-SS Division Galizien, a deeply anti-Semitic organization under the command of Heinrich Himmler, whose officers were trained in the Dachau concentration camp..."

• The claim that the officers were trained "in the Dachau concentration camp" is simply a lie which Rudling himself contradicts elsewhere. Rudling himself here in an interview states "Officers and NCO’s of the Waffen-SS Galizien were trained in Dachau, in the vicinity of the concentration camp." [4] The city of Dachau, near Munich, contained the camp as well as training facilities. By lying that the officers trained in the camp, Rudling is falsely accusing military people of participating in the Holocaust.

• The Division like the entire Waffen SS was under Himmler's command. Himmler's involvement with the Division was almost nil. He approved it being formed, and reviewed it a couple of times during the war. Bringing him up is simply inflammatory.

Rudling: "In 1943-44, the UPA murdered around 100,000 Polish nationals and thousands of Jews in Volhynia and Galicia."

• This is the maximum estimate in the range. Consensus among sources is 40,000-60,000 in Volhynia and 25,000-40,000 in Galicia (this is covored extensively in Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia). If an apologist for UPA stated that it killed "about 65,000 Poles" (the lowest estimate) he would rightly be accused of bias. Rudling just gives the ceiling figure, demonstrating that he is biased.Faustian (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have read this, but you tell your own conclusions, do you find same in academical works? Cathry (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Cathry, have you actually bothered to read the entire discussion so far, or have you just not understood it? You've just re-quoted an article from a site being discussed as being unreliable. "response to the Canadian-Ukrainian complaint about Rudling, an open letter was published in his support, signed by 38 scholars of the Holocaust and professors of leading universities supporting him, including Omer Bartov, Kristian Gerner, John-Paul Himka, Dovid Katz, Alexey Miller, Ruth Wodak, and Efraim Zuroff." is from that very site: Defending history com. In other words, you are presenting Rudling as being 'right' according to the interpretation of a spurious site. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is it "spurious"? Well. this is ok site? http://hnn.us/article/155618 And here (http://www.academia.edu/2763263/_The_Honor_They_So_Clearly_Deserve_Legitimizing_the_Waffen-SS_Galizien_The_Journal_of_Slavic_Military_Studies_26_1_2013_114-137) Rudling also mentions Tarik Cyril Amar, John-Paul Himka, Dovid Katz, JaredMcBride, Andreas Umland, who co-work with him. Cathry (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your point being? Has anyone contested that he is an academic whose area is Eastern European history? You're presenting an article written by Rudling and an Assistant Professor Amar discussing historical questions in relation to current affairs in Ukraine, plus another demonstrating that he has been published. How does that attest to his reliability when he holds extreme views you consider appropriate to the article on the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (and Romanovsky doesn't show up on the map of historians of any repute other than through Rudling's citations)? Look up any contemporary historian on the hnn.us site. In fact, you'll find articles citing Professor Peter J. Potichnyj. History News Network is essentially a mirror site pulling in articles surrounding the discussion of history, and has no POV as to whether the historian is credible, extremist or fringe. Faustian has provided reasons why, per WP:COMMONSENSE, the use of material from some scholars should be treated with caution. You've merely confirmed that Rudling and Romanovsky exist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

He is academic historian http://search.lu.se/search/lunduniversity/?q=Rudling%2C+Per+Anders&i=en Why do you think his views are extreme? Faustian has provided reasons based on his own original research, I asked him to give similar reasons frome reliable sources. At example he says that 100 000 it is not correct number of deaths, but Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia page says that other historians also speak about this number ( John-Paul Himka), and extreme number is up to 300 000. Daniel Romanovsky is cited by different authors. Cathry (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you citing another Wikipedia article? Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is amusing Faustian cites the same article Cathry (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I posted Rudling's own words, that contradict each other. Readers can draw their own conclusions about the reliability of a source that states two different things, particularly about a serious charge such as participation in the Holocaust. Also, I did not claim that 100,000 was not the correct number of deaths at the hands of Ukrainian nationalists, rather that it is the upper limit that scholars consider (300,000 is not considered to be a legitimate figure by scholars, it's false, like 10 million victims of Holodomor). By listing only the absolute upper limit as a fact, rather than providing a range that scholars claim is between 60,000 and 100,000, Rudling demonstrates bias.Faustian (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And a further note: the open letter did not support Rudling's specific scholarship: [5] but rather his right to engage in scholarship and his criticism of some Ukrainian nationalist "scholar": "We, the undersigned, declare our solidarity with Dr. Rudling. We find his criticism plausible and extremely valuable. We also endorse his call for rethinking some aspects of the field of Ukrainian studies. We reject entirely any attempt to denounce Dr. Rudling, to exert pressure on him, and to obfuscate the issue by presenting Mr. Zabily and the organizers of his tour as victims."Faustian (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"I posted Rudling's own words, that contradict each other." I do no see it. " rather that it is the upper limit that scholars consider" reliable source, where is such conclusion? Cathry (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

""I posted Rudling's own words, that contradict each other." I do no see it." See earlier in this section:

• Here: [6], an exchange in the Globe and Mail between Rudling and professor Lubomyr Luciuk in which Rudling largely smears most of the Ukrainian-Canadian community. Rudling quotes: "Ukrainian Waffen-SS Division Galizien, a deeply anti-Semitic organization under the command of Heinrich Himmler, whose officers were trained in the Dachau concentration camp..."

• The claim that the officers were trained "in the Dachau concentration camp" is simply a lie which Rudling himself contradicts elsewhere. Rudling himself here in an interview states "Officers and NCO’s of the Waffen-SS Galizien were trained in Dachau, in the vicinity of the concentration camp." [7] The city of Dachau, near Munich, contained the camp as well as training facilities. By lying that the officers trained in the camp, Rudling is falsely accusing military people of participating in the Holocaust.

Actual numbers of victims are of Volhynia massacre are here: [8]. While wikipedia articles alone are not a good reliable source, the figures in this section have references to reliable sources. Note that 100,000 is the ceiling figure among the reliable sources. By only including the ceiling figure within the range, and claiming it to be a fact, Rudling is demonstrating bias.Faustian (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

1)- John P. Himka: 100,000. 2) I think there not all reliable sources listed in wiki-article 3) It was debates, not work 4) 100 000 here and here

5) Dachau "The units were trained in facilities linked to concentration camps" "Veryha recalls how the inmates of the Dachau concentration camp were forced to remove their hats for the Ukrainian SS recruits.5" "It would not have been unusual for Waffen-SS recruits to have helped with guarding or being trained in prisoner escort in the camps.5" from his work ‘They Defended Ukraine’: The 14.Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS(Galizische Nr. Cathry (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You should have read the footnote, pg. 342: [9] "Veryha, Pid krylami, 27. There was a network of camps at Dachau, known as the Kauferingconcentration camps. Hannah Arendt writes that Eichmann in 1933 attended an SS camp in Dachau‘which had nothing to do with the concentration camp there.’ Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Revised and Enlarged Edition, New York: Penguin Books, 1994, p. 34. While Veryha’s 2007 reminiscences do not specify the details of which of the subsidiary camps the training took place, they demonstrate that, at the very least, he was aware of the concentration camp system and the nature of the National Socialist system."

So in an interview Rudling states they trained in the vicinity of the concentration camp, in the article he states that they trained in part in a subsidiary camp, not concentration camp (see footnote, which contradicts his words in the body of the text), and elsewhere he claims that they worked in the concentration camp. The books you listed with 100,000 weren't by specialists in the massacres, such as Motyka (who gives a range of 80,000-100,000).Faustian (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Rudling article linked above includes the following falsehood: "ts previous incarnation, the Nachtigall battalion, took part in mass shootings of Jews in the summer of 1941." Although the OUN did slaughter Jews, Nachtigall did not - as noted by scholar John-Paul Himka: [10]. and here: [11] In February 2008 the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) revealed documentation that demonstrated clearly that the KGB had “cooked” the evidence against Nachtigall."

So now we have clear evidence of Rudling repeating a Soviet fabrication. He is biased.Faustian (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Himka thinks he can believe SBU, maybe Rudling do not believe in their "evidence". And I think that paper about Nachtigall can be fake, as it was published when Shuhevich was claimed as hero, And there was not only Lvov massacre, " It is true that Nachtigall executed Jews on its subsequent march to Vinnytsia,8" Himka. The Lviv Pogrom of 1941: The Germans, UkrainianNationalists, and the Carnival Crowd https://www.academia.edu/1314919/The_Lviv_Pogrom_of_1941_The_Germans_Ukrainian_Nationalists_and_the_Carnival_Crowd So, now we see that you should be careful in your claims Cathry (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Um..Himka did not only state that SBU debunked the lie. He stated ""n 1959-60 the Soviets tried to embarrass the Adenauer government in West Germany by linking one of its ministers, Theodor Oberländer, with the Lviv pogrom. Oberländer was the German liaison to the nationalist battalion Nachtigall that fought along with the Wehrmacht. The Soviets produced “evidence” that it was Nachtigall that perpetrated the atrocities in Lviv in early July 1941. That something was fishy here should have been apparent from the start. Competent people who made it their business to know about the Lviv pogrom in the immediate aftermath of the war and who were aware of Nachtigall’s presence in the city at the time did not link the pogrom with Nachtigall. Particularly I have in mind the Jewish historian Philip Friedman and the Polish chronicler Tadeusz Zaderecki. A preponderance of evidence pointed to a Soviet fabrication."

"Executed Jews" is not the same as "mass shootings." The mass shootings were conducted by OUN militias not Nachtigall in Lviv. When Rudling mentioned mass shootings he was referring to mass shootings, and Nachtigal's ties to those was a Soviet fabrication.Faustian (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Vinnytsia is not Lvov, i shall try to find about this episode. Cathry (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, i found it, it is from fighter memoirs ЦДАВОВ. Ф. 3833. Оп. 1. Д. 57. Л. 17; Патриляк I.K. Легiони Украiнських Нацiоналiстiв. С. 26. "But there is compelling evidence of the participation of soldiers "Nachtigal" in the extermination of Jews in Vinnitsa region. In the diary of a soldier reconnaissance company "Nachtigal" we find the following entry: "During our trek, we saw firsthand the victims of Jewish-Bolshevik terror, so this kind of sealed our hatred of the Jews, that in two villages, we have done some shooting all counterclaims Jews. I remember one episode. During our transition to one of the villages we see a lot of people wandering around. To answer the questions that the Jews threaten them and they are afraid to sleep in the huts. Because of this, we all met there they shot the Jews. " cited here http://scepsis.net/library/id_2175.html#a34 Cathry (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cathry: You're citing an article by Dyukov? Precisely how far do you intend to go in cherry picking in order to get POV content included in an article? Becoming an autodidact by sourcing blogs and zines dedicated to revisionism certainly reflects on where you've gleaned your knowledge and formed your opinions. It most certainly refutes your ability to approach the subject matter without treating it as a soapbox. Seriously, you're expecting that a biased blogger lacking in academic credentials should be considered a scholarly source? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Dyukov is citing book by academic historian Патриляк I.K. I know that academic historian Dyukov is hardly criticised by pro-OUN historians) You have strange opinion about revisionism, as far as I know, revisionism - it is when someone rejects crimes of nazi. Cathry (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're trying to convey. Dyukov is cited by Патриляк, or he cites Патриляк? Either way, all it's established is that he's been cited by some scholars who have a particular and extremist opinion of the OUN. Your use of language appears biased in itself: pro-OUN? What's the other side: anti-OUN? I haven't encountered any such expressions before. Are you, therefore, asserting that Faustian and I are somehow promoting a 'pro-OUN' agenda, or are you confusing the use of politically motivated nationalism as per Right Sector with the historical entity known as the UIA? As for revisionism: you appear to have a very, very limited understanding of its multitude of meanings and the question of whose nation-building objectives it serves (the Soviet narrative of 'Benderivtsi' still being touted now, or Polish national narratives)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You demonstrate rather corrupt logic. If Hitler used multiplication table, multiplication table is not known only as "something, that was used by Hitler". And Dyukov has mainstream opinion of the OUN. Еxcept historians, I met exactly the same stories about Bandera units in the memoirs of Canadian-Ukrainian writer Podworniak http://www.antiqbook.com/books/bookinfo.phtml?o=intern&bnr=12889 Cathry (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is Podworniak? All I've found on him is an obituary "Michael Podworniak, author, editor of Baptist publications". Author of what, and what are his qualifications in the field? This is the only biography I've found, and it doesn't suggest any credentials other than being a theologian (although it doesn't indicate that he actually completed a degree at the seminary he was enrolled in. I'm sorry, but your English is weak and I find it difficult to comprehend what it even is that you're trying to convey. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Podworniak had not qulification, Himka, Patrylyak, etc. have. It is only example about real person who wrote his memoirs from Canada and had nothing with "Soviet propaganda"Cathry (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Westeros.org. Again

Does Westeros.Org, a self-declared fansite without editorial oversight constitute a reliable source for the Game of Thrones tv series based upon the fact that two of the fansite's owners unofficially and intermittently act as a continuity source for some of the members of the writing staff? If so, under what conditions could they be utilized as a source? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been argued that Westeros.org meets the WP:SPS criteria for an expert source. About Us. Its authors, Antonsson and Garcia, have co-authored a book on the tv show's source material with series creator George Martin [12][13]. They have produced articles about the series for MTV Geek, Tor, and Suvudu. Game of Thrones writer Bryan Cogman referred to Westeros.org as "a tremendous resource." [14] Garcia responded to a request for information[15]. He said that he and Antonsson have worked as "informal and unofficial" consultants on the show but that they are not employees of HBO. Further details upon request.

This page from Westeros.org is being used to support this text in the Wikipedia article Oathkeeper. Garcia confirmed that he and Antonsson wrote that page themselves. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure: Jack Sebastian and Darkfrog24 are two participants in a multi-editor content dispute. Consensus was reached to seek outside input on the RS noticeboard.

I'd point out that this material exists solely via user-created sources. No single reliable source has noted all of the aforementioned links to the book except in passing. This also highlights the concern that the material is but crufty details. I am sure that the good folks at the fan forums for Harry Potter, Star Wars' Expanded Universe and the Doctor Who series are of use to the writers/directors/producers of those series, but it is the latter that creates the material. We don't start out with a preferred phrasing and spend months trying to find barely adequate sources to protect them - that's backwards. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no. Off the top of my head, I've seen it in 538, Slate, AV Club, i09, and other sources. There's similar content in Spark Notes. It's also in the books itself, which is where I originally found it. That's not backwards.

All GA-rated Game of Thrones articles have single-line chapter lists and they all use phrasing very similar to this. All of them.

Jack, I request that you remove your most recent comment so that newcomers feel more comfortable adding their opinions here. You were the one complaining about walls of text. If you do so, I give permission for you to delete this comment of mine at the same time.

This section needs an unbiased header. If you don't like "Fan site or expert site?" then suggest one in the appropriate thread at talk:Oathkeeper. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The subject of Westeros.Org has come up twice before (back in May and again earlier this month). I should know; I've submitted both queries. The title accurately reflects the issue, and I apologize for not previously linking the earlier conversations. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This header is a complaint. It biases newcomers and poisons the well. We want the regulars here to think that this thread is worth their time, and complaining suggests that it is not. If you want this RSN to count we have to do it right. If you don't like "Fan or expert," then we should just delete the "again" and say "Westeros.org" by itself. Doniago would probably appreciate that; he says he likes things concise. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not a valid source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom:Can you please expound upon that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, i dont know what i was looking at when i wrote that. When I went back to find what had triggered my response all i found were things that lined up with what's outlined in the requirements for using a WP:SPS -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait, @TheRedPenOfDoom:, are you saying you do think the source meets the SPS criteria or just that you were talking about something else?

Either way, now that you're here, could you guys take a look? WP:SPS is actually the policy in question. Do you think Antonsson and Garcia's other published work qualifies their self-published website as an acceptable expert source? If your concern is a reputation for fact-checking, they did do some fact-checking for the guy who wrote the books. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like it this site may be an authority on matters of continuity. However, there are other issues, such as due weight. Fan sites will spend inordinate amounts of time analyzing trivia and other minor details; these are not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. That issue can be resolved with other forms of dispute resolution, such as the NPOV noticeboard or an RFC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We could certainly deal with those issues if need be, but I'm pretty sure coverage of this particular material in other secondary sources and the treatment of this material in GA-rated articles would address them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm mostly in agreement with NinjaRobotPirate. It is a reliable SPS for issues of continuity, but care must be taken not to confuse coverage by Westeros.org with making a subject notable.--v/r - TP 23:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So if the text in question were supported by, say, Westeros.org and an article in Slate or AV Club... Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The non-Westeros.org sites would be preferred. I'm not sure of the reliability of avclub. Higher quality sources are always preferred above SPS.--v/r - TP 01:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

AV Club was used elsewhere in the article without incident, but there have complaints have been made about it and about Slate in this specific case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• AV Club has passed FAC reviews before, though generally for their reviews (see, for instance, the featured X-Files episodes). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The complaint that Darkfrog24 alludes to regards the use by Slate, AV Club and another source of a Reddit table that some (unidentifed) fan put together that shows all the chapters per episode. The sources were not making the statements; they were simply discussing the phenomenae of how involved in the series that fans were. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[This issue is rebutted and discussed further in the sub-section below the break. Please post comments on that issue there and comments on Westeros.org in the main section. Thank you.]

break

(edit conflict)TParis has noted a point of view that has come up repeatedly in the Oathkeeper discussion (not by me) that, were the information about chapter-to-episode comparisons truly noteworthy, it would be covered by someone outside of a fansite. While there have been sources that comment on a similarity here and there, those sources were not fansites. And they weren't these somewhat crufty lists of synthetic comparisons, either.

The continued request for reliable, secondary and explicit sources from Darkfrog24 was to help her learn that not everything is noteworthy. Four months later, she has not learned this lesson, nor of following a consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It actually is covered at other sites. Please acknowledge that there is a difference between disagreeing with you and "not learning a lesson." It is no more your job to teach me than it is mine to teach you. One of the problems with this content dispute is that you keep expecting me to not only take your word for it but to prefer your opinion to what I can see for myself. But you shouldn't have to take my word for it either. Since you brought it up, here is a list of people who thought chapter information was important enough to cover:

• AV Club
• Slate (they actually thought it was important enough to write up twice; here's the older one)
• i09 (also twice; one of these is a chart and one is not)
• Forbes (partial, Breaker of Chains)
• FiveThirtyEight (partial Oathkeeper specifically, concept generally)
• the reviewers of every GA-rated article about a Game of Thrones episode: Baelor ([16]) ([17]) Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things ([18][Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones)] ([19] [20]) A Golden Crown ([21]) The Kingsroad ([22]) Lord_Snow#Writing ([23]) The Pointy End ([24]) Winter Is Coming ([25]) The Wolf and the Lion ([26]) ([27]) You Win or You Die [28]) (Links in parentheses are the versions at the time of GA listing and reassessment, if any; chapter information was always retained.)
• Just found this other site, PandaWhale, while I was looking up the Slate link. Never seen it before, but it seems to be the older version [29].

RSN regulars—if you feel this is too off-topic, I'll remove it upon request. But the claim that this material isn't covered elsewhere is not valid. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If necessary, I'll point out the problems that others (this isn't about me) found with each of the listed links, not the least of which is that one or two of the sources do in fact note a chapter connection to an episode. That was in fact added to the article in prose form. That said, I'll avoid the wall of text eventuality that inevitably occurs in any conversation where Darkfrog24 is a participant, unless asked by someone else here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is my take on this: Westeros.org is a fansite, run by two people who sometimes (and quite unofficially) act as helpers in terms of fact-checking for the writers of the series. This is an SPS. Overlooking for a moment that fansites are very often rife with speculation and outright false wish fulfillment, we are overlooking the main point that fansites contain crufty information that wouldn't be considered noteworthy to anyone who isn't a fan. Our readers cannot be assumed to be huge fans, and those of them that actually are know where to go to get that sort of information. We do not write for them; we write for the average reader.

Sidestepping the forum-shopping, my other problem with this effort by the only other user truly interested in adding this information is that he is working the process backwards. She saw the chapter-to-episode connection early on, and was reverted when she sought to add it. She has been looking for references to cite it ever since. Most of these sources are unsatisfactory according to our own policies and guidelines. My frustration with this is that a fairly solid consensus of users do not think this material is important enough to include. The reasoning behind this is that most of the references in support of this information are from forum sites, or fanclubs, or blog posts from reviewers who wouldn't pass the sniff test for fandom or fakery. I am frustrated with Darkfrog's continued shouting that the consensus is wrong, and she is right - pretty much counter to WP:CONSENSUS. Towards that end, she has spread her concerns far and wide. She didn't get approval through DRN. She didn't get approval through not one but two RfCs. She inundates noticeboards like this with walls of text talking about how horrible everyone is for not appreciating her efforts. So yeah, I find Darkfrog24 a net negative to the Project, and I am not alone in that assessment - at least three others have all but given up on working GoT articles because of her insistence that we are all stupid for not agreeing with her.

At least one of the owners of Westeros.org are maybe noteworthy when they are cited outside of Westeros.org. But citing them within their personal blogsite for factual information is like deciding our content based on Twitter feeds. It is contrary to our role as an encyclopedia to pander to fansites. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the refs provided? We should take a closer look at those, too:

• AV Club, Slate and Panda all use the same Reddit user-created table to point out how fans are deeply involved in the series. The references do not represent the content.
• io9 has some pretty useful content in their main area, despite the previous concerns raised in RSN archives about their parent company, Gawker Media. However, the noted reference comes from their forum, called Observation Deck.
• Forbes has a great write-up about another episode, "Breaker of Chains". The partial information about a chapter fromt he book used was incorporated into the article. I know, because I am the one who did it. There is no chapter listing there, and no reference to Westeros.org or "Oathkeeper" at all.
• FiveThirtyEight's mention of a single chapter usage in the episode was incorporated into the article, again by myself, even though I missed it when someone else introduced it.
• The GA articles which contained information from Westeros.org must have slipped through the cracks during the nomination process, as they fail WP:GACR, most notably, the refernce information (several of the references in these articles do not reflect the content they are citing). But then, they are GA, not FA. I am somewhat convinced that a fansite reference wouldn't survive the FA nomination process -and that's why we edit, right? To make the best, most neutral articles we can. Usiong a fansite isn't neutral; its pandering. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[Post to which Jack is responding below was moved due to edit conflict; see below.]

Err, are you equating Stephen Hawking talking about rock hard science with the whimsical Sherlcoking of a fansite owner? Really. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack, if you don't want "walls of text about how horrible people are" then stop writing them. You don't want long responses to accusations? Stop making accusations. Don't attack me and then complain when I defend myself. I'm also not sure that this is the right place for you to be making these claims. If you agree to delete this post you've just made, then I give permission for you to delete my response here at the same time.

It's possible that not everything on Westeros.org is suitable for inclusion here, but this content is. Reasons above in my last post.

I did start from a source—the book. Just because I started from a source that Jack doesn't like doesn't mean I'm doing anything backwards.

The consensus on talk:Oathkeeper is not that the content is "not important enough" to include but that more sources are required. So I've been finding more sources. I have also repeatedly asked other participants if they have any objections to this material other than sourcing. Verbatim upon request, but I keep getting "No" from them, including from Jack. Jack, it's one thing if you're changing your mind about why you don't like this content, but do not claim that this has been your position all along. Or you can admit that you lied to me when I asked you about your objections and apologize for wasting our time by keeping this dispute going in the wrong direction. Don't complain that I keep finding new sources when you repeatedly demanded that I do so.

Most of the eight or so sources I've provided are from news outlets. Two, including Westeros.org, were from fansites.

I have never called you or anyone in this dispute stupid. I have never implied that you were stupid. I haven't called your edits or reasoning stupid. The harshest term I had for DQ or Doniago is "guys who don't agree with me."

Back to Westeros.org: That's not how WP:SPS works, Jack. Say Stephen Hawking writes his own website about physics. Because Stephen Hawking is an established expert who's been published elsewhere, the things that he says about physics on that web site are usable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• AV Club, Slate, and i09 all cite the content; they all thought chapters were important enough to list ant talk about. Ergo, it is important enough for Wikipedia to talk about.
• Forbes and FiveThirtyEight also thought that chapters were important enough to name and talk about.
• "GA reviewers must have made a mistake" is an assumption. There are three possibilities: 1) GA reviewers saw this content, thought it was appropriate and deliberately kept it. 2) GA reviewers would have deleted it if they'd noticed it but missed it (which indicates that it's at least not taking up inordinate space). 3) GA reviewers did not care about this content one way or the other. This isn't a huge unsolvable mystery: If this is really an issue, we can just ask them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[Response to Jack's post; see above] Elio Garcia is no Stephen Hawking or Richard Feynman, but Game of Thrones isn't theoretical physics or rocket science. (Similarly, I wouldn't call Feynman an expert on GoT, not unless those zombies are way more awesome than I thought!) If you would like a non-hypothetical example, the blog Language Log gets cited a lot on Wikipedia. Because its authors have PhDs in linguistics and have been published in the journals of their field, their blog posts are also usable on Wikipedia. The other publications (linguistics journals; Garcia and Antonsson's books and articles) prove that they are experts, so what they produce is expert content. In that case, "the field" is publications that talk about linguistics. In this case "the field" is publications that talk about Game of Thrones. Have Antonsson and Garcia produced third-party content that is acceptable for use on Wikipedia? Yes, their book and their outside articles. So their self-published content is acceptable too. But you don't have to take my word for it. You can always ask ...well I guess that's what we're doing now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack I have a request. I've separated our back-and-forth into a subsection. I think that the two of us should keep it in here (or even delete all this entirely) so that new people will not be discouraged from adding their input above. Considering that both respondents so far have said that Westeros.org is reliable, this may be in your interest. Repeat: Jack, if you see fit to delete this whole sub-section, you have my permission.

If you would prefer that the subsection have a different header, feel free to suggest one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just realized a collapse might be appropriate here. Anyone who doesn't like that has my permission to revert. If anyone wants their digression posts to be more visible, put them below the bottom of the collapse, and move the bottom tag after say 24 hours. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it, replacing it with an 'arbitrary break' subsection. It has the virtue of concealing no one's post, but allowing it to be cordoned off if others don't want to see it.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I still prefer the collapse and reference to digression. The break isn't arbitrary, after all. I feel this ranty back-and-forth we've got going here may be discouraging new participants from taking this matter seriously. I don't consider these matters we're discussing trivial (in case that's not clear from all the attention I've paid them here and elsewhere), I don't feel this is the place for them. The instructions up top say not to talk about issues other than reliability here. Besides, most of this stuff is covered in your second post and mine at the beginning of this thread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been pointed out that you don't have to respond with a wall of text. Physician, heal thyself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

If you post a long rant accusing me of misconduct, then yes, I have to respond. You don't have to post long rants accusing me of misconduct.

Similar note: Since you clearly don't have a problem with changing headers that other people wrote, please remove the biased "Again" from the head of this filing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You deleted a post of mine there, Jack, probably by accident.

There. I hope we can both agree that "break" is both neutral and implies nothing false. I chose this site by topic but also because it gave you both the last word one one thread and the first in the next. Like I said, I'm trying to keep things fair. If you'd prefer it somewhere else, then where? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's just leave it in keeping how other people use breaks. Arbitrary in this instance doesn't refer to being argumentative, but instead, without any real reason. Break by itself is insufficient.

And you don't need to "keep" things fair, Darkfrog24. They are fair. Now, lets see if some of this newfound collaborative spirit carries into someplace else. Are yoiu prepared to stop arguing against consensus and recognize the fact that the material doesn't appear to be notable enough to list in the article? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: I just realized that there is a better place to discuss the wording of this thread: The talk page. Kindly join me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2: In a nutshell

Apart from the personality hurdles that often arise when two or more editors differ in opinion, the problems I see with considering Westeros.org a usable source are as follows:

1. It is a theme park slippery slide: allowing content from largely user-created sources sets us up for wide-spread problems in both the short- and long-term. While one of the owners of the website has in fact written a book on GRRM's world, we have no proof (apart from the one person favoring it) that it is he who is writing the articles in Westeros.org that some are seeking to draw references from. How about when further comparisons come up between GoT and Star Wars? How bout who the different characters should have been cast with? Who should end up with who at the end? Where do we draw the line?
2. It is also a question of noteworthiness: one of the problems with starting out with a statement that you desperately want to have in the article is finding a source for it (which is actually backwards). When that source largely does not exist in any other source but fancruft, that should be a large-type warning sign that your information isn't considered noteworthy.
3. WP:IAR is not a suicide pact: Just because the fansite has been used in a small number of GA articles doesn't mean that those articles should have that info in there. Looking at the information that was sourced to Westeros.org indicates the large amount of cruft and relatively useless information that was crammed in for no other purpose than to pad the article. I suspect that they won't make it through FA candidacy with them there. Ignoring or bending our sourcing policy to the breaking point is counterproductive.
4. Most of this problem could be resolved with an external link: The strongest advocate for inclusion of fansite info claims that the reader might want to know this information. If this is truly the case, then we provide a link to Westeros.org where the ep is crufted about in detail and be done with it. If the reader is indeed looking for that fine level of detail, it is our responsibility to point them in the right direction. We are an encyclopedia, not a fan-source warehouse.

I wanted to take a moment to apologize for the strongly negative reaction I presented last week here. While I personally feel that the advocate for this information has been gaming the system for four months to get what she wants, it isn't my place to point it out. If you can't or won't see the truth of it, there is little I can do about it. In my defense, I am one of the few remaining editors (there used to be at least 8 of us) who endured for four months this editor ignoring consensus, offering fan forum blogs or fake sources. I watch her schmoozing it up with key editors and am frustrated that you can't see the game she is running on you. That is as much a part of the problem as the source being provided, but I should have presented it in a calmer manner. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Westeros.org has been used on Wikipedia for years, usually very stably. If there were a slippery slope, we would have seen some slipping by now.
2. Noteworthiness is addressed by the treatment of this material in other reliable sources such as Slate, AV Club, and Forbes. Its presence in every other GA-rated article on this subject suggests a wider Wikipedia consensus for its inclusion.
3. IAR is not in play, nor has anyone advocated for its use. Please do not argue matters that are not in dispute as if they were.
4. Those actions are not mutually exclusive. We could provide the information and an external link. While a single sentence listing relevant chapters is sufficiently important for inclusion on Wikipedia, Westeros.org also contains a great deal of information on the subject that may also be of interest to readers but does not meet that threshold.

You keep saying, "Find more sources." I find more sources. If that's gaming the system, everyone should play.

Please check your numbers before you post, Jack. It's advocateS, plural. This dispute has five longstanding participants, three against inclusion and two for inclusion, not eight against one.

I'm pretty sure the bot archives discussions based on the date of the last post, so posting here has artificially prolonged the life of this thread. I will support deletion of this post of mine if you delete that post of yours at the same time.

Please make no further accusations against me here. If you truly believe that any of this holds water, then go through proper channels. I have many complaints about your conduct as well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In favor of using the statements (and therefore of using references that support them): DonQuixote, Donlago, Balaenoptera musculus, FormerIP, Scoobydunk, NinjaRobotPirate, TAnthony, TParis, Crisco 1492, Tutelary and myself.

In favor of using the statements: Diego and Darkfrog24.

As has been said before, Darkfrog24 did indeed keep bringing sources: fanblogs, forum reviews and even one faked source. There was one or two good sources, and they were incorporated into the article. When I suggest that you are gaming the system, I am stating that running to RSN, DRN or ANI every time your latest blog source isn't allowed seems designed to wear down the dissent to the content you have been trying to add for four months.

And its working. Of the five original active editors in the article, only three remain (Donlago, Darkfrog24 and myself); the rest chased away by your constant bickering and text walls and forum-shopping. I think the only reason I remain is that by allowing a fansite to be given equal footing with the sorts of sources we normally allow, we are allowing the trivial to replace the substantive. I think this is important.

That said, I would support an external link to Westeros.org, for those readers who want to delve more into what fans are saying. I do not support using it as a source for claims made within the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not bring in a fake source. I brought in a source that you didn't like. I also brought in Forbes, FiveThirtyEight, Slate, AV Club, i09 (two from i09, actually) and others, and yes, one of them was a blog, which I posted here for evaluation.

"Running to RSN" was Doniago's idea. You also insisted on it. You also posted several filings about sources here on your own.

Please do not misprepresent things. Scooby and TAnthony and most of the others were not weighing in on whether the article should include the disputed text at all, only on whether a specific source to do so (in which case leaving out people like InedibleHulk and others who supported inclusion is misleading). You have similarly misrepresented other people's positions. If you want to know what these people think, go and ask them.

As for ANI, I reported you exactly once for repeatedly referring to my contributions as feces after you'd been asked to stop twice and for making misleading edits on GA-rated articles about the use of Westeros.org.

This thread has gotten off-topic. If you have anything else to say that is not about the reliability or unreliability Westeros.org, please post it somewhere else, like the Oathkeeper talk page, my talk page, or the talk page of this noticeboard. If you are serious in your belief that I have engaged in tendentious editing, then go through proper channels. Accusations about me do not belong here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

They do if you are gaming the system. Now, you have a choice: you can throw yet another wall of text of slightly reworded, identical text of how you are bringing in all these sources which we unfairly consider to be useless, or you can be silent, and trust the others here to make a solid evaluation, or post another wall of text-y drama. I personally do not believe you can stop yourself, but we shall see. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I realize that the bickering is distracting, but it would be nice to get some informed, neutral inoput on this matter. One of the reasons that two users are so vocal in their opinions is that so very few others have offered their input. Please help out a bit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

5 points:

• I am participating in this thread in the desperate hope that one or both of you will return the favor and dig into my own thread below about the Lucy Burns Institute, which also has been languishing. Interestingly, even though they're in completely different article spaces, there's some overlap on the RS issues.
• A major reason this thread hasn't received more attention from uninvolved editors is that both of your posts are too long. Please keep them short and confined to the subject of the discussion.
• On the reliability of Westeros.org, I agree with TRPoD and NRP that Westeros.org is, per the "expert" exception to WP:SPS, a reliable source for details of the Game of Thrones series. I also agree that, as a fansite, it's not an independent source and is therefore not a reliable source for (1) anything appearing to promote the series, or for (2) determining the notability of the article subject. In other words, Westeros should be treated as an WP:ABOUTSELF source. Following from this:
• Any material appearing in Westeros.org that also appears in an independent reliable source (such as Slate), should be sourced to the independent source, not to Westeros.org.
• Material that only appears in Westeros.org may be included and sourced to Westeros.org as long as (1) it appears to be noteworthy and does not violate WP:BALASPS and (2) the article as a whole does not rely primarily on any combination of Westeros.org, other fansites, and/or other ABOUTSELF sources.

I hope this helps, now please, if you will, consider looking at my thread. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, DrFleischman. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Criminal transmission of HIV, Blacks & political correctness

The paragraph in question states "In some cases attempts at denial of one's illness, accusation of institutional racism, or political correctness (as a disproportionate number of HIV cases in the USA, Canada and many other countries come from Black people[3]) delay treatment or prevention of the spread of the illness.[4] For example during the first case of criminal HIV infection in Finland, when a photo of of Steven Thomas[5] a Black US citizen from New York, was published in newspapers, many Finnish politicians were worried about political ramifications of this public health prevention act.[6] In Poland, reports of Simon Mol were initially dismissed because he complained about alledged racism of Polish police and denied being ill, despite having been positively tested. This pattern is repeated in many countries, as evidenced by WHO studies[7][8].[30]"

The source for the most of the first sentence is [31], "Paper Prepared for the “UNESCO/OHCHR Workshop To Develop Educational Material to Foster Tolerance and to Eliminate Prejudice”. I don't consider this an RS but I also can't see that it backs the statement. The source for the rest of the sentence is [32]. That is one source discussing on case, that of Simon Mol where it is also used. I can't see how it can be used for anything other than the Mol case, certainly not for such a generalisation.

Source 7, used to state that this pattern is repeated, is the same workshop paper as above. There is a quote in the reference saying ""HIV/AIDS epidemiological data is generally reported by countries and by risk groups and not by ethnicity / race due to the political sensitivity involved in doing so (PAHO/WHO & UNAIDS, 2001). It is also argued that race/ethnicity based data may further serve to perpetuate stigma linked to those groups and that in part the problem may also be a `definitional’ one with respect to racial categories". Source 8[33] - the quote used is " "When stigma exists people often prefer to ignore their real or possible HIV status. This can lead to the risk of faster disease progression for themselves and also to the risk of them spreading HIV to others". Note that the pattern is presumably " denial of one's illness, accusation of institutional racism, or political correctness (as a disproportionate number of HIV cases in the USA, Canada and many other countries come from Black people[3]) delay treatment or prevention of the spread of the illness." - a pattern not backed by the sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• It seems to me to be a case of editorializing or OR when the statement that the representation of the race of perpetrators is politically sensitive is described flatly as being caused by political correctness in wikipedia's voice. This would suggest that any recognition of the existence of ethically or politically sensitive topics is apriori a case of political correctness. I think to make this statement we would need an RS stating that the reluctance to represent the race of the perpetrator was a case of political correctness, AND an inline attribution saying who interpreted it as such. And yes it also seems to misrepresent the source which is not making this point, but rather the opposite point that the presence of stigma and racial stereotypes may have negative epidemiological effects. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't see anything in the legitimate sources that supports the claims. Source 8 is about HIV/AIDS issues regarding the Black (African/Caribbean) population in Canada, so of course it addresses issues of race. Nowhere does it say anything that could be glossed as "accusation of institutional racism, or political correctness" delay treatment or encourage the spread of the disease. It does say that some people within the community may be in "denial of one's illness", but that's a general human trait. Of course in some cultures the illness may be seen as more shameful, and that could be correlated to race in a loose sense, but it's not what the source says at all. Paul B (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with all of this. Anyone think that the workshop paper is an RS in any case(besides what I think is the fact that it's being misused). Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the paper is an RS, but that is shouldnt be misrepresented. I have tried to rewrite the section to separate what is clearly two different issues (stigma vs. political correctness as obstacles to stopping the spread).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's RS to a very limited extent, for content directly related to its function. Paul B (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by that specifically?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think the UNESCO report is RS but I read through it and didn't find any content to support the idea that blacks go into denial about their HIV status. (Ran search for "denial" and "lifestyle" and "life style.") Did I miss something? I also read some of the other sources that are in the paragraph now,[34][35] and there does seem to be some problem with matching their content to the Wikipedia article. For example, it says that the Finnish police were too fearful of political correctness, but the sources say that Thomas was convicted and that his name and picture were disclosed to the public. The sources are reliable, but the section does not describe them accurately. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It says that "When stigma exists people often prefer to ignore their real or possible HIV status. This can lead to the risk of faster disease progression for themselves and also to the risk of them spreading HIV to others". And it argues that black people are particularly prone to stigma both because of the lack of cultural acceptance of the disease in some communities, and because of racial stereotypes. But it is true that it doesnt say explicitly that Black people are more likely to deny their HIV status, but it suggests that stigmatized communities in general are. and the link to AIDS denialism was outight misleading as that has nothing to do with denying ones individual HIV status.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now. Because this could be said to argue a politically loaded position not explicitly stated in the source ("blacks are more likely to deny HIV status than other people are") rather than just relay or organize straight facts, I'd say rewrite or remove. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that the way I've rewritten it now does not make that implicit argument it simply states that stigma may lead to refusal to acknowledge ones HIV status. It doesnt currently say that black people are more likely to do this. Although the quote in the footnote is still cherry picked to make this point. I think the quote should just be removed now that it is not actually supporting the claim.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your balanced discussion and efforts at rewriting this section instead of blanking it outright. Firstly, I have added many new English RS sources to the case of Simon Mol, outlining the reports of race PC getting in the way of epidemiology and even police investigation. Secondly, here are other quickly found reports about, as you write, "blacks go[ing] into denial about their HIV status": 2,000 St. Louisans are HIV positive but aren't taking their medications, HIV epidemic grows, Florida city grapples with fear and denial. (Instead of "Blacks", please search for "African-Americans", of course). There are many more.

Would these be RS enough so as to use them for the references?

One can also reuse the sources from AIDS denialism, I believe. Zezen (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• St. Louis Dispatch looks like a regular newspaper, so it's RS. However, I'm do not think that the sole reference to blacks in particular, about black men having "an element of denial" in their sexuality is sufficient to support the text in question. It is attributed to a medical doctor who treats patients, not an epidemiologist or sociologist. The source is good in general, though. Same deal with CNN. The "turn blind eyes" refers to black churches and homosexuality, not HIV status. It is RS but it does not directly support the text in question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Darkfrog24, the paper isn't really a report, it's just a paper given at a workshop. Probably OK but I think it should be attributed.
  • @Maunus:, @Paul Barlow: The last sentence, "This pattern is repeated in many countries, as evidenced by WHO studies" I still don't see how the sources support this. What am I missing? Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

But the repeated pattern is the pattern that stigma causes epidemiological problems, because it deters HIV positive people from seeking treatment an from identifying as such. This is as far as I know a well documented fact in the literature on HIV epidemiology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see I missed the rewrite. We still have "Some commentators have argued that political correctness may also be a contributing factor in some cases, when authorities fail to take the necessary steps to apprehend criminals for fear of perpetuating racial stigma, or if, as has happened in at least one case, HIV-positive individuals have strategically used accusations of racism to become able to spread the disease and to try to avoid apprehension." The 'some commentators' is at most 2 people commenting on one case.[36] The rest of the paragraph, which is about political correctness, has no sources mentioning political correctness. Ok, the first bit is probably WP:UNDUE but the second bit uses sources that don't mention political correctness. Dougweller (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is more of an OR or NPOV issue. You guys do not seem to have any problem locating reliable sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the origin of the e-teatr.pl article? Running the site through google translate gives me the impression that if it is a news site, it's a news site dedicated to theater, not politics, society, or general news. It doesn't even appear to be something like Entertainment Weekly, but specifically about the stage and only the stage. Searching "Bertold Kittel, Maja Narbutt, Peter S Rieth" brings up only the original article, the WP article it's currently cited on, and a handful of blogs and forum posts, one of them overtly racist, one of them far-right. While we're not citing those entries, all of this makes me question the RS status of the e-teatr article. It appears to have been an isolated and out-of-place opinion piece meant to play on racial tensions, which was deleted by e-teatr staff because it did not fit the site's editorial vision. The Peter S Rieth at one point writes "It is racist, of course, to believe that all African men have AIDS just because a majority or a large number of them suffer this disease." Are we really going to cite a source that believes that a majority of African men have AIDS? A source hosted on a theater news site, which they later deleted? While we can use WP:BIASED sources, they should demonstrate editorial control and fact checking, and if included after that, be specifically attributed. That the site deleted it and does not host it in its archives seems to indicate that it failed their editorial oversight even if one editor was involved. That the article seems to think that about 5-15% is a majority of African men definitely fails fact checking. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That source is also used at Simon Mol. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I didnt look at that source, but yes that looks problematic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice e-teatr either. It looks like a news site. I wouldn't say that focusing primarily on theater necessarily makes it unreliable for articles about other things. However, using Simon Moll as an example in a way that suggests a pervasive problem raises WP:WEIGHT issues.

I plugged some lines from the e-teatr article into a search engine to see if it was originally from somewhere else and only reprinted by e-teatr, but every news source cited e-teatr as the origin. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is presented as an English translation of a report and editorial that first appeared in Rzeczpospolita in 2007. The editorial section is said to be written by Peter Strzelecki Rieth [37], a Polish-American pundit who apparently believes that the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings were caused by "a warped immigration culture and a degraded university culture" [38]. He seems to be a rent-a-quote figure guaranteed to say "it's political-correctness-gone-mad" about just about anything. Yes, I saw that bizarre statement about the "majority or a large number" of African males have AIDS. Of course the are "a large number", but that's quite different from a large proportion, which the connection to 'majority' implies. The article is a fairly lightweight piece of journalism about a one-off case, which seems very slender thread indeed on which to hang the claims that are being made. The other "evidence" provided is simply another individual case in Finland. In neither instance is any evidence provided that there was any delay in prosecution because of the race of the man accused. The only issue raised was that the arrests would encourage prejudice against black people. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

So, what opposition is there to treating Rieth as a racist conspiracy theorist and removing anything sourced to him? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

None from me.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Right, I'll be on it in a sec, I'm assessing a related article that with sourcing just as high-quality as what we're discussing here. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know WP:FRINGE was determined by digging up a list of articles and a WordPress site about the author and having a popular vote whether we think that his columns are absurd or whether we like them, or if we disagree with his "it's political-correctness-gone-mad" political slant. If the source can be attributed to the newspaper Rzeczpospolita that is RS it can be used for his opinion: we are reporting on opinions not facts. But I agree with the majority here that these two cases aren't that notable and shouldn't be given that much weight. If someone is interested in this topic, perhaps creating an article like "Ethnic background / race in crime reporting" could be justified. There seem to be a number of scholarly articles about that subject. This critcism could be dealt there, if there are RS, and not drag up two HIV cases in undue manner. --Pudeo' 04:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there is an RS for a viewpoint does not mean that the viewpoint is notable or relevant. That ultimately requires an editorial judgment to decide.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

We do indeed assess notability and reliability by looking for information about authors. It remains unclear where this text originated, and Rieth does not appear to be an especially notable commentator and his views seem to be borderline fringe. Paul B (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Which is one reason why 'undue' was mentioned. Zezen has just added "He explained his refusal to put on a condom during sexual intercourse by claiming that his sperm was "sacred"" with [39] as his source (if you use Chrome it automatically translates it for you). I'd removed the 'sacred sperm' bit earlier as that source gives zero context. As it's the same source that hasn't changed, and the addition by User:Zezen of the claim this was his reason for refusing to use a condom doesn't seem to be in the source at all - as we've found with several of his sources. This article is basically the same as a userfied version of the originally deleted article and Zezen has been trying to find sources to back the text, rather than writing text that is backed by sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

We should not be including mass block quotes of anonymous hearsay, sourced to an opinion piece that says women sleep with black men because they are "corrupted by academia". I am surprised this has gotten this much debate.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that though the accused is no longer living, we can't assume the same of the women being discussed. All of this material should have been taken out while it was being discussed, not kept in just in case it wasn't a BLP problem. I don't see a consensus to include it here in any case.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate:Good point. I think most of it is gone except for his latest addition about "sacred sperm"[40] - do you see anything else that should go? Zezen says something on the article talk page about "whom Mol met and infected" which it looks as though he wants to source or has sources for. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In the Criminal transmission of HIV article, a swathe was included as a free-standing quote in the "References", including the gem that the women only slept with him because black men are "trendy". I can point out that there's a huge direct quote in Polish in [the diff you showed me where the Polish text asserts that Black refugees are "always sexy" and "trendy" and "A priest has warned about this immorality for years". This stuff is seriously problematic on more grounds than whether it was cited in an opinion piece or not.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

UK Metric Association

For questions regarding the way metric system units are used, should the UK Metric Association's Measurement units style guide be considered a reliable source?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Generally, published style guides are RS for matters of style, and this one looks good so long as its ref tag makes its provenance clear. So if by "how they're used," you mean the way they're spelled and abbreviated, yes. They don't always agree with each other, though, so if one guide says one thing and another one another, then some choices might be in order. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This needs a context. Used where? What article are you working on? Is this a Wikipedia style question or a question about how things are styled specifically in the UK? A UK standard may not exactly mesh with a South American or Canadian standard, but it's unclear what aspect of it you're asking about here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, regarding whether it's a reliable source for informing the English Wikipedia's style.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a reliable source on what the UK Metric Association consider how the metric system units should be presented but thats about all. So can be used to say the "UK Metric Association recommends that x should be done like y". MilborneOne (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate brings up a good point. If you are writing about the way metric units are styled in Britain, then yes this is one RS. If you are using metric units on Wikipedia, you want WP:MOS and WP:METRIC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the others. But I would note that the UKMA is a pressure group favouring the use of the metric system and consequently it is not to be considered a neutral source in terms of determining whether or in what circumstances metric units are to be used. Kahastok talk 14:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be unbias, see WP:BIASED, merely reliable in their context and that their POV isn't brought in as fact. Dog colour expert's publication states "Dogs should be brown" vs other dog colour expert "Dogs should be black" - both are reliable sources on dog colours but the fictional wikipedia article would never state either opinion as fact. Similarly, AMA vs UKMA vs ISO vs etc are all reliable sources, with given weights, but none are used to dictate wikipedia's MOS - influence maybe, but not dictate. JMJimmy (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia style is in no way required to be backed up by specific citations to reliable sources. There is no requirement that house style be based on anything reliable at all; we can base a guideline on what completely unreliable anonymous Wikipedia editors did once on random Wikipedia pages if there's consensus (the bulk of the MOS is actually "sourced" this way). The best "reliable source" for current Wikipedia house style is WP:METRIC and associated MOS pages. (And though you asked generally, some might see this as a potentially problematic request as you are currently topic-banned on certain "height-related" conversations. I don't think you've necessarily done anything wrong yet, but this query could be interpreted as standing on the very edge of the cliff, leaning in a certain direction. If your query has nothing to do with that, then no harm nor foul and never mind this comment.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of my topic-ban being extended to any talk pages. It's articles under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football only as far as I know.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Topic bans aren't page or article specific. You're probably okay, but you should probably know they are usually for any discussion about the topic happening anywhere, including talk pages (outside of some formal request to lift the ban). This seems pretty general at this point, so maybe I was overcautious mentioning it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Previously discussed here.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If something is to be regarded as a reliable style guide, I would want to see evidence that organizations outside the publisher use it, or that the publications from the style guide publisher are influential. For example, numerous university library web sites can be found suggesting that Modern Language Association style be used in some fields. Or, the style of the American Medical Association (AMA) is reliable because the journals published by the AMA are influential. Although the UK Metric Association is notable enough (barely) to warrant a Wikipedia article, I am not aware of any evidence that their style guide is influential enough to pay any attention to it. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I second Jc3s5h's comment. UKMA is an advocacy group who's scope seems limited to the UK. As previously stated by others, Wikipedia does not stick to any one style guide or set of rules other than those set forth by the community in the WP:MOS at any given time. It's an evolving document and is always subject to WP:IAR. UKMA can be a reliable source in discussions when updates to the MOS are sought; the lack of influence, as Jc3s5h pointed out, will affect its weight in any such discussion. JMJimmy (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Would one way of putting this be, it may be a reliable source for the UKMA's views, but it does not demonstrate that the UKMA's views must be included in any given article per WP:WEIGHT? That is, a statement saying, "the style guide of the UKMA says x" is reliably sourced, but may overstate the significance of the UKMA's POV? Kahastok talk 16:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the article. Within its own article or something relating to the subject matter such a statement is fine, given due-weight considerations. Extending that to all of Wikipedia would be something entirely different. JMJimmy (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the UKMA has been advocating its members edit wikipedia to promote their views on the implementation of the metric system in the UK [41] since 2008. One of the problems I have with any style guide they promote is that it promotes their agenda, rather than reflecting the way units are actually used in the UK. So answering the original question, I would suggest it is not a reliable guide for how units are used in the UK, in particular the appropriate unit in common use which may still be imperial in certain circumstances.

This may come as across as an overly pedantic comment but experience with its members who do edit wikipedia indicates they are somewhat fanatical in pushing for metric units to be used in all circumstances. This is one of the reasons why I will now state my own view on the matter: I do advocate the UK should be wholly metric but I edit wikipedia for its readers and seek to present information in a natural manner they readily understand. This is why I follow the MOS as regards unit use rather than personal preference. WCM_email 18:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting this source be used to push the use of metric units at all. Just to provide guidance on how they're used where they already are. I hadn't thought about being specific on which articles, but if I have to be, I'd say those under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think what CM et al. are getting at is is this source an example of how these units are used in the U.K. or of how its authors think they should be used in the U.K.?

It might help if we could see the specific text in question. If this is a source for "centimetre is abbreviated cm" and "never use capital letters for unit names unless they're named after people" then yes, it's fine to tag this page in the unlikely event that someone would actually challenge information like that. However, almost any style guide would cover something like that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd been pretty clear. No it isn't a reliable source on how units are used in the UK, its only reliable for what the UKMA think should be used. I would not consider it reliable for Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom and some of the guidance it gives is frankly incorrect. As far as units for UK articles goes WP:MOSNUM currently gives a reasonable summary. WCM_email 22:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Right. IMO style guides are poor sources for usage generally. I ran into something like this a while back, where the style guide said do such-and-so but most writers and editors (voting with their feet as it were) actually don't do such-and-so. So we go with actual usage. A style guide is a data point. Style guides for particular publications are different, you can assume that the Time Magazine Style Guide (if it was published) would reflect actual usage at Time magazine (but not anything else, necessarily). If you have a third-party style guide that you know has been adopted by numerous important publications, that'd be different also (but it would also show up in usage, and thus be kind of redundant). Herostratus (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And again, Wikipedia house style has no "reliability" requirement. It's decided by editors by common general usage, common Wikipedia usage, and other bits of ad hoc consensus. It may certainly be informed by other style guides but it doesn't have to be at all. If someone wants to modify a MOS page they should take it up with other concerned editors there, because WP:V is for choosing content, not formatting it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue of whether the MoS must follow reliable sources has come up repeatedly on the MoS talk page, but the fact is that it does follow guidance in some ways and does not in others. Generally, style guides are RS for information on style, though the fact that they are not the same thing as sociolinguistic studies must also be acknowledged. For example, both style guides and books about the history of punctuation are cited as sources in Question mark.

Again, if the text in question is a punctuation and writing subsection of metric system, then style guides—though it seems not this one—would be suitable sources. If the issue is how to punctuate metric terms on Wikipedia, then use WP:METRIC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if the UK Metric Association's style guide cannot be seen as a definitive authority on style when using the metric system, surely it can be considered as part of a pool of evidence (including common usage) that already shows a certain usage pattern.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If this isn't about a specific edit, or only about Wikipedia house style, then any questions about reliability or "common practice" are completely moot. It doesn't matter if the source shows a certain usage pattern or if it doesn't if you're just talking Wikipedia style. Formatting guidelines are based on consensus, not WP:V. You haven't suggested any actual changes or edits at this point, so this is not looking like a particularly constructive discussion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of an author's quote to substantiate a charge of "brainwashing cult"

I would like to request additional opinions about the citation of James R. Lewis’ book, “Legitimating New Religions” (found at http://books.google.com/books?id=hdYSdts1udcC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=james+r+lewis+anti-anti+cult+soka+gakkai&source=bl&ots=FtDzO9wMy-&sig=bBJaAvGLEW1dS_8YZtM7xCEK4xA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5yD7U82UDJShyASjuoDIBA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=soka%20gakkai&f=false) in the Soka Gakkai article. A quote from this work is the only source being cited to support a clause in the lede,

[The Soka Gakkai] grapples with a stereotype of being a ‘brainwashing cult’.

To substantiate this statement the posting editor used this paragraph in the Lewis book (p. 218):

Soka Gakkai also spread to the United States and Europe, where it aroused controversy as a result of its intensive proselytizing activities. Although never as controversial as groups like the Hare Krishna Movement or the Unification Church, Soka Gakkai which in the United States went under the name Nichiren Shoshu of America until after Soka Gakkai broke with Nichiren Shoshu was not infrequently stereotyped as a brainwashing cult, particularly by anticult authors.

To the eyes of WP readers, the charge of a “stereotype of being a ‘brainwashing’ cult” is serious and damning—especially when appearing in a lede--and thus should require a high bar to validate. The Lewis source does not pass this muster and should be removed. There is considerable debate on the Talk page which has led to a standstill.

Two points alone should disqualify its use. First of all, James R. Lewis is specifically referring in this quote to the Soka Gakkai in the United States and Europe. The Soka Gakkai article, however, by consensus of all the editors, is about the organization in Japan. Secondly, the quote uses past tense verbs (“it aroused,” “went under,” “was not”) whereas the statement in the article is examining current—not—past perceptions (“is still widely viewed” with suspicion).

Equally important, however, Lewis uses this quote as a mere literary foil. In fact, he spends the rest of the book pushing back, explaining that the contention is false. For example on the prior page (217) he states,

For over half a century, one of the most controversial new religions in Japan has been Soka Gakkai. Although this group has matured into a responsible member of society…

Lewis goes on to explain why—in the past—public perception was negative, fanned by negative publicity.

Until relatively recently, it also had a high profile as the result of sensationalist and often irresponsible media coverage. Apparently as a direct consequence of the social consensus against this religion, some scholars have felt free to pen harsh critiques of Soka Gakkai—critiques in which the goal of promoting understanding has been eclipsed by efforts to delegitimate Soka Gakkai by portraying it as deluded, wrong, and/or socially dangerous. This body of ‘scholarship’ presents a useful case study for the paradigmatic manner in which it exemplifies inappropriate approaches to the study of religious bodies.

As a literary foil Lewis feels no need to support it by providing citations. He claims no field trip to research public perception in Japan about the Soka Gakkai nor provides any link to Japanese sources. This is simply “his perception about public perception” of the Soka Gakkai which moves him toward this thesis about legitimating the Soka Gakkai. He thus does not uses the perspectives of the sociologist, political scientist, or anthropologist to support the quote in question. He doesn’t care because his goal is not to examine public perception but drop a casual statement to make his larger case for legitimating new religions.

Anyone familiar with Lewis’ work knows that he is one of the foremost scholars of the 'anti-anti-cult' movement, a scholar who rejects claims of brainwashing. This can be plainly seen from the book’s title, “Legitimating New Religions.” Throughout the book he explains that the scientific basis of brainwashing cult has lost its standing APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control.

Therefore the presence of a claim of “brainwashing cult” in a lede is so serious and emotionally-charged that it merits the highest level of scholarship to substantiate, not Lewis’ mere casual mention as a literary foil.

I realize the rules on this board don't specifically require this, but this filing isn't written in a neutral manner.

It sounds like this is more of an NPOV issue than an RS issue, but here's my $0.02: The author, James R. Lewis, won the Choice award for a previous book. He has been praised for being balanced and criticized for being biased. Sources on Wikipedia don't have to be unbiased, only the final Wikipedia articles do. The statement from the book, that Soka Gakkai "grapples with the stereotype" allows that the stereotype may not be accurate. While calling Soks Gakkai a cult in Wikipedia's own voice might be biased, saying, "[Other organizations] have stereotyped Soka Gakkai as a cult" is a fact. If need be, specify which organizations. If you don't think the tenses match, then by all means match them or say "One [year of publication] book said that..." If you feel that Lewis is biased, then acknowledge it, "According to James R. Lewis, who has been characterized as anti-anti-cult in such-and-such newspaper..."

If Lewis's book also has material stating that the stereotype is false, then by all means, choose some quotes and balance the article. Whoever added the Lewis book in the first place can hardly claim that you're using an inappropriate source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Darkfrog24. I will incorporate your suggestions in my work. I am wondering whether you can ring in on my very first point above. There is consensus among all editors that the Soka Gakkai article is about the organization in Japan, not its sister organizations throughout the world (Soka Gakkai International). On the matter of the public's perception of the Soka Gakkai, one editor is insisting on including the Lewis source based upon the sentence "Soka Gakkai also spread to the United States and Europe, where it aroused controversy as a result of its intense proselytizing activities. Although it was never as controversial as groups like the Hare Krishna Movement or the Unification Church, Sokka Gakkai—which in the United States went under the name Nichiren Shoshu of America after Soka Gakkai broke with Nichiren Shoshu—was not unfrequently strereotyped as a brainwashing cult, particularly by anti-cult authors."

IMHO this quote refers to the SGI in American and Europe. There is not the vaguest reference to Japanese perception of this movement. As I posted yesterday, this indicates that this particular source should not be the singular basis for the comment that the Soka Gakkai grapples with a stereotype of being a "brainwashing cult." It is the harshest of conclusions to be drawn from the weakest of evidence.

Thank you, FetullahFan (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So you feel that "SG grapples with the stereotype of being a brainwashing cult" implies, incorrectly, that it grapples with this stereotype worldwide when it actually grapples with this stereotype solely and specifically in the U.S. and Europe? If that is what the sources bear out, then you'd be right to change the sentence to, "In the U.S. and Europe, S.G. grapples with the stereotype of being a brainwashing cult." However, if stereotyping is a problem for SG elsewhere, even if this specific source does not happen to talk about it, leave the sentence as it is. To get your fellow participants to go along with this, phrase it as something like, "Just to be extra safe" or something.

That's my $0.02. If anyone objects, I recommend pursuing this further at the OR or NPOV noticeboards, but I would recommend that everyone work out a consensus text together before filing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Darkfrog24. Yes, you pretty much restated the problem correctly. The article is supposed to be--by common consensus--about this movement in Japan. The cited source is not about Japan but there are other sources out there that probably could support this POV. I will try tinkering to get a consensus. FetullahFan (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of two sources on Israel-Palestine

Pinging Darkness Shines. There is already an RfC going on for this, but this is a narrower question. There are two sources being used on the Gaza flotilla raid page, for this paragraph.

It was later found that the Mavi Marmara carried no humanitarian supplies, and that elements within the Turkish government had paid 50 mercenaries to take part, and that seven of those who had died in the raid had expressed to their families a desire to have a "martyr`s death".

References

The first source is by a medicine professor and the second is by a philosophy professor. As far as I can see (discussion) they are simply repeating IDF claims for the first two claims and either Palwatch or ITIC for the last claim. Should these claims be attributed to the original sources rather than "laundered" through neutral-sounding secondary sources? Kingsindian (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Does WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT help in this case? Yes, it's generally best to go to the source, but if the other editors had access to these sources but not IDF documents, then it is actually preferred that they cite these sources while acknowledging that they are quoting the IDF.

Please note that there is a difference between "repeating" and "saying the same thing as." If these authors explicitly state that they got the figures from IDF, then yes a direct IDF is preferred. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

We accept that authors of reliable secondary sources are able to consult all kinds of sources and make a judgment about facts, and their writings undergo degrees of fact-checking before publication and errors are not removed are corrected subsequently. So unless the author has specifically mentioned a source in-line (for example, by writing, "According to IDF...") then we must accept their facts and not question their validity by saying "According to..." We do not say for example that according to Dr. X, Apollo 11 landed on the moon, because it would create doubt in the reader's mind that it had actually landed. (Here btw is a link to p. 79 of the Rowan & Littlefield book.)

I would not cite the IDF, even if you had the original source, because it is not reliable or as reliable for facts so you would have to mention them in-line, which would detract from the claim's credibility. But authors of reliable sources have the judgment to determine what statements by IDF are reliable, while we do not.

If you question the accuracy of the facts, you find other rs that provide a different account, then discuss how to present it. Or, you could say that no other writers mention it, so weight excludes its inclusion.

TFD (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the problem. Let's leave aside the first point for now. The citation for the 2nd point is a Jerusalem Post article, which makes it clear that the claim is by the IDF, but the attribution does not appear in the actual text of the book itself. The source for the third seems to be Palwatch, again repeated as straight fact. I do not dispute that the IDF said A or B, but considering that neither author is any kind of expert on the topic, they are simply repeating the claims at face value. Kingsindian (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter to us what a writer's qualifications are if they are asked to write a chapter for an academic book. The publishers and editors are persuaded that they know what they are talking about, and these articles are reviewed before publication. There's no proviso saying "Warning, Dr. X is not qualified to write about the subject and the facts reported in his paper are not reliable." Obviously the writer is confident of the accuracy of the original report and that is all that we require. Otherwise we would have to qualify pretty much everything in every article, which would make them unreadable. If readers want to do their own research of course they can follow the sources we provide and trace them back to the original source. TFD (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a strange doctrine. Perhaps this goes to the WP:WEIGHT of the source rather the reliability? If one looks at the footnotes cited in the first source, it is almost exclusively based on Israeli military, intelligence, press and govt. sources, all stated as bald facts. If this is OK, there is something quite troubling here. Kingsindian (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(I have pinged Zero0000 who has some experience with these matters. Hopefully he can illuminate the issue a bit.) Kingsindian (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt, find better sources. Obviously these two guys are not experts and are using a very prejudicial source. Find a couple that have a better perspective. If they can place the IDF claims in proper perspective, even better. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this subject area is that there is so much stuff written that one can find secondary sources for almost any claim. A corollary is that searching with the keywords one wants to appear in the source has a good chance of finding a source with those keywords. Moreover, claims made by a protagonist, no matter how unsubstantiated, are always repeated as fact without checking by the cheer squad of that protagonist. Including academic members of the cheer squad, alas. It means that there is a thick layer of polemic secondary literature that serves to launder the dirty linen that comes from this or that propaganda department. Biased editors know this very well and make use of it to slant articles towards their viewpoint while technically remaining within the rules (I'm not fingering any particular person here). The only help provided by policy is that one can "balance" one bit of laundered dross with an opposite bit of laundered dross. My personal approach is to set the source quality standard so high that only the very best sources pass: the protagonists themselves, who can be cited as such, and the academic subject experts. I would not pass either of the two sources mentioned here since the authors have no apparent professional expertise in the subject. Anyone who cites racist web cites like Palwatch uncritically should be struck off the list of reliable sources immediately. Zero^talk 01:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" says, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." These are the books that are taught in universities and cited by future historians. Publishers, editors, reviewers and writers put their professional reputations on the line. Whether the facts are accurate is totally independent of the views of the writers - this is not the echo chamber. Drawing a Line in the Sea: The Gaza Flotilla Incident and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2011) is published by Lexington Books, an academic imprint of Rowan & Littlefield. It does not seem to be cherry-picking since the book is about the conflict. TFD (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Genetics: Are these 3 sources reliable?

Cany I use these sources at Wikipedia in genetic parts?

• I. A. Zhakarov, "Central Asian origin of ancestors of the first Americans." 2003. pp. 139-144. In: Zhamilya kova, Assel Berdigulova: Ornament as a Universal Language of Peace (Basee on Comparative Analysis of Cultures of proto-Turkic Peoples and Indian Tribes of North America)." In: World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. Vol. 6. Okt. 2012. pp.7-9.
• A. F. Nazarova, "Biological, archeological and cultural evidence of Paleo-Asiatic origin of northern Mongoloid, Caucasoid and American Indians", Academy Trinitarizm, Moscow, No. 77-6567, publ.14446, 2007.
• V.V. Pitulko, P.A Nikolsky, E.Yu. Girya, A.E. Basilyan, V.E. Tumskoy, S.A. Koulakov, S.N. Astakhov, E.Yu. Pavlova, and M.A. Anisimov, "The Yana RHS Site: Humans in the Arctic Before the Last Glacial Maximum", Science, 2 January 2004, Vol. 303, #5654, pp. 52-56.

--82.113.99.169 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Science is the second most reputable scientific publication in the world. That's a definite RS on your third.

The other two look all right to me. However, I've never heard of them before. There are publish-for-pay "journals" out there that deliberately mimic the look and feel of journals with true reputations. It shouldn't be too hard to check. The key would be whether and how often they're cited in other journals. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please remember to follow the instructions that appear whenever you add or edit a section on this noticeboard. There are three parts which should appear in any request: 1) the identity of the source; 2) the article where you wish to use it; and 3) the exact statements or content you wish to add to the Wikipedia article. You've nailed part 1, you've given a vague wave at part 2, and you've completely omitted part 3.

No source is absolutely, inherently, or intrinsically "reliable" or "unreliable"; the reliability of a source depends on the way in which one intends to use it. Could you give examples of the articles where you would like to use these sources, and the specific text you would like to support with them? Please also provide any information about prior talk page discussions, if you are aware of any, relating to these sources or their usage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Further, I've just quickly skimmed the Science paper. It doesn't seem to directly address any specific points regarding genetics, so I'm now quite baffled as to how you would intend to use it in a genetics article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

One is only in Russian, I don't see how the general editor could sign off on it by looks alone. The "Boldykova" paper is written by a pre-PhD student of art who is making a connection between people of 10,000 years ago on the basis that their current descendants both like "geometric patterns". This doesn't look that promising.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The art student one has nothing to do with genetics and shouldn't be used for any "genetics" material; it's speculation about ornamentation in art.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to provide the information TenOfAllTrades, otherwise it becomes a free-wheeling discussion. Also, are you using them as primary or secondary sources or sources for facts or opinions? TFD (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(TenOfAllTrades already asked this of the editor who first posted.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku, other gaming news sites

Due to recent controversies (GamerGate look it up), it is felt that all gaming press websites should no longer be considered WP:RS Reasons:Proof (non RS) If you think the source is not reliable enough, the reliable sources usually used are biased. Retartist (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A Google search yields only a company called GamersGate. You might want to be more specific.

If you're referring to the event in which one journalist allegedly slept with his subordinate and then she falsified a review or whatever it was, then no I don't think that two people's conduct, regardless of the truth or falsehood of the events, justifies the automatic rejection of an entire class of sources. If you are suggesting that gaming press websites be reevaluted on their own merits, then please list your specific reasons. If the falsification of reviews is a systemic problem in gamer press websites, then that would be another matter. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

What this is is evidence of a systematic problem in gamer press websites where they break journalism ethics (accepting money, close relations with subjects etc.) and also suppress criticism. They also harass and insult people who have differing opinions who in this case seems to be their usual audience. summary of what is going on with links

Forbes.com blogs

This is just a cautionary note for the record. I noticed two articles on unrelated subjects, including one on a prominent person, in which Forbes.com blogs by non-journalist non-staffers were used as sourcing for significant and in one case controversial facts. This needs to be stop, as I believe in the vast majority of cases such blogs do not meet the standards set by WP:V. They are self-published, and explicitly are not Forbes articles, and each contains a disclaimer saying that they do not state the views of Forbes. In one case a self-published Forbes blog allegedly showing the "top five" web services in a particular area was used as the basis for an article's notability. Editors should be mindful of this article on the Poynter website in May 2012 which states: "There is no traditional editing of contributors’ copy, at least not prior to publishing. If a story gets hot or makes the homepage, a producer will 'check it more carefully,' [chief of Forbes content] DVorkin said." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't sound much different to how op-eds are handled in traditional media, and we consider them reliable at least for RS:OPINION. DVorkin article shows that there *is* an editorial process in place, albeit a different one; I wouldn't dismiss it merely for their novel process if they comply with the rest of WP:NEWSORG. I would be wary to use such Forbes articles for statements of fact, but articles from paid contributors are useful for establishing notability and writing Reception sections per WP:PROFESSIONAL, as the contributors do it for a living (-some- Forbes contributors are paid), they are vetted by Forbes staff when first accepted as contributors, and they put their reputation in line (this was also discussed by DVorkin as the reason why they allow this product under the Forbes brand). I would thus assess reliability for each contributor, instead of dismissing them as a whole. Diego (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This has been covered many times at this point. Most of the contributors aren't paid. They don't fully comply with WP:NEWSORG. It's a Huffington Post style model of soliciting user-generated content with a small amount of vetting up-front, but nowhere near what is required of a standard newsorg practice. CNN iReport also lets stuff fly under the CNN brand, but it's not a proof of reliability. I agree that some contributors may be considered as reliable on their own merit, but having a Forbes blog is not a positive indicator of reliability by itself (there are actual regular paid staff contributions, but they're marked to distinguish them from this "Forbes contributor" model).__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Eloqueate. According to the article, they have 1,000 bloggers! In no way can this be compared to a newspaper op-ed, as newspaper op-eds are subject to editorial controls and editing. These are self-published blogs and should be dealt with under WP:SELFPUB, no more and no less. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

We've had the issue come up with video game sources, and there we identified the bloggers that have had past reputations for being good reliable sources in the past and/or recognized by reliable sources in that area, and continue to use those, but ignore others without similar established creditionals. Eg following the SELFPUB model. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Masem. I was going to ask where those discussions took place, but I see now that they can be found from the WikiProject Video games situational sources table. Diego (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. What concerns me is these blog items being confused with genuine Forbes articles. That's a potential issue in Wiki entries on web services and other issues in which self-appointed "experts" blog about the "best" or otherwise praise specific products/services. Editors seem prone to citing that as "cited by Forbes as one of the ten best" when it is not. They don't recognize that these are self-published. As long as they do it's fine, but the "Forbes" designation is meaningless. It's much like Seeking Alpha. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Are Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity sources independent of the Lucy Burns Institute?

1. Source. Palmer, Kevin (2-1-2013). "Local Ballot Initiatives: Learn How To Promote Democracy In Your Community". Watchdog Wire. Retrieved 11 August 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Article. Lucy Burns Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3. Content. "LBI published a guide called Local Ballot Initiatives: How Citizens Change Laws with Clipboards, Conversations, and Campaigns, in November 2012. The booklet provides an overview of how individual citizens can use the initiative process at the local level."

The talk page debate was about whether the source has a conflict of interest and should therefore be treated as questionable. To aid in this discussion, consider the following evidence gathered at the article talk page. It is also worth mentioning that the source uses strongly promotional language. Just read the last 2-3 paragraphs. IMO this source is more or less a press release masquerading as legitimate journalism. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Evidence that Watchdog.org is closely affiliated with LBI

click "show" to view evidence ---->

Watchdog.org and LBI were launched by a husband-wife team Watchdog.org is a project of the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity The Franklin Center was launched with seed money from the Sam Adams Alliance Sam Adams' chairman and CEO was Eric O'Keefe LBI's president and founder is Leslie Graves Graves and O'Keefe are married Watchdog.org and LBI have shared key personnel Control of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia switched from husband's Sam Adams to wife's LBI in 2009 Before the change in control Jason Stverak was the Regional Field Director of the Sam Adams Alliance Also in 2009 Stverak became president of the Franklin Center (which runs Watchdog.org) Stverak is also the president of Watchdog.org Watchdog.org and LBI have shared common funding Control of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia switched from husband's Sam Adams to wife's LBI in 2009 The Franklin Center was launched with seed money from husband's Sam Adams in 2009 Also in 2009, the Franklin Center paid LBI $43,413 Watchdog.org is a project of the Franklin Center Husband's Sam Adams also funded wife's LBI References

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

If you wish to make specific claims in articles, find sources making those precise claims, and seek consensus on the appropriate article talk pages for inclusion of such claims. This board is not the place to set forth an extended argument about any topic. Individual articles already include appropriate (apparently) information about any connections with other organizations. From here, it is clear that the publications of each group are independent, and that your apparent cavil would require specific agreement on article talk pages and not here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I do not "wish to make specific claims in articles" as you suggest. Rather, I'm seeking to establish the unreliability of a specific source listed at the top of my original post. This issue has been discussed at length on the article talk page and no consensus has been reached. RSN would therefore be the appropriate place to go to resolve the dispute, no? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And you will not find this board issuing an "unreliable" label for any organization - especially one routinely cited in major media. [42] states the employment of statehouse journalists by the center. It is regularly cited in the Opinion pages of the NYT. More to the point, this is the first time anyone has questioned it as RS here.

I see no reason to deem LBI as less than RS for material written by identified authors. The theory of "conflict of interest" is interesting but invalid here.

Watchdog Wire is much like "Media Matters for America" - better as a source for its own opinion than for matters of contentious fact. Saying someone published a pamphlet is not exactly a "contentious claim" IMHO.

"Ballotpedia" is a different matter. It is used in many places, but due to its intrinsic nature, I would not use it as a source for any contentious facts about a living person. It is a wiki, and no wikis are "reliable sources."

WP:RS states among non-RS groups: This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.

So the reliability has naught to do with anything about parentage of a site, but the nature of the site. Material which is generated by outside users fails, material which is provided by staff of a site may well be RS. All the stuff about sites being connected in some way is actually irrelevant on this noticeboard with regard to deeming a site RS or not RS for a particular claim. Is this expansion clearer?

Checking online sources, I would wager a great deal that the pamphlet exists and was, indeed, published by the LBI. If you consider that particular claim "contentious" I fear I would demur. Collect (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you read WP:QS? The conflict of interest issue isn't my "theory," it's actually WP policy. (Even the most otherwise reliable sources have conflicts of interest.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Um -- are you asserting that the claim that the organization published a pamphlet is "contentious"? If not, then WP:QS simply does not apply. Are you asserting that the claim is "extremist" in some way? If not, then your cavil fails. Are you positing that the source is "gossip or rumour"? What "conflict of interest" is there in a statement of fact that an organization published a pamphlet? None. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

How is any of this relevant? Per WP:V, questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, and WP:3PARTY#Conflicts of interest suggests that the conflict should be disclosed in our article. Regardless, if the content is both non-contentious and noteworthy then there should be independent sources supporting it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The source is Reliable for the (unimaginably bland) factual content presented above. The supposed conflict of interest, isn't. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't what? A conflict of interest? Why not?--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No conflict of interest has been established with the supposed evidence above. The theory of COI proposed does not, in fact, match WP policy even if broadly stretched past its ordinary understanding. The evidence of "shared staff" failed verification. The conflict of interest isn't. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Most importantly the source is certainly and painfully obviously RS for the specific content under discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO your comments are uncivil and inflammatory and completely ignore what the WP:QS policy actually says. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the line you took as uncivil. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is apparently little disagreement that the actual (modest) content is fine. The discussion is revolving around a meta-narrative or greater idea related to conflict of interest. Is this "SELF PUBLISHED" because of a conflict of interest between spouses. One spouse runs an organization. The other spouse runs an organization which once gave a grant to a third organization that employs a journalist which has written an anodyne piece about the first organization. Is there a conflict of interest that rises to the level of "Self Published" under our policies? Having closely read the policies (and footnotes), I think no. Others may disagree. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is a partisan advocacy group, and thus should be used sparingly, if at all, as a source for factual material. Its products may be appropriate if used under the constraints of WP:RSOPINION, to illustrate their ideological take on a subject. MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No. It is not an advocacy group. It advocates no policies, it lobbies for no legislation, it runs no rallies, it has no conventions or policy meetings, it produces no policy white papers. It is a non-profit journalism organization with a focus on statehouse reporting. It is explicitly non-partisan. It is, no doubt, conservative. That doesn't make it an unreliable source or an advocacy group. From their mission statement: "We conform to the Society of Professional Journalists standards, follow AP style and are not partisan or political " Capitalismojo (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

MastCell, this is surely a biased source but not an opinion one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, I'm not saying this is an ABOUTSELF source, I'm saying it's a WP:QUESTIONABLE one (same policy, different section) due to the pretty blatant undisclosed conflict of interest. This easily falls under the policy language of WP:QS and the footnote there about what constitutes a COI. (Read the quote from the NY Times about spousal COIs in particular.) And WP:QS applies regardless of the "controversial-ness" of the content. We shouldn't condone this kind of unethical/quasi journalistic behavior. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue then. From a close reading of the research above: The author does not work for the Lucy Burns Institute or the woman who runs it. He is apparently a professional journalist working for an project entity of a non-profit that is not run by the spouse of Lucy Burns Institute. The spouse's connection is apparently that the non-profit organization he (formerly) headed (one that no longer exists) gave a grant of less than $50,000 to the parent organization of the author's entity five years ago. While that grant may or may not have been important five years ago, I see that as tenuous as far as conflict of interest/COI is concerned. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the relationship among the organizations. The $43,413 that the Franklin Center gave LBI was only a small part of it. Before that, the husband, through the Sam Adams Institute, launched the Franklin Center with a much bigger seed grant of an undisclosed amount. So, the author of this source wrote about an organization run by the wife of an individual who was responsible for creating the author's employer. Not surprisingly, the language is pretty plainly promotional. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Insert There is nothing in the evidence above or elsewhere that suggests that there was ever any larger grant beyond the initial $43,000. No sources talk about undisclosed amounts. Given the requirements of 990 reporting, it is expected that the seed grant was just that. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

As it turns out, the author of the source, Kevin Palmer, is not a professional journalist, but is instead on the Franklin Center's public affairs team and is responsible for writing op-eds and press releases. (None of this is apparent from the source article itself, which calls Palmer a "staff writer." An article in the Columbia Journalism Review criticizes the Franklin Center and Palmer's lack of transparency.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And here's an instance of Mr. Palmer (the source's author) explicitly promoting an LBI event to "learn to use LBI’s tools." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

NBC is not independent from GE, that does not mean it is not rs. It does mean we need to address whether its reporting on GE is independent of GE and we have determined it is. So I fail to see the point of this talk thread discussion. TFD (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this discussion is exactly what you suggest, to determine whether Franklin Center projects such as Watchdog Wire (the publisher of the source) are independent of LBI. As WP:V indicates, a source with a conflict of interest is generally considered questionable and is only reliable for use as a source of material on itself in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And it seems clear that the claim of conflict of interest has failed verification. The husband is not the writer. The husband is not an employee, officer, or board member of the publishing organization. The husband once ran an organization (now defunct) that once (2009) gave a grant to the organization. So what? The claim of conflict of interest does not meet any reasonable standard. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The husband provided the seed money to launch the writer's employer. That's a COI all by itself even without the additional connections. An apparent COI (the standard imposed by WP:V) exists whenever someone would be justified in thinking the author's loyalty is likely to be divided. That can't be boiled down into a short list of checkboxes. Not this particular kind of COI, not that particular kind of COI, check, there must not be a COI. That's just not how it works. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A small one-time grant from one non-profit to another five years ago (seed money or not) hardly qualifies as a COI. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Where do you get "small?" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I would question the definition of 'small'; Swift Boats Vets for Justice started with less than $20k, and they were monsters. I find the interconnectedness of the sources and recipients of their reporting disturbing, to say the least. While - as TheFourDeuces points out - NBC and GE are connected, NBC always notes that when reporting on issues regarding its affiliates/corporate partners. I am not seeing that here, and the failure to list that relationship adds to my concern. Add to that the fact that Columbia Journalism Review criticizes them for their lack of transparency, and you end up with a maze of co-congratulatory and reciprocal support. We are being gaslighted, as prior attempts to subject the wiki have indicated a growing sophistication and complexity of these astroturfing legitimacy exercises. Its' best to simply walk away from them. This isn't a case of Imdb being a user-created source (though Watchdog is precisely that); imdb isn't slanting any given part of a movie. Another source would seem to be in order. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Help with an article?

Hey, can anyone poke their head into Talk:ContentBridge and help me with looking over the sources proposed by an editor? They've posted some links to places that don't appear to be usable as RS and one only mentions the company very briefly in relation to something else. There are some RS policies thrown around, but I believe that they're misquoting them. I've tried to help explain stuff, only to be told that I am misunderstanding policy, so I have a feeling that any further explanation from me will be met with the idea that it's only me that has an issue with the sources. Anyone want to help out? I'd like to keep the article, if possible but I'd like some help with explaining trivial sources and the like. I'm just concerned since most of the links are to articles that look like they're lifted directly from press releases (Home Media Magazine) or bloggish-feeling sources (Advanced Television, which also looks to be taken from a press release), trivial mentions (Variety), and in places that just feel a little skeevy as far as RS goes (MESA). The last one feels like it'd be primary at best, since it's posted by an organization that is set up to promote businesses like ContentBridge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• So far I'm leaning towards nominating it for AfD myself. I did find this source, which was written by SPIE, but mostly what I'm finding are brief mentions and articles in trade papers that read suspiciously like press releases. There just doesn't seem to really be a lot of coverage out there. I don't want to be the Debbie Downer that nominates the article, but I have a feeling that I probably will have to be that person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yep, MESA is primary since ContentBridge is a member of the alliance. I'm also in the process of opening an AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Is wordspy.com RS for identifying language as Fedspeak?

This page[43] from Paul McFedries website Wordspy is being used as a source to identify language as Fedspeak. Shouldn't we be using secondary sources rather than this tertiary source? Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

"333 Årsboken", assembled by a Scanian foundation in Sweden

Source "333 Årsboken", 15 different authors from the most part of the 20th Century, assembled and published by "Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid" or "SSF" (a litterar translation for these three words are "the foundation, Scanian, future"), published in 1991, Swedish ISBN 91-7586-384-7. List of authors:

• Lars Larson
• Carl Liljenberg
• Stig Larsén & Ingvar Rydzén
• Uno Röndahl
• K. Arne Blom
• Berndt David Assarsson
• Helmer Lång
• Wilhelm Moberg
• Werner Persson
• Peter Broberg
• Arne Källsbo
• Göran Hansson
• Johs. Christensen
• Victor Andreasen
• Richard Willerslev

Most of the authors has no involvement in SSF, some of them were dead long before this foundation even was started. Most of them are/were Swedish citizens, but some contributers are Danish.

It was published 333 years after the Treaty of Roskilde 1658, in which the Swedish Crown took over the three Danish provinces Scania, Halland and Blekinge aswll as Bornholm island. (Several wars followed and the Danish armies was then supported by Scanians. Some enlisted for the Danish Army, while others , especially in the areas around the former Danish-Swedish border acted alone. They were labeled Snapphanar by the Swedes) While Bornholm returned to Denmark in Treaty of Copenhagen 1660, the three provinces were included in Sweden in 1719 and the last peace treaty between Sweden and Denmark was signed in Stockholm 3rd July 1720 it's sometimes labeled as the Third peace treaty of Stockholm.

The different topics of the book cover Scania, Scanian history, the enforced re-nationalisation of the provinces , known as the Swedification. Danish-Scanian relationships, Swedish-Scanian relationships, Swedish-Danish relationships, both as of 1991 as of times before. The Danish era, the wars, and the Swedish era. Some authors believes in a stronger regionalisation of Sweden, which is a rather centralised nation, and where Stockholm is "the natural core". Many of the authors describe historical events, like Uno Röndahl who contributes with "The bloodbath at Klågerup" in 1811, the last recorded military assult on the Scanian civil population. While f.i. Helmer Lång discusses the Scanian dialect. Primary - The official Swedish interpretation of Scanian history, as "natural borders", "Scania was lucky to became a part of Sweden rather than of Denmark" is challanged, from several perspectives and different times of history. Wilhelm Moberg shows how the history of Scania has been falsified.

Problem is that Peter find this book automatically "inappropriate" also in Wikipedia's Global perspective. And his reason for this is "the publishing SSF are political extremists. However this foundation isn't political. It's not a political party nor a movement, to me it seems most closesly related to a Gentleman's club, unrelated to left or right on the usual political scale. And besides - they have not written its contence. I can only give one concrete example of Peter's criticism, the mentioned article about "Klågerup's Bloodbath", here the author (Uno Röndahl) refers to official Swedish archives, regarding the number of killed civilians and later the public amputations (of right hand) followed by beheading, of convicted rebels at a square in Malmö.

Info about the assembly and publishing "Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid" or "SSF" and some history of Scania is available in English at

www.scania.org

The SSF foundation surelly cannot compare at the slightest of extremistic organisations or movements. The foundations primary aim seems to be enlightenment of Scanian history, and Scanian dialect.

I realise that the book, when and if, used as source, must be in line with the Wikipedia article topic and common criteria. But this request deals with Peter general ban of this book and his mentioned reasons why.

Possible articles where some of the book's articles and authors can be used - Scania, Skåneland, Scandinavia-history, Sweden-history, Denmark-history, Swedish language, Scanian dialect etc. Boeing720 (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I have never referred to SSF as "political extremists". Those are Boeing's words, not mine.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Not during our debates the last week, but around a year ago or so.Boeing720 (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Lemme know when you have the diff to prove it.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

San Diego Rostra

I am writing regarding a BLP article about Nick Popaditch. I am asking others to look at this source and see if it appears to be a reliable source:

• POPADITCH LEAVING SAN DIEGO TO JOIN TEACH FOR AMERICA CORPS

Thanks in advance for taking a moment to look at this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not an RS; it's a collective blog with no editorial oversight (other than a restriction on acceptable handles[44]). Sources like that can however be good as gateways to other sources; your link references a post, apparently by Popaditch himself, on his Facebook page. But when I log on I can't find it. I'd guess that his Facebook page qualifies an RS as long as it's clearly his, but am not sure; if it is RS you might find something useful there. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Badassdigest.com

Would this source from badassdigest.com, written by Devin Faraci, be a reliable source? The site and author are cited all over Wikipedia, but I don't see there's been any real discussion of its reliability before. Faraci seems to be a fairly ubiquitous critic and is cited with some frequency in books about film and pop culture.[45] The site doesn't seem to be a personal webpage. It would be used to cite something along the lines of "Rise of the Planet of the Apes has been variously called a reboot of the Planet of the Apes series, a loose remake of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, and a prequel to the original Planet of the Apes film."--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)