Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 185

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

In the article for Juliano_Mer-Khamis, several bold claims are made about incidents in the subject's life. The claims come from an article by Adam Shatz printed in the London Review of Books. The LRB is not a news source, it publishes essays and reviews. The fact-checking for an essay is not the same as a newspaper. The claims that I have attempted to delete from the article (myself and two other editors have been discussing the issue on the talk page) include the idea that Mer-Khamis, while a soldier in the Israeli Defense Force, was conducting target practice with a bazooka using a donkey that had a little girl on it. There are plenty of sources for the IDF being cruel, but this doesn't seem like a realistic claim.

I looked for other sources to back up this and other claims from the Adam Shatz obituary, and I've found none. There is no record of Mer-Khamis ever mentioning this incident. There is no other source, including obituaries from Al-Jazeera, the Economist, and Haaretz, that mention the shocking and damning incident. Only Adam Shatz has made this claim about the life of a dead man in an essay/obituary.

Am I wrong to say that the obituary is not a strong enough source for this type of claim?— Preceding unsigned comment added by CSWP1 (talk • contribs) 02:19, February 18, 2015‎

It was in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 2007.[2] --GRuban (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that "[he] was conducting target practice" is not quite the way it was put in the article. The other solders were, and the implication was that he didn't approve. Anyway, the LRB does do fact checking. Here is a source on that, about another controversial story. Shatz himself is a reputable writer who has written for top-flight publications, so I think he qualifies as a reliable source. Whether it belongs in the article or not (due weight) is another question. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not confident enough in the reliability of this source for such a bold and contentious claim about a BLP. It smells fishy, though I can't tell where the stench is coming from. It has a "Foreign Policy Committee" filled with politicians and the its self description is exceedingly complicated. It states that it covers stories that nobody else does (a common statement in POV pushing publications). Their About Us reads like the kind of thing you see from political front groups.

The London Review of Books appears to rely heavily on "contributors"[3], which is almost never reliable as they are basically crowd-sourced. However, he use to work for The New Yorker and I am not sure if a person that worked for a reliable publication once is therefore reliable at other publications that are less reliable. I would lean towards it being reliable for most things, but not such a bold claim as accidentally killing a girl with a bazooka. CorporateM (Talk) 00:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a note, it's not a BLP. nableezy - 17:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is a description of the LRB for librarians. Under editorial process, it says that "All articles are closely edited and rigorously fact-checked by a team of professional editors led by Mary-Kay Wilmers, who has been an editor at the magazine since it was founded in 1979." The "contributors" are "many of the leading writers and intellectuals of the modern age." This is true. It's probably the leading intellectual publication in the UK, so I wouldn't describe it as crowd sourced. Shatz is a freelance journalist with an excellent reputation, but if we are still not satisfied with the LRB's fact checking we can attribute it to him instead of stating it as a fact. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why this is not reliable. The information may be startling, which is I guess why the author chose to include it in the obituary and sifted out all the occasions on which Mr Mer-Khamis ate a sandwich. But it doesn't seem implausible and, absent anything to suggest it isn't true, there's no particular reason to exclude it from Wikipedia. Formerip (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem implausible to you that a military unit would conduct target practice with a bazooka using a donkey that had a little girl on it as a target? Really? Can you name a single instance, reported by reliable sources of something like this happening? In any military? I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk)

Bold claims require bold proof. If the events Shatz wrote about (again, in an obituary, not a news article) actually happened, there should be other sources. But there aren't. In fact, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has Mer-Khamis himself telling a different version of the story. His version is much more believable. For example, he says that the donkey was hit accidentally, while Shatz claims the unit was aiming for the donkey (that had a little girl on it). I think the more believable story is the one the man told himself, not the one from the obituary.

In fact, now that a more direct source has contradicted Shatz's article, it calls the whole obituary into question. Although LRB is normally a reliable source, each citation in Wikipedia must be independently evaluated. An emotional obituary with at least one known error is not strong enough for its assertions to be repeated in a factual, encyclopedic voice. CSWP1 (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem implausible to you that a military unit would conduct target practice with a bazooka using a donkey that had a little girl on it as a target? Really? Can you name a single instance, reported by reliable sources of something like this happening? In any military? I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

My, or your, subjective opinion is not really relevant here; that is why wikipedia relies on reliable sources such as LRB. But for what it is worth, IMO errors and cover-ups by military units are neither that rare to raise

WP:REDFLAG concerns, nor so common to be be passe and not worth noting. Abecedare (talk

) 01:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but we are not discussing errors nor coverups - the LRB claims this military unit was conducting target practice for a shoulder-launched missile, using a donkey with a little girl riding it. See

WP:REDFLAG for why such an implausible claim needs much stronger references. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk

) 22:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There is not a shadow of doubt that both Schatz and the LRB are extremely good sources. There is nothing unusual in the report, which we have in two versions. Children are deliberately shot by IDF soldiers quite often (

Khalil al-Mughrabi): there are even statistical analyses of head/heart shots that show a remarkable incidence of accurate fire, killing on average a child a week during the second intifada, take as one example of the latter this. There is a slight variation in two sources, so one simply gives both versions, Schatz's and WMREA's. Neither should be pushed as 'the truth'. That is a very simple prose exercise, gentlemen.Nishidani (talk

) 22:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither of your examples are remotely similar to a case of a unit conducting target practice with an anti-tank weapon on live persons. The only thing we can state, based on the two sources, is that Mer-Khemis says this fantastic incident happened. But unless multiple reliable sources can attest to this actually happening, it can't be stated in the article as fact. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk)

'Fantastic'. Do you ever read the news? 'Neither' refers to two distinct items. I referred to 4 sources. That is dumb grammar. Your objections are silly. You are saying nothing can be referred to on Wikipedia unless (a) an identical incident is attested to show such things can happen and (b) there are multiple sources for the incident. IDF targeting of Palestinian children has been widespread, everyone knows that. It has a considerable academic literature. That you think something odd about a soldier's memory of shooting a donkey for target-practice and, accidently, killing a child on it is suspect, shows unfamiliarity with that weird universe that is the I/P killing fields. Killing donkey drays by firing missiles at with people on board is not rare in the I/P conflict, and it is reported that on occasion suicide bombers have approached Israeli positions on a donkey loaded with explosives: while occupying Lebanon the IDF put out a military order forbidding farmers from riding donkeys, after one such incident, so there is a military rationale. In the latest war, Israel systematically targeted all of Gaza's poultry and livestock farms. Anyone recall what happened to all the exotic animals in the Rafah zoo when the IDF smashed it? You can see the aftermath on youtube.Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

On the Falun Gong page, a user keeps reinserting propaganda website [[4]] as a cover for deleting edits from voices who have said that there's no evidence of organ harvesting of FLG members. I've been arguing that the site is not reliable for any matter other than the opinion of the (potentially notable) participants. I seek further input though rather than engaging in editwarring. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Simonm223, that link doesn't work. I think the site you mean is organharvestinvestigation.net (Matas and Kilgour). As to reliability, this is beyond what we can decide on this noticeboard. We have an article on that report – Kilgour–Matas report. If anyone has evidence for reliability (or the reverse), it should be discussed in that article. And then the corresponding section in the Falun Gong article should be based on the report article. My own impression of the corresponding section is that it is too long. Since we have an article about it, it should be possible to write a shorter summary. If necessary, the summary should mention both sides of the reliability question. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

David Kilgour, David Matas and Ethan Gutmann are the 3 key investigators of organ harvesting in China. Its common for transplant professionals and others to refer to the Kilgour–Matas report. On the US National Library of Medicine site there are 4 articles that reference or mention it.

On annual Congressional-Executive Commission on China reports, its mentioned or referenced - 2006 report 3 times, 2007 report twice, 2009 report twice, and 2012 report once.

The Government of China's 2 rebuttals of the report are listed on the Kilgour–Matas report, Falun Gong and other wiki articles with organ harvesting info. Aaabbb11 (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine, you know what, let the editwarrior have the Falun Gong page. Because I'm tired of this conflict. And it never ends. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Most of the material on the

I think the blog itself is just an aggregation, and can/should be left out of the loop for purposes of the article. That is, the blog itself does appear to contain other sources, so those could be cited for directly supportable statements in the WP article. Each statement (and underlying source for it) would stand or fall by the usual

WP:RS. But the blog itself, and any unsupported statements or synthesis of supportable statements, do not seem reliable in that regard beyond being a good place to find a collectionof other sources and possible useful information gleaned from them. DMacks (talk

) 17:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This indicates that, in at least some of his writing, he embraced fringe views. I recommend caution about using his books as sources for anything more than his opinions. If he makes a factual assertion, please try to find a better source to back that claim. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, but 1) Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the above claim isn't even cited in the unreliable article, and 2) Are you calling Hopi prophecy fringe views? That work is about religion, and all books about religion are fringe-like. Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Did Moses really part the Red Sea? Are all books about religion fringe? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I am not saying that his Wikipedia biography should be used as a source in any other article but rather that the biography raises the concern I mentioned. Quite a few books have been published about Hopi religion and we ought to use those from high quality academic sources as much as possible. I consider much of the discussion of the Mayan calendar in popular books to be fringe views. I certainly would not use a book that argues that Moses really did part the Red Sea as a source for any factual assertion, but only for the author's opinion, in a biography of the author, for example. As for the claim that "all books about religion are fringe-like", that simply isn't true. There are countless objective academic books about religion that are descriptive and include no preaching or religious advocacy whatsoever. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right that books can be about religion without being fringe-like, but what I meant was that all religious beliefs are fringe-like in Wikipedia terms. Certainly belief in a man who died and was resurrected would be a fringe belief for our purposes, but the Wikipedia article asserts that Jesus was in fact a historical figure. I also meant that to use a Wikipedia article to declare an author is unreliable is wrong. If Waters is an unreliable source, that information should be confirmed by something other than a Wikipedia article that does not even source the claim that made you distrust Waters in general. 2012 phenomenon was on the Wikipedia main page, BTW, but I suppose the article's tone is dismissive. Waters' book on the Mayan calendar asserts that it does not predict the end of the world, but rather that the calendar marks a period of change starting c. 2012, so I'm not sure the book is fringe-like after all. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Any assertion that a calendar developed long ago has predictive value for events of 2012 is a fringe view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

But it's not a fringe view to assert that the Mayan believe this, which is what Waters wrote about, not that the calendar actually predicted anything. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect in two ways. First of all, mainstream scholars of Mayan culture agree that the Mayans predicted nothing about any events that would take place at the end of their long calendar in 2011/2012. Assertions to the contrary are fringe, held by a small group of crank enthusiasts. Also incorrect is your claim that Waters was writing just about Mayan beliefs instead of about his own beliefs. I found a review of the Mexican Mystique book in an academic journal published by the University of Nebraska Press that said that the book is "almost cranky in its dismissal of traditional scholarship and embracing of esoteric lore", and saying that the book enters the "no-mans land of esoteric theology". The subtitle says it all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

All that being said, Frank Waters was, by all accounts, a respected novelist and engaging writer with a very long career. I have problems with the reliability of the specific book we have been discussing, and that must be considered when evaluating his work overall. But that does not mean that everything he wrote was unreliable. Context matters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I agree with your assessment of these particular works and Waters in general. Thanks for the guidance! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a debate at

Maurice Casey, [5] page 21 in his text "Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?" published by T&T Clark, has a consice biography of her stating her real name and her pen name.

Question - Is this a reliable source to clarify the first name in the article instead of using the initial of "D" as the author prefers for her Wikipedia article? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note When this discussion resolves, if the book is deemed reliable, please post to
  WP:BLPN/ In the meantime, I'm going to close Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#D._M._Murdock_or_Dorothy_Murdock to avoid wasting other editors' time. --Dweller (talk
  ) 16:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• If you have already commented at Talk:Acharya S please hold back and let uninvolved editors provide feedback. We don't need cumulative arguments. Jehochman ^Talk 17:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• This book is a very high quality source and meets
  WP:RS to a high standard. It does an excellent job of establishing that this person's name is Dorothy Murdock. There's a comment above saying that it's published by T&T Clark. That might be true, but I find it listed at Bloomsbury's website ([13]), a publisher I know fairly well and one about which there shouldn't be any doubts. Whatever the other arguments one might want to make about this issue, we shouldn't find any problems in regard to RS here. Nomoskedasticity (talk
  ) 18:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• The source does seem reliable enough to verify that the D stands for Dorothy. I also found a passing reference to "Dorothy Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S)" in

Callahan, Tim. "Did Jesus Exist? What the evidence reveals." Skeptic [Altadena, CA] 19.1 (2014)

Is there any reason to doubt this as a point of fact (as distinct from whether the subject prefers that name, or what wikipedia style/BLP guidelines dictate)? Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This to me seems very reminiscent of similar controversy at Stoya -- where some sources considered reliable thought they knew Stoya's true name, and were wrong as it turned out. Are we up to the possibility of falsely exposing somebody as a controversial figure, if they simply happen to share a last name and first initial of one? Pandeist (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Perusing Talk:Stoya I see sources such as "all over the web", imdb, google knowledge graph, xmdb.com (defunct) and starnostar.com being cited; all of which are obviously unreliable (esp. in a BLP). So I am not sure how the situations are comparable, at least as far as the issue of reliable sources is concerned. Abecedare (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

According to other discussions (including the first post in this section) the individual doesn't dispute the notion that this is her real name -- she simply prefers that it not be used. I don't think we're risking being wrong here, at least in being accurate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is more than one comment in the talk page discussion that she denies this being her actual name. Pandeist (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, if we have Murdock specifically denying that D stands for Dorothy (as opposed to her not using Dorothy), then we should consider the possibility that the two sources cited above got the information wrong. Can someone point to Murdock's specific statement? Abecedare (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Following links from the article talkpage I found this facebook posting in which Murdock repudiates "any and all instances of my purported name online".

My reading of the topic (which I was not familiar with earlier) is that:

• We have reliable sources calling the subject Dorothy.
• The subject clearly does not like being referred to by (apparently any) first name, raising issues of undue familiarity, safety and error.

This eventually is not a question of reliable sources per se (because I believe the sources we have cross that bar), but how to balance our mission of being an encyclopedia with being sensitive to the wishes of the article's subject. All the best in that. :) Abecedare (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think now the BLP Noticeboard is the right venue, now that we know the sources are reliable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for going through all this effort to ensure this subject is treated fairly. Jehochman ^Talk 21:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Start a new section, with a suitably descriptive heading. --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

At

@Casliber: Please guide me. Thanks!Viator313 (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It depends on how the source is used. If it his opinion, then it is okay. If it is some claim or accomplishment that needs external proof, then it shouldn't be used. Specifically, regarding the article, and looking at this version - footnote 7 is about Al-Habib expressing his views on Fadlallah, hence the use is permissible. Same with footnote 5. Footnote 3 is again material he produced, though we'd not recommend youtube as a source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to add the text "He is a regular contributor to the Japan Times." to the Gregory Clark (author) article, but my source would have been a list of articles and I figured that would have violated NOR, so I settled for adding the link to the bottom of the page.

Was I right?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you need to source that. Everyone knows he contributes regularly to that newspaper.Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree that experienced editors do not always demand sourcing on facts which can be uncontroversially verified, but your approach seems prudent. What policy says is that the thing you write without sourcing should not be seen as non-obvious to other editors (and other editors should be able to read, think, use google etc). What we have all experienced over the years are editors whose argument for something being non-obvious (which they want removed for other reasons) is that they are an editor and they are saying it is non obvious. It is difficult to discuss then. But this does not happen all the time, and if you expect no controversy... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am wondering if it is acceptable to source the statement "Another of Hicks's most famous quotes was delivered during a gig in Chicago in 1989 (later released as the bootleg I'm Sorry, Folks). After a heckler repeatedly shouted "Free Bird", Hicks screamed that "Hitler had the right idea; he was just an underachiever!" Hicks followed this remark with a misanthropic tirade calling for unbiased genocide against the whole of humanity." with this clip from Youtube. I don't think it satisfies WP:RS so I was bold and removed the link from the article Kevin Matthews (radio personality) and replaced it with a "citation needed" template. I, then, checked Hick's article and saw that that the same link was also being used for essentially the same thing. If I'm wrong, I return the link to the Matthew's article, but the clip appears to be a bootleg of Hick's Chicago show. Instead of the YouTube clip, I am wondering if either this, this or even possibly this would be acceptable per WP:RS. Thanks in adavance. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is reliable or not, the YouTube clip cannot be cited - we do not cite links to copyright violations. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AndyTheGump. It seemed like an obvious copyvio to me, but just thought I double check before removing the link from the Hick's article as well. Any opinion on the three alternatives that I listed? Do you think any of them would be acceptable as a RS? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

These two YouTube clips were also be used as inline citations in Hick's article. This one says it's licensed for fair use and this one says it's from a BBC interview. Are these also copyvios or would they be OK per

WP:EL/P#YouTube? - Marchjuly (talk

) 08:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright is an issue, but it's also a primary source. Including it means we're relying on

original research to determine what's worth including. In other words, we can't say something is one of his "most famous quotes" or representative of his style if reliable secondary sources haven't said so. If copyright weren't an issue, we could include the primary link for good measure, but it's not enough to include anything at all on its own. — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 21:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Rhododendrites. Would any of the three sources I gave above, in your opinion, be sufficient to use in support of the ""Another of Hicks's most famous quotes (...)" statements in both the Hick's and Matthew's articles or should the two statements be removed altogether? Also, do you think the other two YouTube links I mentioned that were being used in the Hick's artice (the BBC interview and the "fair use" ones) are also copvios? Should the information they are being used to support in the Hick's article be removed? FWIW, there are also two other YouTube links being used as inline citations. The "Bill Hicks on Austin Public Access" clip is being used in the lede. It appears to be a copyvio to me, but I'm not sure if the "public access" makes it OK to use. The other clip is "Bill Hicks Outlaw Comic Documentary" is used to support NBC at the time about a certain topic Hick's was using in one of his jokes. Again, I'm not 100% sure if this is a copvio. If these both are copyvios, then the satements they support should also be removed, right? If they are not copyvios, then the question is whether they satisfy WP:RS, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason to go to YouTube. If you do a Google search for "bill hicks" "hitler had the right idea", it pulls up plenty of reliable sources that discuss the clip. I didn't notice anyone specifically call it is his most famous routine, but there was plenty of commentary on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info NinjaRobotPirate. I actually did google that which is how I found the three alternative to YouTube I listed above. But, most of the commentary I saw was user-generated stuff that basically linked to the same YouTube clips. BTW, do you think the three sites I listed above are reliable? - Marchjuly (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A lengthy description/transcript of the rant can be found in Hick's biography

True, Cynthia American Scream: The Bill Hicks Story. London, HarperCollins, 2002.

ISBN 0380803771

around page 140. Abecedare (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Abecedare. That would work fine. I'll check if that book is available online just to get the actual page number. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Um -- the Google search on it does not show that rant inthat book. AFAICT, it is a "squelch line" frequently used by comedians. Many of Don Rickles' best lines, quoted out of context, sound pretty horrid. [14] Casey Kasem did a Hitler impersonation in honor of Rickles. Tweet: Don Rickles on polite Bob Newhart: If Hitler had lived, Bob would have chatted him up. I suspect Wikipedia is cooperating in making a mountain out of a comedic molehill. Squelches are generally meant to throw a monkey wrench (or barrel of monkey wrenches) into the heckler's position. If we ran an article on squelches, it might fit in. In a biography? Not. As for calling for the destruction of the world: However, why should anybody want to save the human race, or damn it either? Does God want its society? Does Satan? (Mark Twain) See also [15], [16] "Every comedian has a different opinion. George Carlin talked about his preferential method of vanquishing hecklers. He said “Some comedians like to have a stockpile of witty lines stored to use when they need them. I always prefer to use a verbal sledge hammer to the base of the skull.” Collect (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It most certainly is in the book, on page 127. I don't think anyone doubts that it is used to squelsh the heckler, so I've no clear idea why you are arguing that point or what you mean about "making a mountain out of a comedic molehill". The question is simply whether or not the line is sufficiently notable to be mentioned in his biography. It does seem to be one of his best known. According to the biography it was an important moment in his career, but the issue at the time was that he was ranting at the heckler by repeatdly calling her a "drunk cunt", which is apparently what caused most of the audience to leave. No-one seems to have cared about Hitler at the time. Paul B (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sure it is - but Google books search does not let me find it. Some of the other cites I found trace straight back to Wikipedia <g>, or to people remembering bootleg recordings. I suspect he said close to that a number of times - but as to whether he did it out of actual belief of any sort - dubious. It should not be used except with the nature of the interaction being clear, for sure. Collect (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh I don't think there's any suggestion that it implies pro-Nazi or genocidal ideology on Hicks' part. Paul B (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: Try the Amazon 'Look Inside' reader and search for 'Hitler'...although you perhaps will need to sign in and there may be user/region based restrictions. And agree with Paul that there is no implication of Nazi-sympathies in Hicks' (quite funny) rant as the context, as well as the full quote after the underachiever line, makes clear, "Kill em all, Adolf, all of 'em. Jews, Mexicans, Americans, Whites, Kill'em all. Start over! The experiment didn't work" Abecedare (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- usually Google does a "full search" showing stuff not in preview mode as in plain sanserif form -- rarely does it miss like this. Can't tell precisely how the book attributes the material though - does it say it used a transcript or used a report from another source? Amazingly enough, sometimes "quotes" have a mysterious life of their own, and I would prefer a more solid source if this book does not tell what source it used for the transcript. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There's (bootleg) video of the event, so transcribing it would not have been a problem (although we cannot use or cite primary/copyvio sources on wikipedia, that's not an issue for biographers, scholars, news-media etc). And agree that the line needs to be contextualized properly, but that is best discussed on the article talkpage IMO. Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If the original source is a copyright violation, any copies are still copyright violations. News Media have certain rights about "speeches" being quoted at the time, but if you write a book with the "I Have a Dream" speech in it - prepare for a major copyright suit. Cheers. "I Have a Dream" is copyright until 2038. Collect (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we are getting into a discussion blind-alley here over the issue of copyrights. Bottom line: HarperCollins is responsible to make sure that the biography they are publishing complies with copyright law and that the appropriate permissions have been taken; and their lawyers surely know more that enough about the issue. We just need to treat the reliable secondary source just as we would any other (ie, cite it properly, not over-quote etc). Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just want to thank everyone for the feedback and help in sorting this out. My primary concern was the YouTube clips, and those have been sorted out. Squelchers and all of that stuff didn't even cross my mind. Anyway, WP:N doesn't extend to article content, right? So, whether the rant deserves to be in the article depends on consensus and its coverage in reliable sources. Since the latter appears to have been resolved by the finding of the biography, the former is probably best left to discussion at Talk:Bill Hicks. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Source: http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/132814/hatoful-boyfriend-gets-azami-ending/

The technology news website Technology Tell has a lot of articles on Hatoful Boyfriend in their gaming section, all of which seem to have been written by their official gaming editor. I want to make sure this site counts as a reliable source for use in the article. Silverseren^C 00:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this section was just archived because nobody responded. It's not like i'm asking a complicated question here. Can someone please respond?

Source: http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/132814/hatoful-boyfriend-gets-azami-ending/

The technology news website Technology Tell has a lot of articles on Hatoful Boyfriend in their gaming section, all of which seem to have been written by their official gaming editor. I want to make sure this site counts as a reliable source for use in the article. Silverseren^C 00:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

We've long established that Daily Kos is not a reliable source in general due to the self-published nature. In doing some cleanup, I tripped up on

IMO, polls are the detritus of election campaigns, and the fewer used, the better. Yet some articles have several hundred poll results listed - which I consider outrageous. You will find some people who say "If I find it on the web, it must be notable enough for Wikipedia" and they can be quite obdurate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

These should be treated differently than other Daily Kos pages, since they're being used as primary sources about Daily Kos polls rather than as secondary sources about non-Daily Kos subjects. From a verifiability/RS standpoint they can be used, but only carefully and they should generally be avoided in favor of secondary sources reporting on the same polls, when possible. From a neutrality standpoint these polls might not be robust enough to be placed alongside more widely accepted polls such as Cook and Rothenberg. And then there are the valid

WP:CBALL concerns that Collect identified. But those are other matters. --Dr. Fleischman (talk

) 22:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What about them makes them somehow more reliable than standard Daily Kos pages, though? This isn't a situation of polls, but of electoral race projections, which, while based on polling, are a different beast. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, you're right. I believe Daily Kos does do some polling and without looking too deeply I thought these were poll results, but instead they're poll ratings and analysis. Self published, not reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, DrFleischman is correct, SPS and not reliable. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Easy call - Kos Elections one of the LEAST reliable parts of Kos, not a WP:RS by a long shot--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above - not reliable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Are financial statements submitted to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission reliable sources for the finances (revenue, expenses, amount spent on marketing, etc.) of an organization? Specifically I am referring to the annual statements (10-K) and quarterly statements (8-K) of companies, and the annual statements of non-profits (Form 990). The Corporate forms are independently audited, usually by one of the Big Four accounting firms. The Form 990s will be audited or not audited depending on the organization, and the auditors are likely to be local CPAs. thanks

They are reliable sources for the reported statistics of the company in question, but do not demonstrate the notability or relevance of the figures in question. They are primary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you expand on that? I'd like to understand your thinking better, but don't want to ask more specific questions so as not to influence the answer.

talk

) 14:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

10-ks and 8-ks and 990s are reliable sources for the filers self-reported metrics. I don't know how I could be any more clear than that. Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

They are reliable sources, but

primary sources, which means they often require quite a bit of interpretation before non-experts (our presumed readers) can understand what they mean, and we, the editors, can't do that interpretation ourselves, we need secondary sources to do that for us. Also since pretty much all companies and most organizations file forms like these, they are usually not important enough to include in our articles ("do not demonstrate notability or relevance"). Finally, they're self-reported, which means they are often slanted by the company or organization (in many complex ways, for example by deciding whether to take a gain or a loss in this period or the next). In short, we usually don't use them, for all these reasons. But in theory we could, in certain limited ways and cases. What exactly do you want to use them for? What article, and what statement in that article? --GRuban (talk

) 15:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is that important or notable? If it were important or notable, wouldn't someone other than the company have commented on it? For instance, Apple did 42.1bn of revenues in the quarter that ended Sept. 27 - Source NYTimes ([17]), not Source Apple ([18]). Reliable secondary sources provide explanation and context that primary sources do not. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Different take: I guess it's okay to consider those primary sources, but primary sources CAN be used, with care (per

wp:PRIMARY?). Those statements about Spacely Sprockets reported revenues would definitely be okay, in my view, for use in an article about Spacely, as they are a) uncontroversial b) not yet contested by any other editor c) sourced and absolutely verifiably true: the documents show that Spacely did report those numbers. You don't need them to have been discussed in secondary coverage. And it does not require an expert to pick out the revenue number or other basics. Note the 10-k documents are probably on-line and directly linkable and should be linked in footnote. And the nonprofit 990s, if not too old and also not too new, are probably available for free at Guidestar (requires free account), and that should be noted in footnote. It's POSSiBLE that the "true" revenue numbers could be different (due to fraudulent reporting or error not caught by any auditors), but what was said is that Spacely reported those numbers, which is proven. Further, unless there's a sourced reason to suspect fraud or other cause for doubt, the numbers simply can be stated to be the actual revenues: "Spacely had $2.3m in revenue in 2013", etc. That is practice in Wall Street Journal or any other news publication discussing firms; it's understood that those are the reported numbers, and it is very rare for there ever to be any restatement/change later. All the 10-k numbers would be audited by SEC requirements, and some nonprofit 990s are audited (other 990s may be merely "reviewed" by a CPA or may be self-reported without any review. The existence of 10-K report does go indirectly toward establishing notability of Spacely, as it must be a publicly traded company and there is therefore investor demand for info, and it is pretty well assured there will be coverage by analyst reports and so on, perhaps not yet found or not widely available. The existence of form 990 report for a nonprofit is less helpful, as there is typically little/no demand for that info and little/no coverage can be expected. However the size of a nonprofit in revenues or assets is relevant to establishing its importance; there oughta be a rule-of-thumb that any charitable nonprofit of size greater than $1m or some other cutoff is notable, but that's not established. Hope this helps. --doncram

17:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the "filing a 10-k is evidence of notability." Filing a 10-k is evidence that the corporation is a public company - nothing more. Every public company must file a 10-k. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that 10-k and other filings required for a public company are not multiple independent sources establishing notability of firm under

wp:LISTED indicates there's no consensus; my belief is that we know there exists a lot of coverage and anything publicly traded should be assumed notable, while you disagree, which is fine. --doncram

18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

In my view tax filings should be

WP:ABOUTSELF. They can be used if they aren't unduly self-serving, but should generally be avoided in favor of reliable secondary sources when possible. --Dr. Fleischman (talk

) 19:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As primary source documentation they are of limited usefulness. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, we're not really disagreeing. The question was not about using financial information to establish notability. It was about whether it can be used in an article, and we all seem to be agreeing that it can. I'm sorry I brought up my view that financial info could help establish notability, which was a tangent. Over and out. --doncram 03:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Not only are 10-ks reliable sources, they are the best possible source (most up to date) for infobox data such as revenue, profit, assets under management, and other items. However, they should only be used by information that belongs in the article by de-facto, and not where weight and neutrality may be an issue. For example, you wouldn't want to use an annual report to discuss a controversial issue or talk about how great the company's prospects are, or create a massive amount of information about their finances in the article-body. It would be useful if you shared the article in question and the exact use of the source. CorporateM (Talk) 01:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Without context, it is difficult to comment. Primary sources should not be used to assess or assert notability. If an organization is notable, you don't need a 10-K as a source. And if a specific figure in the 10-K is notable, you need secondary sources to assert the importance of that figure to be added to the article.- Cwobeel (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The information is as accurate and reliable as any we can find on organizations, but that isn't the same as WP:RS. You will never use all the information on any of these forms, and there is no commentary within it, so inevitably it is the WP editor, not the source that determines what the editor is including - the primary problem with primary sources. If there is information that undeniably HAS to be in the article, and it can be sourced to the federal filing, that is fine; otherwise, you have good information, but no justification for including it.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In the

Diff in question tells that "Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported that it obtained documents" about plans for the

2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. It does not claim that the documents are "the truth". There is no questions that newspaper indeed "reported" that it has the document, because this is something asserted by its editor in chief, Dmitry Muratov during his interview at Echo of Moscow (the reporting appears to be a fact). This has been republished in numerous other sources on several languages, such as this. My very best wishes (talk

) 23:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not impressed with those sources, with the possible exception of McClatchy. Tried to find more in a Google News search, but that seems to be all there is. Geogene (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing "exceptional" about the statement that Novaya Gazeta has said it posses this document. "with possible exception of McClatchy" is like saying "with the possible exception" of Reuters or any other reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a fringe and extreme conspiracy theory that isn't repeated seriously by reliable sources. As such it fails both notability criteria and WP:EXCEPTION as it would require multiple high quality sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope, that is nonsense. It IS repeated seriously by reliable sources. They're in the article. How in the world can you show up here and claim "(it) isn't repeated seriously by reliable sources" when the actual reliable sources are right there in plain sight for everyone to see? This looks like some bad-faith "if I say something wacky people will automatically believe it even if it's false" tactic. Again - the sources are right there.

And you, or USchick, repeatedly calling it "conspiracy theory" is bullshit too. Have you got a source which calls it a "conspiracy theory"? Please provide it! Do the reliable sources which have been already provided refer to it as "conspiracy theory"? No? Then quit making stuff up. Wikipedia isn't a place for original research or for venting your own personal opinions and prejudices. This is just some POV "

WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT so I'm gonna call it names and hope some naive people believe me". Sources please or stop obfuscating.Volunteer Marek (talk

) 05:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. USchick (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Here is original publication and comments as they appear in Russian language sources. That was reliably published. If the plans were true is another matter. Some of the stated goals have been already accomplished, others apparently failed.My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Asking for more uninvolved editors to weigh in please to establish clear consensus. Thanks. USchick (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources seem to be clearly reliable for the edit in question. It isn't even close, really. Has there actually been a disagreement about the reliability of mcclatchy, etc... at the article's talk page? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. One disagreement is about whether or not a secret document reveals a conspiracy theory if the sources don't call it a "conspiracy theory." The other disagreement is about sources citing a report of unknown origin that may or may not exist. USchick (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a problem with the sources. McClatchy and VOA news are highly RS. Stating that a Russian newspaper has annouced that they have certain documents does not fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I have provided a direct reference to Novaya Gazeta publication, apparently it was only published today (25 Feb). Novaya Gazeta is a major Russian semi-opposition newspaper, they expect every vaguely anti-Putin publication to be challenged in courts (that are very sympathetic to Putin), so their fact checking of such publications are usually very solid. It is as good Russian source as it can be, certainly good enough to say "Novaya Gazeta reported..." Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Very good, thank you. Based on this information, I may come back with a follow up question about another article. So what you're saying, is that reliable sources don't have to have proof of authenticity, just report about it. Ok, thanks. USchick (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

??? What is this suppose to mean? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the context and gravity, I'm predisposed towards caution. Yes, there are RS reporting on these documents but, given the high level of global interest, it will certainly be picked up on by further RS if there is merit in the findings. While it's been attributed inline in the article, I do see this being a case where we should stave off for the time being on the grounds of

WP:REDFLAG. --Iryna Harpy (talk

) 03:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the RS noticeboard. The discussion is whether this is RS. The consensus is yes. Other content disputes should be at the talk page. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me if I've misunderstood the point of the RSN - that is, it is required that the context be provided, being that of

only just broken. Is this not meant as a venue in which to address what constitutes RS on a case by case basis, and in context? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC) [EDIT] No, you're quite right, Capitalismojo. Admonishment taken as being merited. Any quibbles regarding the use of RS is definitely for the article's talk page, not for the RSN. The sources in question are definitely RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk

) 05:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to the consideration of whether this is significant enough to go in the lede and article, or just article body itself. However, it is significant, related, and well sourced so it should be in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. The RS are good. The question of where isn't that urgent. We can review it over the next couple of days on the talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is now also in the New York Times [23]. Can we just drop this? It's

The authenticity of the document could not be independently verified. The newspaper did not publish any pictures of the memo or provide any proof that the policy described in it had actually been adopted.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This was my original question. This is a recent event, and newspapers are chasing the latest story, so reporting is often inaccurate. Wikipedia:Recentism applies in this case, but it's not a policy, only a guideline. Does common sense kick in at some point, or do we go with what one news report said? Every other news report is based on the first one. And the entire military intervention is based on propaganda, which this may be also. If this is a real story, should we wait for confirmation of some sort, or simply go with what everyone else is saying? It's hard to tell the difference between news and gossip. USchick (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Clare, Kerry (5 April 2009). "Battered Soles by Paul Nicholas Mason". Pickle Me This. Retrieved 27 January 2015. is being used as a source in Draft:Battered Soles, an article about the book reviewed.

Kerry Clare is a professional author and editor whose book reviews appear regularly in

... and reviewer Kerry Clare comments: "As might be expected by a novel whose title is a pun, the humour throughout is a bit goofy, the wisdom folksy. I frequently laughed out loud as I read (it occurs to me to note: there is no other way to laugh, is there?) and enjoyed traveling alongside Mason and the colourful characters he meets."

It is also being counted as a review in a reliable source for the purposes of the notability criteria

• My biggest concern is that while she's written for various outlets, this is her own blog and she doesn't undergo any sort of editorial process other than via Clare herself, so I see it as a
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  10:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thing is, books tend to get eaten alive when they get taken to AfD. Even trade reviews tend to be controversial at AfD, as many people consider them to be too short for notability purposes, so blog sources are viewed with an even higher level of scrutiny and I'm just concerned that if this draft article is approved on these sources, that it'd likely fail an AfD because the sourcing is a little too weak for comfort here. Getting these approved as RS is fine, but I'd be more comfortable if there were some other more concrete sources found. I can just see the sources on the articles getting torn apart at an AfD - especially as an AfC article, as so many of those get nominated for deletion to the point where not a lot of people (from what I've seen at AfD, which seems to mirror a lot of concerns elsewhere) have much faith in the approval process at AfC. That's why I'm being so harsh about the sources: I want to make sure that if it is approved, that it goes out with its strongest foot forward. I'm tired of reading some of the comments about the AfC process at AfD, some of which are extremely disparaging about the project as a whole.
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  10:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with
  WP:SPS allows for some exceptions for citing acknowledged experts in the subject area, IMO such exceptions in case of book reviews should be limited to cases like Maria Popova Brain Pickings blog that themselves have been extensively and (mostly) positively reviewed (and some may disagree with me even in such cases). Abecedare (talk
  ) 19:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Books reviews are rarely reliable sources, except for the opinions of their writers. So the question is how notable is this view. TFD (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Does the "expert in their field" rule for self-published sources require that the author have been published by a reliable third-party source? Or would it be appropriate to use material self-published by a professional in their field, in an article related to that field, even if said professional has never been published by a reliable third-party source? As a specific example, I'd like to use information from an animation blog, maintained by professional animators, in an article about an animated film. --Jpcase (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the information that I would like to use would come from an interview that the blog carried out with the film's directors. --Jpcase (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the expert must have published, because one cannot be considered an expert unless one's work has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Professional animators are not experts unless they also happen to have published works about animation. Experts would be people like professors of fine arts who specialize in animation. TFD (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Is [24] a reliable seondary source for the phrase

"After the attacks on the World Trade Center" in

Sam Harris (author)

?

I, in general, find using cites for a phrase of that ilk to be somewhat unusual, and personally fail to find any particular relevance nor need for this particular cite in a BLP.

Is this a reliable source for a claim of fact in the BLP? (I think the only fact in the phrase is that "the World Trade Center was attacked at some point in the past"?) Is there a need for any such cite? I this cite of relevance to such a fact? Is this cite of value to the BLP per se with regard to any claims of fact?

If the cite is being used to introduce opinions into the BLP, then I would think it would only be usable for opinions cited as opinions, but it seems not to be used for such a valid purpose here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the quote by Chris Hedges is recited verbatim in this Guardian piece by Greenwald, and therefore is in no way dependent on Patheos, a fact that Collect is aware of per my clear indications thereof, such as here and here.

Here's a 2008 interview with the great war journalist Chris Hedges on what he concluded after reviewing the work of "New Atheists" such as Harris and Hitchens: "I was appalled at how they essentially co-opted secular language to present the same kind of chauvinism, intolerance, and bigotry that we see in the Christian right." He adds:

"They're secular fundamentalists. . . . I find that it's, like the Christian right, a fear based movement. It's a movement that is very much a reaction to 9/11.

Second, the text "After the attacks on the World Trade Center" was used to replace in the lead was "In conjunction with world events involving violence and Islam,", which is and unduly broad not to mention unsourced.

Third, there are other sources, some quoting from Harris' writings that support narrower language, such as these quotes related to the "war on terror", and "war against Islam" from 2005 book where he makes arguments for the use of torture

"Given what many of us believe about the exigencies of our war on terrorism..."
"Enter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: our most valuable capture in our war on terror..."
"We are at war with Islam. It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so".Sam Harris, torture, quotation

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

In short - Patheos is not RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. In short, it is not necessary to evaluate whether Patheos is RS or not regarding the quote, which is cited in other reliable secondary sources.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion could use additional participants. CorporateM (Talk) 06:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Since the RfC is really about reliable sources, I'm asking for those who keep tabs on this page to take a look at the following RfC and comment there: [25]. Looking at the discussion(s) prior to the RfC might help in getting the gist of what prompted the RfC. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The main news sources all trace specifically to CBS, which is airing a series "based on" the life of this person. The series itself is clearly fiction (although the CBS press releases blurred that line) and the question is - are CBS news sources "reliable sources" for claims of fact about a living person where the person is being promoted by the entertainment division of CBS? Is there a strong enough wall between the two divisions such that the CBS news claims about a CBS entertainment product are still regarded as "reliably sourced"? Would [26] be a salient example of the connection between the divisions? Collect (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Warning that extensive canvassing and meatpuppeting forms part of the background to this question, by an author who does not want

User:Tokyogirl79, User:Silver seren as active here could maybe take a quick look at publisher and author creds please? In ictu oculi (talk

) 07:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The book was apparently written by Maurice Casey[27] and published just a couple months before his/her death if our Wikipedia page on Casey is to be believed. Again, if Casey's Wikipedia page is correct, and they are a British Scholar and a professor from the University of Nottingham, that absolutely looks like a reliable source to me; just about the best kind around. I will note that the book has a tint of advocacy in its description and should be balanced with other similar books from different academics with different perspectives regarding the primary subject of christianity. CorporateM (Talk) 06:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk* Yes, it is reliable. This discussion has had been had before on multiple pages, I think we can just go on and tell the people who

WP:DONTLIKEIT that it's not the book that's the problem. Ian.thomson (talk

) 06:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• User_talk:CorporateM User:Ian.thomson thanks. Unfortunately Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_disputes_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources is difficult when an author is running an active campaign on and off Wikipedia to have academic sources criticial of their scholarship excluded from their bio article. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

An editor is claiming that this book The New Atheist Denial of History by an academic historian published by Palgrave Macmillan is not a monograph, and therefore not peer-reviewed[28].--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT that book would be counted as a monograph under the Palgrave Macmillan publishing categories (don't see why that is relevant though). In any case, Palgrave says that all their publications are peer-reviewed and as a respected academic publishing house, I don't see any obvious reason to doubt that. The author himself is a history professor, and though he does not seem to have a extensive bibliography of original work, a JSTOR search shows that he has written quite a number of book reviews for history journals; so he is definitely qualified to review the writings of Harris, Dawkins et al. Given the author and publisher, the book would pass the basic reliable source test. On the other hand, I didn't find any reviews of the work (not surprising given its specialized topic and recency), and it is held by only a few libraries, so be wary to giving the work undue weight and be sure to attribute any opinions you cite. Abecedare (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Concur. It looks like a book by a historian writing about his area of expertise, albiet on a controversial topic. If the point is whether it's "peer reviewed", there's no indication in the book whether it was reviewed as part of the publishing process. But that's normally the case – academic publishers don't disclose the names of their reviewers. And the lack of a formal post-publication review isn't disqualifying either, as it is still a new book. But given the nature of the topic, the author's qualifications are 100% certain to be challenged. So without the imprimatur of reviews by other historians it should be used with attribution – an academic book by a Christian historian on the errors made by non-historians (atheists). – Margin1522 (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks.

@Margin1522: As per this link, the book is a monograph[[29]], which their website specifically states are peer-reviewed, and as per this link Rigorous peer review is vital to this. We will support you with a thorough but fast and responsive peer review process. provided by Abecedare, all of the academic press's publications are peer-reviewed.

The book was only published three months ago, so there are no citations of it, not even a review as far as I can tell. He is a mainstream historian writing in his field of expertise. Yes, he is an Episcopalian lay priest, but he acknowledges that in a sort of disclaimer in the preface stating that he is writing as a career academic historian, follows that with a statement opening the Introduction as to his position on Harris, and cites other mainstream historians in supporting his statements, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubts the book is peer reviewed for it's historical content, I just simply doubt it's an academic monograph rather than a book for a public audience (they may also call them monographs but that's hard the point), a point you seem unwilling to concede. I've seen plenty of academic monographs (albeit not in history) and they don't read or look like this. It's clearly for a public audience. It seems to me to be the equivalent of trying to treat the the Selfish Gene as an academic monograph (OUP also peer review their books). As I already stated here: [30], the book is also just out and lacking reviews/citations. You are also using this book to say a generic statement [31] like "Harris is bad at history for some reason according to someone", which as I have already mentioned, is just a lazy way of writing (and to clarify, I'm saying you are making the lazy additions, not that the author of the book is lazy). Second Quantization (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Could we have some context here? Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Context: Ubikwit has been editing the

• Borden W. Painter turns to Lears critical analysis in his book The New Atheist Denial of History, stating that Lears “had raised significant historical points” overlooked in the historiography of Harris and other New Atheists.[32]

It's yet unclear as to whether Ubikwit intends to cite the Painter book for assertion of fact. Hope that helps. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm curious to know which editor is claiming it's not peer reviewed. Perhaps you should notify him or her, Second Quantization (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As Abecedare noted above, Palgrave-Macmillan does publish peer-reviewed texts, but also non-peer-reviewed texts (contrary to Ubikwit's assertion) in the academic fields like History/Historiography. While the text doesn't have all the hallmarks of being peer-reviewed (the preface and introduction mention only that his wife and daughter reviewed it), I haven't personally worried about whether the source is officially peer-reviewed or not yet because, frankly, I am more concerned about what specific information from the book we're talking about using. If the proposed information is somehow problematic, maybe then I will look further into the credentials behind the source. A quick phone call to confirm if it was "peer-reviewed" informed me that Chris Chappell, the Palgrave representative who handled the publication of that book, is no longer with the company, but I was assured that "the book passed their basic academic review". When I pressed for specific confirmation that the text underwent a peer review process rather than a publisher review, the question was sidestepped and I was asked instead if I had a specific issue or concern with the publication they could help me with. Of course, none of that matters until the original poster informs us as to "The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting", per Step 3 above. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic:

• As I said above, even though the Painter book, given the author and publisher, should be regarded as a reliable and pertinent source for the Sam Harris article its arguments and conclusions still need to be properly represented, summarized, attributed, and not given undue weight... which is best discussed on the article talk-page. I don't think you and I have any disagreement on that point.
• However some of the other issues being raised, such as whether or not the book is a "monograph", or whether the concerned editor at Palgrave still works at the company (?!) etc are non sequiturs not really relevant to the issue of reliability on wikipedia. Most of the sources currently cited in the Sam Harris article are newspaper/magazine articles that aren't always written by specialists; aren't peer-reviewed; and don't receive post-publication reviews. Yet, barring exceptional circumstances, they are generally considered reliable sources on wikipedia for such contemporary biography articles. Of course better sources should be used whenever available, and this book as a lengthy review of Harris/Dawkins/Hitchens work by a history professor and published by an academic press is one such preferred source. I am not sure why novel standards are being invented in judging this particular source.

Abecedare (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you have said. As I'm sure you are aware, when contentious information is proposed or introduced, the sources for that information will be scrutinized — nothing novel about that. I've seen in discussions here where an author's personal history is reviewed; funding sources questioned; educational institution is compared; publisher's reputation is evaluated; and, yes, whether or not the source was subjected to rigorous academic peer review and post-publication citation. The intent is usually to qualify or disqualify the source. So why the judging of this apparently otherwise reliable source? As evidenced below, and as I mentioned above in my context summary, this book is being used primarily as a vehicle to usher in Lears material as a credible source. Objections have been raised to that because Lears has tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics" based on the commonality that both rely on science (see positivism). While Painter does cite Harris and other atheists when presenting his criticism, his overall critique is of New Atheism, so that article is probably where such information should be introduced. Both text proposals below, Ubikwit's escort of Lears version, and Abecedare's much improved but equally vague version, say nothing other than: "Historian says New Atheists distort history", without informing the reader as to how or why. But that is indeed a matter for the article Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I just noticed Xenophrenic's misplaced comment, which is why I didn't address it in my previous response.

He has again, flagrantly, misrepresented Lears by insinuating that he "tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics". Repeating that misrepresentation is extremely tendentiousness. Xenophrenic is the only individual to make such "objection" again here in a misplaced comment. I'm going to post the relevant text from Lears at AN/I.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Again with the lies, Ubikwit? Lying doesn't work here, as everything you say can be easily looked up and checked. A quick look at Lears review of Harris' book shows that he has tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics" based on the commonality that both rely on science:

Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism and pop-evolutionary notions of progress, as well as for scientific racism and imperialism. These tendencies coalesced in eugenics, the doctrine that human well-being could be improved and eventually perfected through the selective breeding of the “fit” and the sterilization or elimination of the “unfit.” Every schoolkid knows about what happened next: the catastrophic twentieth century. [...] The crowning irony was that eugenics, far from “perfecting the race,” as some American progressives had hoped early in the twentieth century, was used by the Nazis to eliminate those they deemed undesirable. [...] The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, injected positivism with a missionary zeal. [...] one cannot deny that [Hitchens] embraced, from a safe distance, the “war on terror” as an Enlightenment crusade. He was not alone. Other intellectuals fell into line, many holding aloft the banner of science and reason against the forces of “theocratic barbarism.” Most prominent were the intellectuals the media chose to anoint, with characteristic originality, as the New Atheists, a group that included Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. [...] As in the golden age of positivism, a notion of sovereign science is enlisted in the service of empire.

Xenophrenic (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's some additional context. Painter is a secondary source for

Jackson Lears

, who has written an a comprehensive review of three of Harris' books, first of all. Both Painter and Lears are "mainstream historians", and academics.

NI haven't read the book yet, so I've proposed using only minimal information from the previews.

Borden W. Painter turns to Lears critical analysis in his book The New Atheist Denial of History, stating that Lears “had raised significant historical points” overlooked in the historiography of Harris and other New Atheists.^[1] Painter cites a quotation from Harris at the opening of the Introduction to the book

and then states that

his [Harris’] abstract appeals to history and evidence-based reasoning fail when measured against the concrete conclusions of mainstream historians concerning the topics he addresses in making his case against religion throughout all history.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This matter is best debated on the article talk page, but Ubikwit, I don't think your extract is very good in terms of conciseness or readability (besides missing some required quotation marks). For example my summary (having only read the intro to Painter's book) would be along the lines, "In his book The New Atheists denial of history historian Borden Painter Jr argues that Sam Harris, and other New Atheism authors, present a selective and distorted slice of history that does not match the historiographical practices or understanding of mainstream historians." Now the exact language and content is best discussed on the article talkpage, but this is to give you an idea of what I would consider fair and comprehensible. Abecedare (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: OK, thanks for the advice. (Talk discussion)I haven't read the book, which seems fairly involved, so I primarily cited it as secondary source support for Lears, whose comprehensive 17-page review is available online, and to frame the perspective of "mainstream historians", which both painter and Lears are. There are also insuficient secondary sources that cite statements by Harris in addressing his positions, so the quote seemed to help balance per DUE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Concern: The book is self-described as

"This book is the first to challenge in depth the distortions of this New Atheist history. It presents the evidence that the three authors and their allies ignore. It points out the lack of historical credibility in their work when judged by the conventional criteria used by mainstream historians. It does not deal with the debate over theism and atheism nor does it aim to defend the historical record of Christianity or religion more generally. It does aim to defend the integrity of history as a discipline in the face of its distortion by those who violate it."

thus it specifically intended as an attack on the named authors, and not as a general objective review of the topic. That a book which is stated to be intended as an attack on named persons actually attacks them is a tad useless. I would be far more interested if it did not attack them. It is not stated to be a neutral source of any sort here, so I find it not to be especially useful when all it does is what its purpose was. This appears to be Painter's first book on such a topic, thus we do not know whether it will gain any scholarly acceptance at all. As there is no deadline, I suggest the best course is to lay it to the side for possible future use when it has been examined by others. We do not use initial studies even from peer-reviewed journals as a rule.

Our goal is to "Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent." and "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields." Collect (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Collect. I am myself a theist and no particular fan of Sam Harris, but I would think that we in this case can wait for further comments either about the book itself in reviews or comments about the points it raises in the relevant academic journals. No rush here. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it is a peer-reviewed monograph, and per

Steve Pinker, Martin E. Marty

, Painter and others.

Secondly, the book has not been used for anything controversial unless stating its premise, with reference to a quote from Harris, is controversial, and introducing Lears via another mainstream historian, instead of through Pinker.

The source is absolutely usable at present according to policy, and it is somewhat tendentious to state otherwise. The current state of academic consensus is well represented by Lears and Painter. If you dispute that, then bring reliable sources.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Am I correct that the only proposal you've given (so far) for the use of this Painter book is to introduce another source (Lears) as credible, and to make the rather uninformative and un-encyclopedically vague assertion that the New Atheist case against religion conflicts with the "conclusions of mainstream historians" (without mentioning anything about what those conflicts entail)? Also, I am seeing some conflicting information as to whether the text has been "peer-reviewed"; could you point me to the specific information you have on the review for this work? (Note: I'm not disagreeing that Palgrave-Macmillian is generally regarded as an academic press.) Xenophrenic (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The book is a primary source for the author's opinions - as for its eventual weight when examined by those scholars knowledgeable in the field, we have no idea yet. So let us obey the Wikipedia deadline - and wait. Collect (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no "Wikipedia deadline", that's a fabrication of a false pretense to try and prevent the use of a high-quality source that legislates against the promotional screed supported by primary sources that bloated the article before I arrived and cleaned it up.

Now you're trying to prevent the use of a peer-reviewed monograph by an academic representing the current state of scholarly consensus against the pseudo-historical rantings of a media icon whose Wikipedia article appears to serve as an advertisement for that, though popular, have been widely criticized by academics in the and scholars in the fields to which the topics of Harris' books published by the non-academic press Simon & Shchuster relate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Read

truth. Cheers. Collect (talk

) 16:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is RS, and only advocates are trying to exclude its use. Stick to the sources, and don't falsely accuse others of editing for the truth when you are one of those out to

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on the article by excluding the critical statements of academics.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑}

23:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I am frankly appalled and more than a little disgusted by the last comment above. It seems to me to jump to any number of absurd and unsubstantiated conclusions for no other purpose than rhetoric. At no point has anyone said anything about "excluding" anything, despite the false accusation above. What has been said, so far as I can tell, is that there is no particular rush as per

WP:DEADLINE to include information almost immediately upon publication. It could well be, and, honestly, I think is likely, that in the next few months this book will receive significant attention of some sort, either positive or negative, in the relevant academic journals of all sorts. That tends to be the case, actually. If, in so doing, they support the book, then by all means we can not only include the statements from the book but also the indications of their support. If the statements are found to be "fringey", then we can say that. If, as could well be possible, one of the journal articles presents maybe even a better or more damning criticism of Harris, then there would be no reason not to include that stronger criticism. All that is being said so far, from what I have seen, is that there is no urgent immediate need to have this content added immediately. We can wait, as we regularly do with matters regarding topics where there doesn't exist any real hard "evidence" like in some sciences, and I think the concensus opinion around here on this thread is that in this case the consensus is that we can wait a few months to see how much material regarding this, and possibly other sources which might arise in that time, when the academic community has published its opinions on the book as it had been published. John Carter (talk

) 00:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read the Talk page and AN/I threads before making errant statements based on your own misguided opinions.

WP:TE

is a more applicable essay than DEADLINE, and RS is the policy that matters here.

I haven't bothered to read add the text or a different representation of it along the lines of the suggestion of Abecedare because the text I inserted from Lears hasn't been challenged, but that was not the statement deemed most contentious. I'm currently reading other collaborating academic sources, and will re-add the source when that information has been collated. The

consensus here is that the source is RS, and that means it can be used now.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑}

01:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be most straightforward to simply link to another, dormant, mediation page [sources/Noticeboard archive 109] (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_109#talk:General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy), the remainder of the somewhat acrimonious discussion is already archived.

To summarize: user:Spearmind cited a work by James Howard Kunstler which advanced a certain view. The book, "The Geography of Nowhere," is a polemic social commentary on the suburbanization of the US, which has some scholarly dressing. The cite was stovepiped back to a source which all the other active editors had agreed was not reliable.

The editor first denied that there were any reference cites in the piece, claiming that the work was completely original to the cited author. When shown what the cites existed, and what they actually said...well, I think it would be best if you just read it below. He does not seem to see any problem with indirectly citing a refutation of his thesis as proof of it. He has now, since, placed other cites with the same issues of bad underpinning on the article.

The other editors currently involved are user:PeterEastern and user:Trackinfo. Issues involve reliable and unreliable sources, and due weight to each source. The block quote below does not look quite right; feel free to change the format as needed.19:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

From [[33]]