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. 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

Jeremy Wade River Monsters

Congrtulations for finally changing his birth year from 1960 (wrong) to 1956 (right). However, the actual birthdate is still wrong. It is March 23 (right) not May 5 (wrong). This information can be verfied by Icon Film Productions, who are responsible for the making of the show "River Monsters".

adding links to philipkdickfans site

Is the official fan site for Philip K. Dick, http://www.philipkdickfans.com/ (that has be recognized by the Philip K. Dick Estate and is linked to from philipkdick.com) a reliable source? There is a complicated history for this site and I realize at one point it has been taken over by malware. The site has changed hands two times and the malware no longer exists on the site. The site was rebuilt from scratch, is stable and will be around for a long time.

The site now contains all the articles that the original site had with some exceptions and can be safely linked to. In addition the site has a vast section that is a reference for all the works that Philip K. Dick wrote called PKDweb or The Encyclopedia Dickiana and contains VALBS which is a reference for secondary materials published about Philip K. Dick. VALBS exists elsewhere on the Internet but this is the official copy of the information.

Also, another fact is that this site was the official Philip K. Dick site until the domain name was taken over but the Estate. The content here is not only generated by one fan but by scholars who are fans of the writer. The content linked to is from published works by scholars who teach or write or other secondary and primary sources like Wikipedia requires. I don't believe that the site is a fan site as defined by Wikipedia.

I would like to add these links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick to the site:

http://www.philipkdickfans.com/

http://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdweb/ An encyclopedia of all of Philip K. Dick's writing

http://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdicktionary/ A listing of all of the words that Philip K. Dick created in his writing

Horselover Fat (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What text are these links going to be used to verify? Did you want to use them as sources, or as external links? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that User:Mirfishe (AKA Horselover Fat) is the site's developer. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good as an EL, not as a source. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And if this is the case, the consensus should be generated on the talk page or external links noticeboard rather than the webmaster putting it on the page himself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

These links would be added to the external links section. Sorry I neglected to mention it. Also, the discussion has been going on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mirfishe#adding_links_to_philipkdickfans_site and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rray#adding_links_to_philipkdickfans_site Horselover Fat (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I have copied the request to the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick because from the comments, it seems the discussion should be there and not here. Horselover Fat (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Pure Spam

philipkdickfans.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.philipkdickfans.com

• User:Mirfishe/sandbox Linkfarm
• Mrfisher343 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Mirfishe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Horselover Fat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

This is an issue--Hu12 (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I would add this Lucy8297 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Very troubling indeed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Verification of reliability

The article on Jayne Mansfield has the following content.

First marriage

In May 10, 1950, a pregnant 17-year old Jayne married 22-year old Paul Mansfield at Fort Worth, Texas. One biographer, Raymond Strait, wrote that she married Paul publicly in May 6, had an earlier "secret" marriage in January 28, and her first child was conceived after the secret marriage. Some sources cite Paul as the father of the child, while others cite it to be a result of date rape. The marriage certificate of Jayne and Paul lists their date of marriage as May 6, 1950.

Can someone verify the following part of it?

The marriage certificate of Jayne and Paul lists their date of marriage as May 6, 1950.

If the marriage certificate is true, then almost all the biographers are wrong. That's serious.

I don't have access to the certificate and have no clue of its credibility.

References

BTW, I have already posted this to help desk, village pump, and Wikiprojecr Fact and Reference Check... no success so far. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for. This was added by User:Dasani recently, after stating that is what it says. [1] So you want someone else to confirm that is what the link says? You'll believe them, but not Dasani? If it's such a big deal, why not pay for membership, or at least take advantage of the Archives.com 7 day free trial and see it yourself? Or are you asking whether Archives.com is a reliable archivist? --GRuban (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what county they would have been in? I don't know about historic archives, but generally marraige records are all public record with the local county clerk, unless you get a confidential license. The Texas state department has a list of county clerks. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 01:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this not OR using a primary source in this manner? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Greater London and Ceremonial counties

I wanted to add some precision to claims to do with Greater London being called ceremonial county. Conspicuously not called so by any official websites such as [2]

The first thing to realise is that Greater London was explicitly not made a county although removing counties: London Government Act 1963 3 (1) (a) "no part of Greater London shall form part of any administrative county, county district or parish;"

views the schedule (appendix) as creating a county of London [3] because it defines it as "the counties for the purposes of this act"

However if you look at the order that follows on from the act: [4] Greater London is not constituted as a county.

The legal definition for the area can be confirmed from a later act from 2001 [5] Referring to "The Lordships Lieutentant"

The problem is that surprisingly strong POV issues arise from this - because it suggests there was usage of the word county for Greater London. Now the term Geographic county also redirects to this page and then there is the issue of Middlesex etc. There is little point going into the details butone example when a historically important area has no reference to the county it was in (and many still regard it to be in) i,e. Kingston [6] but states that is in the ceremonial county of Greater London.

The page claiming GL is a CC has been up since 2003 and still I cannot find any evidence to support an unambiguous claim that GL is a ceremonial county independent of wikipedia's claim.

Also being stopped from referring to Greater London as an area before admin body 1965 despite being used from before 1907 perhpas this is the clearest reference [7] The region is called "Greater London." Tetron76 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, "ceremonial county" is our own shorthand for "Counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies in Great Britain", and we ourselves define the term as denoting areas that have a Lord Lieutenant. Well, it seems from your first external link above that Greater London has one, so by our own definition Greater London is a ceremonial county, but by the beautifully vague official terminology it isn't; it is, instead, one of those "areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies in Great Britain". The problem, then, is whether we should call it a ceremonial county, or whether we have to change our term because it is misleading. Are there off-wikipedia reliable lists headed "ceremonial county" in which it is included? If so, we can cite them and merely footnote the definition problem. If not, we ought to rephrase our term "ceremonial county" or exclude GL from the list.

[Added later: I think I am merely rephrasing your statement here. The real problem, maybe, is our need as an encyclopedia to have some geographical network into which to slot English places, and if not some incarnation of counties, then what? The problem with saying that a town is in a certain "Lieutenancy Area" is that one might struggle to make the fact appear notable.]

As for Kingston, it was in Surrey for about 1300 years, I guess, and is the seat of Surrey County Council right now. I don't see why one or both of those notable facts shouldn't be in the first paragraph :) Andrew Dalby 18:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lengthy discussion at Talk:Greater London on this. One point to note here is the definition of "Counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies in Great Britain" (its only "counties" for England and Wales and only "areas" for Scotland) so Greater London isn't an "area for the purposes of the lieutenancies in Great Britain".

The ceremonial county is the most practical geographic split for our purposes, which is why its used at WP:UKPLACE. London is a special case for article naming there (as "London" is a better disambiguator than "Greater London" for relevant articles).

As for Kingston, fully agree both those facts are worthy of inclusion early in its article (its current lead is pretty poor).

This ought to qualify as a reliable source.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Useful link. And thanks for the mention of WP:UKPLACE, Nilfanion. Andrew Dalby 09:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. "Most practical split" is not clear at all - there is the option of London Boroughs and counties or of administrative authorities.

As I have said on Talk Greater London: Uncited copy and pastes from wikipedia is not what most people call independent or reliable. It is from around this time i.e. compare CoE page 5: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ceremonial_counties_of_England&oldid=163319834#Definition

This highlights my real concerns about allowing terms to be created in areas where significant areas of the public are unsure without stating this fact.

WP:UKPLACE is not sensible as it would prevent the use of common name. If you ignore the fact that some regions ie Ashford, Surrey have 2 ceremonial counties neither is Ashford, Middlesex. They are unstable. This would mean that Winwick, Cheshire should now be renamed as Winwick, Cheshire East, Cheshire West and Chester [8] as the ceremonial county has been renamed. The places are often known as town, county - the question is in finding a sensible way of identifying the WP:COMMONNAME for the county or similar entity in the case of London. Ashford, Kent is not just a disambiguation it is what it is called in numerous sources. to its Surrey page as anyone who finds reference to it won't find it easily. Postal county is a phrase that appears about 20 times in google news archives and most of them are about USA. The problem is the page should be County (former postal).

I think following-on from various sources that it will be necessary to create the Geographic county too - although I was hoping to avoid this as there are about 5 different definitions of the term. The most useful single source to show wiki's weaknesses is the official Wales report [9] section 2.8 - 2.9 has high relevence.Tetron76 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Midlesex is not a ceremonial county. See [[10]] for a formal list. Martinvl (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I never said it was, nor do I think it should be refered to one as it has never been described as one. ALthough, confirmed by 2.8 from above Welsh source:

The LGA 1888 did not abolish or alter the historic Counties themselves. The General Register Office's Census Report of 1891 carefully distinguished between what it dubbed the "Ancient or Geographical Counties" and the new "administrative counties". It made it clear that the two were distinct entities and that the former still existed. No subsequent Act has ever tried to alter or abolish the historic Counties; their continued existence has been consistently reaffirmed by the Government.

This is a point that is little understood - this is not an independence argument but if you lived in the area you would understand that knowing which side of the Thames a place is on is critical to Journey times. Government debate notice that the minister apologises.

Finally, Area is used because the 1997 Lieutenancy act refers to areas in the act. It doesn't make Aberdeen legally an area instead of a city.Tetron76 (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The above link of User:Martinvl cannot be accessed directly go via the home page it gives a list of the Lord Lieutents and gives London(Greater) and no Middlesex as already acknowledged.

Also from the same site http://www.royal.gov.uk/RoyalEventsandCeremonies/SwanUpping/SwanUpping.aspx:

Swan Upping is the annual census of the swan population on stretches of the Thames in the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire

Tetron76 (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

UKPLACE specifically uses ceremonial counties because they are more stable the other options. The administrative counties are unstable. Your example of Winwick, Cheshire is in the ceremonial county of Cheshire, but the administrative county has changed. The admin counties are also of lesser value as disambiguators - a reader is much more likely to know where Lancashire is than where Blackburn with Darwen is (and for the purposes of Entwistle, Lancashire, Lancashire suffices).

The historic counties were never static, so using them requires fixing a date (which is arbitrary). Why use the counties of 1884 instead of 1885 for instance? An article on the term "geographic county" would be a bad idea: Primarily because we already have it (Historic counties of England); it may be appropriate to turn the redirect geographic counties of England into a dab or redirect it at Counties of England.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion above of County (former postal) doesn't work. The village I used to live in was always in Gloucestershire, historically and for every current purpose, except that we had Wiltshire in our postal address. Neighbouring villages to the west and south were also in Gloucestershire, but had Bristol or Bath, not Gloucestershire, in their postal addresses. Bad luck. Andrew Dalby 09:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No winwock cheshire has changed its ceremonial county from your definition of the term under the 2009 Amendment, I gave, changes the wording of column 1 of the table in the 1997 Lieutenancy act which is why it says it is not updated. (And UK law doesn't zero count)

I am not saying to use postal county - either - I am saying on a case by case basis an evaluation should be made as to the common name of county for that place if a disambiguation is needed.

What I am saying is that you should avoid the temptation to create terms for cartographical purposes and if it does so then it needs to state that this is what it is doing. The main flaw is that the word county is a polysemous word in usage and covers many areas but when someone states town, county this is not an address as part of a postal address unless it is given with a Road, etc. too.

Historic_counties_of_England#List_of_counties shows that there is significant blurring of the terms. As for suggesting a year to year change this requires Royal Charter and if you look at the Victoria County History at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/ it will give a better idea as to how counties changed.

All relevent county information should be given in the infobox - this shouldn't include made up ceremonial counties. You can give the administrative county (or unitary authority), former postal county, and historic county. 90.193.131.231 (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted the amendment to the definition of Cheshire in the Lieutenancies Act.

The 2009 amendment order to which you link states:

• for “Cheshire” (against the entry “Cheshire” in the first column) substitute “Cheshire East, Cheshire West and Chester, and”[11]

Clearly the name of the area does not end in ", and"; the amendment is to the second column (which is situated "against" the entry for Cheshire in the first column).

In other words, for the list of administrative areas in the second column of the row which has "Cheshire" in the first column, leave its name unchanged but change the definition of its constituent parts from

• [i] Cheshire [abolished council area], [ii] Halton and [iii] Warrington[12]

to

• [i] Cheshire East [new council area], [ii] Cheshire West and Chester [new council area], and, [iii] Halton and [iv] Warrington (the superfluous "and," before "Halton" is presumably a minor drafting error).

So the Lieutenancy area or ceremonial county of Cheshire remained unchanged, but was redefined in terms of the new unitary authorities.

As for what should be in the lede or infobox: those are not appropriate places to go into detail about complex, subtle or obscure points; just ensure there is a link to ceremonial county (and possibly more detail in the body of the article), so that readers can find more detail if they want it. You can't include philosophical essays in infoboxes!

As I've said elsewhere, "Pluto is a minor planet" can be a true and accurate statement regardless of the view one takes on whether or not Pluto is a planet per se. "Ceremonial county" is a similarly convenient and established term.

And Greater London (excluding the City) is a county for lieutenancy purposes.[13]

— Richardguk (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I was wrong about cheshire above I had missed the first paragraph

But you are still missing the point that there is a geographic usage of county which exists separate

from the purpose of delivering mail any place in GL can be picked and you will find a news story giving its

postal county. Kingston-upon-Thames Surrey

Define county? Greater London is not a county and has never been regarded as a county. The ONS distinguish GL as a not a county both Geographically and administratively.

If you are just describing a ceremonial county as a Lordship Lieutenant and nothing more this is already covered: Lieutenancy area - Lord Lieutenant#Present day - Lists of lord lieutenancies

There are only 5 sources that would count as primary authorities for the information and none of which use the term ceremonial county:

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

http://www.london.gov.uk

Greater London Lieutenancy

High Sheriff GL History

Official Monarchy web page

Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenants are the representatives of the Crown for each county in the United Kingdom.

However, this is coupled with the description of the GLL as London (Greater)

Greater London is divided differently from the other counties with far more deputies and mayors doing more ceremonial duties [14], [15]

Some other Lieutenancies still carry significant duty of Custos rotulorum [16]

In the few places it is mentioned by councils they distinguish GL from counties [17][18]

The Judiciary county is why the idea of ceremonial county overlaps the term geographical county. A boundary line could run through a smaller division and which administrative county was decided by the majority of the population living in one area. This would correspond to the High Sheriff at one time whose dutes used to be more than meeting a member of the royal family.

The term may commonly exist but your usage of the term is not established. The entire Geographical counties of Englandis based upon the single act of parliament which still distinguishes GL and a county if you look at the next schedule

[19]

Pluto is not a good analogy - it is in the dictionary for starters as a dwarf planet.

• While you might expect to see ceremonial county in List of counties of the United Kingdom

you have to ask what is meant by the column "county" and how GL fulfils it 1965-74 without a footnote.

• But at least it doesn't matter what claims are being made as it is only on minor pages like:

England

Below the regional level, all of England is divided into 48 ceremonial counties...

cited with a source that doesn't support the information!

• And the act which if more than 1000 people in GL had heard of the Lord Lieutenancy would have been stunned by the difference of having exactly the same person still in office to meet royals and introduce them to the mayor of the borough.With no references in the news and 2 academic papers mentioning it in passing is clearly an important part of the History of England deserving a paragraph unlike the unmentioned World Wars!

• You may view it as convenient for the country to be fully divided into things called counties but it is not true.

This convenient term is not used in a dictionary - so not part of common language as a collocate

If it is such a convenient idea why is it not shown on official maps as ceremonial counties?

It might be convenient on you to claim on 500+ wikipedia pages that a place is in the ceremonial county of Greater London but it is still not true!

There has never been a news story calling GL a ceremonial county.

You are supporting distorting modern political history

and imposing a false geographic identity on areas.

When did Greater London become a cermonial county? - GLC - LGA 72 - LA 97 - Wikipedia calling it one in 2003?

Tetron76 (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As discussed, since 1965, Greater London (excluding the City) has been a county for lieutenancy purposes;[20] treated as a county for shrieval purposes;[21] and not a county for administrative purposes. (In judicial geography, Greater London (including the City) been a single justice commission area since 2003[22] so now has its own custos rotulorum (keeper of the rolls).[23]) "Ceremonial county" is an unofficial but concise and unambiguous phrase, and emerged from previous wikiwars as the least-worst understood term for the area (whereas "geographic county" is a hopelessly ambiguous and unofficial term). Given that, what would you suggest to improve the lede? — Richardguk (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Drug Free Australia

Requiring some input on a source being disputed at Talk:Insite#Expert Advisory Committee. User:Steinberger wishes to categorically delete all text [24] describing any observations or criticisms of harm reduction interventions deriving from Australia's peak drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia here. Drug Free Australia is continually cited and quoted in Australian Parliamentary debates and Inquiries and in the media [25] [26] [27] [28] see full pdf [29] [30] in relation to its critiques of the studies on harm reduction interventions, and more particularly here its analyses of safe injecting site evaluations.

I note that the same user lodged a Reliable Sources/Noticeboard question on Drug Free Australia’s reliability as a source on 13 October 2010 here but its reliability was there affirmed. The relevant source documents in dispute are all found on the Drug Free Australia website here, here and here. Steinberger challenges Drug Free Australia’s credibility in analysing or commenting on harm reduction interventions such as supervised injecting sites and needle exchanges on the grounds that they do not publish their critiques in medical journals (although their critique of a Lancet study on Insite is published as a 1 page letter in Lancet, complete with chart). I note that analyses of safe injecting site and needle exchange outcomes do not require in-depth medical expertise, with no physiology, biology or biochemistry being involved in the outcomes, which are rather just statistical and able to be adjudicated by anyone well versed in statistics. Nevertheless, the Drug Free Australia contributors to these documents on SIFs and needle exchanges are almost entirely medical doctors/epidemiologists/addiction medicine specialists worldwide who each have multiple entries in Pubmed against their name (eg Dupont – 120 articles and letters, McKeganey 64 articles). I am concerned that the MEDRS objection is just an excuse for censoring content that may be too confronting and uncomfortable for some with an unquestioning support of these interventions, based as it is on analyses of all the data available.

I understand that the requirements of a source will change according to its application in Wikipedia, and that peer-review is not an absolute requirement for Wikipedia articles, particularly for this kind of critique by such well-qualified teams of medical and social commentators from such a high profile prevention organization in Australia. Your assistance on the issue appreciated. Minphie (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The specific question Minphie askes in this case, is if findings of a DFA report should be given equal validity to articles in Lancet? The DFA report in question say that the Lancet article is dead wrong and that is authors may have engaged in scientific misconduct. The university of some of the authors (UBC) took the allegation seriously and sent their report for review (by Mark Weinberg of McGill) but dropped the matter, when they found out that the report is "without merit" and "not based on scientific fact" [31]. The authors of the original Lancet article have also written in length on the DFA report [32] and Lancet have not retracted the original article. Steinberger (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to do more than observe that there are multiple gross misrepresentations in the post with which Minphie opened this request. To just mention one very innocuous example relative to some of the others, I'd suggest people actually compare the previous RSN thread about Drug Free Australia to his claim that "its reliability was there affirmed". The single editor who responded to the previous request actually wrote, "...this seems to be an advocacy group, rather than a scientific research group. In fact it often criticizes scientists." He did suggest at that time that it could be cited with in-text attribution, but I think he might have expressed a rather different set of opinions if he'd had before him information about the organization that I'll make time to post here within the next several days.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that I should let OhioStandard's input go without comment. It is not a 'gross misrepresentation' to say that the reliability of the source was affirmed while providing the link to the previous RS/N input. The advice 'with attribution' does not change the organisation's status to an unreliable source. Every reference to Drug Free Australia in Wikipedia has been carefully attributed since. In all fairness, I believe care needs to be taken with accuracy of comments such as this, if fairness is what a Wikipedia Noticeboard is all about. Steinberger alternately raises questions about Drug Free Australia's challenging of a Lancet article, which is a whole debate in itself which is at Talk:Insite#Expert Advisory Committee. I believe Steinberger should not declare that debate settled, perhaps trying to influence input, when readers of this notice would best make their own conclusions without coaching. Minphie (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User Minphie appears to have missed what I actually wrote about his characterisation, viz. "To just mention one very innocuous example relative to some of the others ..." More to follow here, with "some of the others", as my time permits.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I give this a bumb so as this is not prematurely archived. Steinberger (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Rupert Gerritsen, Batavia Online Publishing, Archaeopress, Hydrographic Journal, Fremantle Arts Centre Press

Hi all, I recently noticed that Robert.johnson27453 (talk · contribs) has added material to several articles citing Rupert Gerritsen as a source. Several of these cites e.g. [33][34][35] reference "Rupert Gerritsen (2011) Beyond the Frontier: Explorations in Ethnohistory, Batavia Online Publishing".

I was concerned that BOP might not meet sourcing requirements; I tried Googling but for an online publishing company, its web footprint is vanishingly small - it doesn't even seem to have its own website. The only references I can find to BOP are in connection with Gerritsen, and one PDF published by BOP appears to give Gerritsen's personal website as BOP's:

Batavia Online Publishing

Canberra, Australia

http://rupertgerritsen.tripod.com

Published by Batavia Online Publishing 2011

Copyright © Rupert Gerritsen

This leads me to think that BOP is Gerritsen's private press. His website also lists another publication (not via BOP) in quite a different field: "A Conjectural Preon Theory and its Implications has just been published... This publication proposes a new paradigm in particle physics." Copy available via his website. Among other things, it offers to overturn the Standard Model with a theory stating that "There is only one fundamental particle, and its antiparticle, the neutrino". While I'm not a physicist, I get a bit dubious about claims of this sort...

Another source cited by Robert is "Rupert Gerritsen, Australia and the Origins of Agriculture (2008)". According to the 'publications' section of Gerritsen's website, this was published by "Oxford: Archaeopress", confirmed on their website. It's not clear from their website whether their publication process involves editorial oversight that would satisfy WP:RS. I'm not a historian either - hoping somebody here could provide an informed opinion on whether this is a source that should be cited.

Robert also cites two articles by Gerritsen in the Hydrographic Journal at Wouter Loos and Hutt River (Western Australia): "Rupert Gerritsen 2007 ‘The debate over where Australia’s first European residents were marooned in 1629 – Part 1’, Hydrographic Journal 126:20-25" and "Rupert Gerritsen 2009 ‘The debate over where Australia’s first European residents were marooned in 1629 – Part 2’, Hydrographic Journal 128-129(2009):35-41". The Hydrographic Journal does seem a bit weightier than the other publishers mentioned above, but I'm not sure whether it would qualify as a RS on a historical topic.

In addition, Ring of Stones has a couple of sections about Gerritsen's work, cited to his book And Their Ghosts May Be Heard, published by Fremantle Arts Centre Press. Again, I don't know whether FACP has editorial oversight that would satisfy WP:RS. This material was added by Bill Woerlee (talk · contribs), who is also mentioned with thanks on Gerritsen's website.

All in all, I have doubts about how much of this material should be cited on WP, but I'd like feedback from editors with more expertise in these fields. --GenericBob (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Archaeopress is a serious academic publisher; I have several examples of first-rate research published by them. Otherwise this question is difficult. I'm 99% you are correct that "Batavia Online Publishing" is Gerritsen's own label as some major Australian catalogues don't list any outputs without Gerritsen's name. I don't think it meets WP:RS. Zero^talk 12:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As to Archaeopress, I agree that a lot of good academic material is published by them, but that doesn't prove that everything they publish is reliable. Their website suggests that they offer a publishing service; it doesn't suggest that they do any peer review. I'm not saying they don't: I'm saying that we don't know, and can't assume their whole list to be reliable in our sense.

As to Batavia Online Publishing, that looks like self-publishing to me. I suggest we need to know that Gerritsen has published in peer-reviewed journals (e.g. Hydrographic Journal) in the specific subject areas on which we want to cite him. Andrew Dalby 17:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew about Archeopress. They publish good material that makes its way into a hundred or so academic libraries, and less valuable material found in none. They publish a great many Ph.D. theses and site reports. But I think the 3 citations given are acceptable. One is straightforward, the other two frankly present it as an alternative theory, not the standard view on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Archaeopress BAR monographs are very well regarded - they couldn't get away with charging those prices if they were not! Meowy 20:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

True :) I know some very good books in that series. I'm just not sure we can assume that they are all good. Andrew Dalby 09:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology a primary source?

The title pretty much says it all. Is the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology a primary source? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A primary source for what exactly? Cusop Dingle (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The context is here. BitterGrey (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The specific citations at paraphilic infantilism are:

“ In 1993 sexologists Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund published and discussed a series of case studies involving infantilists and noted a distinction between them and pedophiles. While pedophiles were attracted to children (and objects related to childhood) due to the desire for a child sexual partner, infantilists imagined themselves as children and adopted the objects of childhood or infancy to increase the power difference between themselves and their preferred sexual partners of adult women, with whom they acted out masochistic fantasies. ”

“ An additional theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centered on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993, infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child. ”

Both would be sourced to page 531, with paraphilic infantilism discussed in the left column and the theory of erotic target location errors discussed in the right. Essentially, is the OTP an appropriate, reliable, secondary source to verify the ideas that a) paraphilic infantilists are not sexually attracted to children and b) within the theory of erotic target location errors, paraphilic infantilsts are attracted to the idea of themselves being a child. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as the quoted text alone is concerned, it seems to be an appropriate reliable source, that these ideas are considered by the academic community. However it cannot be used to state these ideas as facts or that they represent a consensus at large in the academic community.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@WLU: Usually textbooks are tertiary or secondary sources for the most part. So you would have to be more specific concerning why and for what aspect exactly you'd suspect it to be a primary source. However more important than a formal distinction between primary/secondary/tertiary is the quality and reputation of the source. This seems to be a a book by renowned academic published with a renowned academic publisher, so I see no reason, why it couldn't or shouldn't be used as a source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) My basic point was that Fruend and Blanchard's "Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists." was about, according to the very first line "A clinical series of male paedophiles..." As an article about pedophilia with no reference to infantilism, it should not be cited in the paraphilic infantilism article (much less have THREE sections based on it). WLU appears to have implicitly conceded this point, and is now hoping to use CB&B's claim in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology. Specifically, he hopes to use the claim that F&B was about infantilism (in spite of F&B not mentioning it) to support his exceptional claim that infantilism is some type or form of pedophilia. These sources have been discussed at RSN before[36]. Since F&B make no claim to being about infantilism, CB&B's claim that F&B was about infantilism is new to CB&B, making it a primary source for that claim.

A point already raised on the article's talk page is that a source's reliability is dependent on what it is being used to support: A source on Einstein's Theory of Relatively might be generally reliable, but like F&B, have no relevance to this discussion. This is why WLU was hoping to get Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology declared universally reliable. BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well this board is for discussing the reliability of sources. Whether a source is used appropriately (read and cited correctly) is another question, that in doubt needs to be discussed elsewhere (the article's talk page, the talk page or quality assurance of a related portal). Any source now matter how good or reliable can be misused of course. Aside from venues just mentioned above you could also request a third opinion to ensure that source is used correctly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, I think both sources (Freund & Blanchard as well as Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree) are reliable and there's no reason to remove either. Though Freund & Blanchard doesn't use infantilism or infantilists specifically, it defines "masochistic gynaephiles" as "habitually imagin[ing] themselves as little boys or babies", which pretty much the definition of paraphilic infantilism. Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree (authors of the chapter in the OTP) cite this paper on page 531 in the discussion of "erotic target location errors" and specifically refer to infantilism. Thus, though I consider the use of F&B a common sense accomodation despite not using the word "infantilism" specifically, CB&B makes the point and link explicitly. I consider the page enhanced by the use of F&B's more explicit and detailed citation, however to address Bittergrey's claim that such a use is either original research or an inappropriate use of a primary source, I'm willing to substitute CB&B (published in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology, which started the section) thus resolving the issue. Bittergrey apparently considers the book chapter by CB&B to be a primary source also, for reasons I find unconvincing. In other words, if F&B is unacceptable for WP:PSTS reasons, CB&B, which is not a primary source, should be fine and should resolve the issue. I have no issue with removing F&B and replacing it with CB&B if it means I don't have to keep reverting the removal of both sources and the text they verify.

Bittergrey's core objection seems to be any association between paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia, an association he, as someone running a website on paraphilic infantilism, finds objectionable. My point, one I have been making for a long time, is that both Freund & Blanchard, and Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree distinguish the two groups. Both sources say quite clearly that paraphilic infantilists are not the same thing as pedophiles and are not interested in children as sexual partners. But anyway, expect a long and ugly discussion, they all turn out that way. I've never suggested infantilists are pedophiles and neither do any sources. "Autoerotic form of pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia" anymore than being aroused by people with amputations is the same thing as being aroused by having an amputation or being interested in members of the same sex is the same thing as wanting to be a member of the opposite sex.

Anyway, a question the board can answer is whether Freund & Blanchard and Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree are reliable sources for the statements above. I think they are, and I think the objections are spurious. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Now if WLU will kindly focus on content and refrain from personal attacks...

Are we in agreement that F&B doesn't use "infantilism" or any term defined by any other RS as to be synonymous with infantilism without requiring WP:SYNTH? (This wouldn't be CB&B since CB&B doesn't mention "masochistic gynaephiles" or any of F&B's other neologisms. This is odd considering that all the authors discussed so far work together.) BitterGrey (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Freund & Blanchard don't use the term "infantilism", though I think we can use common sense to temporarily ignore the policy on synthesis since Blanchard is a co-author of the chapter in the Oxford Textbook of Pathology and that text does use the term "infantilism" explicitly as well as making exactly the same points. It's quite possible the term "infantilist/ism" wasn't used that often in 1993 and they adopted a more recognized term in the intervening 15 years. Irrespective, I still see CB&B as reliable for the text currently on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU has the WP:burden here and he concedes that F&B's pedophilia article doesn't discuss infantilism (without setting aside many policies and guidelines relating to RSs, that is). I think we can put a stake in the ground here: F&B doesn't discuss infantilism according to F&B. Others are still free to disagree, but I'd like to get this closed. By the way, the term infantilism was in common use since the mid-70's and was formally adopted by the APA in DSM IIIR, in 1987. In 1993, F&B could have used the term - but didn't.

Now that we've accepted that F&B doesn't claim to discuss infantilism, we can move on to CB&B's claim that F&B discusses infantilism. This claim would be new to CB&B, and so would CB&B would be PRIMARY in that respect. The dependence between the sources isn't relevant, since we are no longer discussing a plurality of sources. (Well, except for being aware that CB&B's claim about F&B doesn't match F&B's claim about F&B.) Are we all OK to this point? BitterGrey (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So you are misunderstanding burden; burden requires text to have a citation to avoid being removed per WP:PROVEIT. This text has a citation, in fact it can have two. You're also misrepresenting my position on Freund & Blanchard, who do discuss paraphilic infantilism, even if they don't use those exact words (again, they discuss people who "habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies", which really is the definition of paraphilic infantilists). So please don't claim "I accept F&B don't discuss infantilism. I believe Freund & Blanchard are quite clearly theorizing about paraphilic infantilism and given the lack of sources on the subject, I think using F&B is perfectly acceptable. You are the one who disagrees with this, and I attempt to address your disagreement by substituting an unarguably acceptable secondary source.

You are misrepresenting how the DSM deals with infantilism when there is unarguable consensus that it doesn't, using the word only in reference to a single behaviour by masochists, not paraphilic infantilists in general (here and here).

Your third error is claiming CB&B is in any way a primary source (per WP:PSTS, "Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved). CB&B is a secondary source, synthesizing primary research. Again per PSTS, "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." CB&B synthesizes a variety of research to make claims about infantilism (found in the left column of 531) and the theory of erotic target location errors (found in the right).

I've explained all of these points so many times that it seems pretty clear you are willfully misrepresenting my position, the community's position on the DSM and the contents of the Oxford Textbook of Pathology, and either misunderstand, or are misrepresenting several of wikipedia's policies as well.

Also please stop removing my text above, I am stating that you have self-disclosed that you run a website on paraphilic infantilism, which might be biasing your judgement. I am also saying, as I have said repeatedly, that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles, desire adult sexual partners, and desire to be treated as and act as if they were children. I base my belief on the statements made in the relevant scholarly literature, including Freund & Blanchard and Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree - both of which clearly state that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As the only editor seeking to keep the text WLU, you are the one burdened with finding sources to support it - and those sources need to match the text. Were there any value to your sources whatsoever, you wouldn't need to resort to personal attacks. As for primary, the event would be the decision by CB&B that F&B discuss infantilism. This decision would have been made by CB&B, not based on F&B or any other source. This, CB&B is primary in this respect - and this will remain so no matter what you write about me. BitterGrey (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources do support it. Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree explicitly say paraphilic infantilists do not desire children as sexual partners, but instead wish to behave as and be treated like children; this is the core of their theory on erotic target location errors. I'm not sure how saying "I don't think you are a pedophile" is a personal attack. Your claim that CB&B is primary is still completely at odds with WP:PSTS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@WLU, Greybitter: No offense but you should take your personal fight over content elsewhere. Since apparently you cannot agree on correct interpretation of the (reliable) source in question, you should move the argument to special subject portal (psychology, medicine). There other WP editors with background knowledge on the subject may comment on the correct interpretation/use of the source. Alternatively request a third opinion or use a conflict resolution site, but please refrain from using this site as platform for your personal disagreements. The idea of site is to request reliability assessment from 3rd editors, it is not meant to continue your personal conflict/arguments. For that use the article's talk page or your personal talk pages or maybe some conflict resolution site.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I tried to keep things focused on the sources. Basically, 1) a quick review of F&B will confirm that it doesn't mention infantilism, or any established synonym. 2) This would make CB&B's claims about F&B new to CB&B, that is, primary. 3) CB&B claims F&B makes an exceptional claim "[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." This would then be supported by only one primary source. Since exceptional claims require multiple high quality sources, this point, and the two related points WLU is trying to make, should go away. (On Dec 6th, WLU inverted the text to mean the opposite of what the references actually say. However, he is still fighting to use the same sources.)

I think we can make progress if others are simply willing to look up the sources. BitterGrey (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Done, talk:paraphilic infantilism, WP:SEX, WP:PSYCH. One point I do agree with Bittergrey on, it will require outside editors to become familiar with the sources in detail. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I realize that this was marked resolved, but one point bares mentioning here. BitterGrey's idea of a primary source isn't correct. The Oxford Textbook is not a primary source by definition. If an article in the Textbook refers to a study and makes claims about that study that are incorrect then it makes incorrect claims, but that doesn't make it a primary source. Whether or not the Textbook is correct in its claim about the study it refers to is not a matter for this board to resolve, as Kmhkmh has pointed out several times. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Griswaldo, let's see if I understand this properly: If I decided one day that the sky was purple, without reference to any other source, and somehow published this in Oxford press, would that be a primary source? I'd think yes, because it was "written by people who are directly involved." (Oh, and please don't pay too much attention to WLU's marking this thread closed, last time he marked a thread closed TWICE[37][38]... and then eventually reversed his position completely. It is just a thing he does to discourage others from commenting.) BitterGrey (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what your bizarre "sky is purple" analogy is supposed to imply. If you published the statement in the peer reviewed "Oxford Companion to the Sky" it would not affect the book's status as a reliable source by Wikipedia's rules, and it certainly would not make it into a "primary source". It would simply be a case in which a technically reliable source contained an error. It happens regularly. This whole dispute seems to me to be built around deep disingenuousness. It's blindingly obvious that Blanchard believes that infantalism is an "Autoerotic form of pedophilia". WLU says that "Autoerotic form of pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia". Well, yes it is. That's what "a form of pedophilia" means. I think this theory is utterly idiotic, and I can well understand why Bittergrey finds it deeply offensive. But since I don't get published in peer reviewed medical/psychological journals my opinion is irrelevant. Bittergrey should just accept that a theory which he understandably finds offensive does exist in the literature, and stop wikilawyering to keep it out. The claim that a textbook is a primary source because it is "written by people directly involved" is particularly ludicrous. By this interepretation every peer reviewed work would be a primary source, since experts are obviously directly involved with the subject (the policy passage in fact refers to direct involvement in an event which is being described). WLU should admit that the theory does indeed state that infantalism is a form of paedophila, and recognise that infantalists will find this view offensive. The article should discuss the theory to the extent of the weight it has in the literature as a whole. Paul B (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I admit that the theory of erotic target location errors states that paraphilic infantilism is to pedophilia as acrotomophilia is to apotemnophilia and homosexuality is to transsexualism. I believe the summary currently used on the paraphilic infantilism page, which is quoted above, does an adequate job of accurately describing the theory. It deliberately avoids using the loaded term "autoerotic form of pedophilia" because it is ripe for misinterpretation. In both cases the papers and the opinions in them are explicitly attributed to Kurt Freund and Ray Blanchard and thus indicating it is their opinion, not a scientific consensus. The paraphilic infantilism article explicitly states that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles (there's a whole section on it, Paraphilic infantilism#Pedophilia). I believe the current version meets all of your criteria for a reasonable summary of the material and if there are no further issues, I consider the matter closed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul, sorry if the "sky is purple" analogy was too abstract. F&B didn't use the then-established term "infantilism" or any established synonym. They chose to use other neologisms. Thus the claim that F&B discusses infantilism is new to CB&B. I was hoping for more insight into whether CB&B was primary with respect to this new claim. Thanks for agreeing that a form of something is still that something, which seems plainly obvious to all but one. Please be aware that these sources are cited in the live article, so this is a matter of getting it out, not keeping it out: WLU merely changed the wording when a previous RSN discussion found that the sources weren't sufficient to support the exceptional claim that infantilism was a form of pedophilia. To date, the only sources offered have been F&B, CB&B, and a letter to an editor: Only one uses the term "infantilism," no two use the same neologisms, and they all come out of the same facility. BitterGrey (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read the debate. Clearly F&B did not use that term, but equally clearly they had the phenomenon we now call "infantalism" in mind. That is specified in the later publication. Yes, they "all come from the same facilty". Clearly it is the specific theory of a particular researcher and his associates. I can see no logic to your suggestion that "CB&B" may be a "primary source" for this claim. It is in the nature of scholarly secondary sources that they sift through material and present models of it. That's what scholars do. It'as one of the very things that defines a secondary source. Paul B (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Despite this discussion and commentary, Bittergrey has ignored this input and reverted again, with the same list of spurious claims that have been addressed repeatedly [39], and is still claiming that the DSM defines infantilism despite two clear examples of unanimous consensus that it does not here and here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit to not having noticed Paul Barlow's most recent comment, but since the arguable primary status of CB&B didn't figure into the edit, it doesn't change much. Regarding "the phenomenon we now call 'infantilism'", please note that infantilism was in use at least since the 70's, and was officially defined in DSM IIIR, published in 1987. F&B choose not to use the term six years later, in 1993. (Before WLU again complains about the DSM, I'd invite him to contrast the DSM and F&B: One is the consensus document of the American Psychiatric Association, sited by multiple independent sources as a source on infantilism, and actually uses the term. The other is not and does not.)

Paul, if F&B supports the claim that infantilists are pedophilies, then should we remove the paragraph citing F&B to contrast infantilists and pedophiles? That paragraph suggests that the two are different, not the same. BitterGrey (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The DSM doesn't define infantilism. RSN and ANI. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU has a longstanding beef against the DSM. At paraphilic infantilism, he fought and argued to cite 47 pages of the DSM[40][41], then 5 pages (4RR/28 hours)[42][43][44][45], (and hijacking a 3O[46]), then zero (0) pages[47],[48][49][50], and then finally one (1) page [51] - at the same article. He claims to have read that source seven months into the conflict[52][53]. To remove it, he argued that infantilists weren't generally masochistic:"the sexual fixations are different - for infantilists it is being treated and coddled like an infant; for masochists it is the humiliation of being forced to be treated like a baby. One is about being cared for, the other is about being humiliated.". The intent then was to clear out DSM, making way for CB&B with James Cantor's support. WLU has yet to respond to the result that, if "masochistic gynephiles" are the same as infantilists and infantilists are not generally masochistic, then "masochistic gynephiles" are not generally masochistic.

Of course, given that WLU has renewed his commitment to revert no matter what I write, I don't really care what he thinks. I am, however, interested in Paul's answer to my question. Perhaps between us we can hammer out something that at least has integrity to the sources. BitterGrey (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I do object to the misuse of sources and I also object to Bittergrey ignoring the unanimous consensus of two discussions that the DSM was inappropriately used. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is now an ANI posting, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Correct place to issue a dare? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the ANI posting focuses on WLU's year-long pattern of Wikihounding. I suspect WLU would like to make it about this set of edits, just as he tried to make this discussion about CB&B exclusively, when in fact it was about F&B. BitterGrey (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Back to the sources

Anyway, back to the sources. F&B list 14 cases in 4 groups: "Paedophilic target identity inversion", "Paedophilic fetishism without target identity inversion", "Erotic target location errors with a non-human target" (one case involving the fantasy of being a cartoon dog), and "Infantile or juvenile self-imagery in masochistic gynaephiles." Setting "Puppy Smith" aside leaves us with two Paedophilic groups and one masochistic group. (Gynaephilia simply "refers to males whose preferred erotic targets are women." F&B p558)

In addition to never describing "masochistic gynaephiles" by 'infantilism' or an established synonym, F&B never describe them as pedophiles or cases of erotic target location errors. "Progress in understanding erotic location errors will require careful distinction between genuine phenomena of erotic target location and superficially similar paraphilic acts and fantasies that may have different aetiologies. ... The above cases suggest a distinction between paedophiles with erotic imagery of themselves as children and masochistic gynaephiles with similar features." F&B p 561.

In CB&B, there is the comment "...[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." (pg 531). Of the four groups, only "Paedophilic target identity inversion" is described in F&B as both pedophilic and as having an ETLE. This group includes two cases that mention diapers (the same number as the "masochistic gynaephiles" group).

While this doesn't shed any new light on the WP:OR of equating "masochistic gynaephiles" to infantilism per F&B, it does show that the WP:SYNTH of using CB&B to support that equation is incorrect. Now, we could offer the new synth that per CB&B+F&B, "Paedophilic target identity inversion" is infantilism, but that too would be mere synth. BitterGrey (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe Paul B already gave an independent assessment of this issue and concluded your arguments were were without merit, making this new section an attempt to ask the other parent. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Kettle, coming from an editor who asked the exact same question NINE times[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]. BitterGrey (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I was asking you that question, and you did not answer even once. Why not? That is completely different from asking nine different editors the same question in hopes that one will support you, which would make WP:KETTLE a meaningful essay to point to. I'll ask it again, please do me the courtesy of answering it to indicate you understand the sources. According to Freund & Blanchard, what is the definition of masochistic gynaephiles? What is the definition of a paraphilic infantilist? And how do those definitions relate to Paul B's statement on this very noticeboard? I would say the more relevant guideline here is WP:IDHT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I answered[63]. WLU rejected my answer (WP:IDHT) and continued asking. Above is #10. In case others reading this might be interested in my own <original research> I'll add that: 53% of ABDLs report an interest in sadomasochism or power exchange and 47% of ABDLs report enjoying masochistic activities that are not baby-themed. 85% of ABDLs are non-transgendered male and 58% of ABDLs are heterosexual. (Surveys with fewer or no bisexual options would result in a higher percentage of heterosexuals and homosexuals.) Neglecting covariance, this means that roughly 26% might be (male) masochistic gynephiles. Please note that only 41% of ABDLs met Criterion B so 59% wouldn't be diagnosed as paraphilic infantilists (or diaper fetishists) as defined in the DSM. It is interesting to note that 97% of ABDLs report some interest in diapers, while only 2 of 3 "masochistic gynaephiles" did.</original research> Of course, my original research, like yours, doesn't belong in the article.

WLU, if you question my grasp of the sources, feel free to review my comments above and point out any errors. BitterGrey (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where you quote Freund & Blanchard's definition of masochistic gynaephiles and compare it to paraphilic infantilists, which was the question I've been repeatedly asking. It looks very much like you refuse to answer because you know the two definitions are the same and thus there is no reason to exclude the article from parphilic infantilism. I don't care about the web survey you conducted on your personal website.

What were Paul B's thoughts on Freund & Blanchard's choice of terms and its relation to infantilism? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

More WP:IDHT from WLU. F&B's def of gynephilia was actually quoted above[64], with the formal definitional formatting omitted. In F&B it reads "The term 'gynephilia' refers to...". If anyone claims that F&B define masochistic gynephiles as something other than masochists who are gynephilic, he or she should feel free to point out where. BitterGrey (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I just realized we've both been reading the article wrong for a very long time. F&B doesn't define masochistic gynaephiles as "individuals who pretend they are children". In the section "Infantile or juvenile self-imagery in masochistic gynaephiles" on page 561 (first column, at bottom) it's talking about gynaephiles, who are masochistic, and these individuals who are both masochistic and gynaephiles are at the same time acting out sexual fantasies by pretending to be little boys or babies. In other words, Freund & Blanchard are discussing infantilists who also happen to be masochistic gynaephiles (or masochistic gynaephiles who also happen to be infantilists). So we were wrong in our interpretation of that section as a definition, but it doesn't matter since the paper is actually discussing a group of infantilists. The core use of the paper on parphilic infantilism is exactly the same, and it still beautifully illustrates how two groups (pedophiles and paraphilic infantilists) can be superficially similar in behaviour but completely different in motivation and etiology (as expressed on page 561, second column continued on page 562, "The above cases suggest a distinction between paedophiles with erotic imagery of themselves as children and masochistic gynaephiles with similar fantasies. This view is based on our analysis of the relationships between the infantile (or juvenile) self-imagery and the other elements of the total fantasy. With paedophiles, this imagery increases the subject's similarity to the sexual object (children). With masochistic gynaephiles, the same imagery increases the subject's difference from the sexual object (women), in particular, the difference between subject and object in power and control. This power differential, expressed in such fantasies by the imagined woman spanking or scolding the subject, is central to the masochistic arousal. A similar analysis can be applied to the fetish objects (usually nappies) used in masturbation by the two groups. With paedophiles, the fetish derives its power from its association with the sexual object, children. With masochistic gynaephiles,the fetish derives its power from association with the (fantasised) subject; it is an accoutrement to the role of the shamed, defenceless, punished little boy. In light of these differences, we believe that erotic fantasies of being a child probably have different aetiologies in the two groups."). All the uses remain the same, and Paul B's comment still applies. I've got to eat crow on that misinterpretation, but fortunately there's no changes required on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wish I had a dollar for all the times WLU argued bitterly and verbosely, only later to realize that he was wrong (eg [65][66][67][68][69]...). My point remains unchanged; that F&B is obscure at best and requires too much WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to be useful. WLU's concession to having read this article wrong after arguing about it for months is just further evidence that my position was right. The source WLU used to support infantilism _not being_ pedophilia is used by CB&B to support infantilism _being_ pedophilia - this should be a red flag to anyone. Back to the point that started all this: F&B chose not to use the term 'infantilism' or any established synonym, and it isn't our business to try to second-guess why. We simply shouldn't use it.BitterGrey (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Note the part where I say the page is still justified and doesn't need to change. Also note the part where Paul B says "Clearly F&B did not use that term, but equally clearly they had the phenomenon we now call "infantalism" in mind. That is specified in the later publication.". There's the independent input you wanted, and are now ignoring. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A more important quote is where Paul refuted WLU's claim (which WLU has fought to have reflected in the article in multiple places): "WLU says that 'Autoerotic form of pedophilia' is not the same thing as 'pedophilia'. Well, yes it is. That's what 'a form of pedophilia' means."[70] Clearly, four of six diaper-related cases in F&B were grouped by F&B as pedophiles. F&B differentiated the masochists from the pedophiles with ETLEs. WLU's selective interpretation omits "That is specified in the later publication."[71] Presumably, this was CB&B:"...[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." (pg 531). This quote would apply to the two diaper-related pedophiles that F&B described as having ETLEs. If F&B and CB&B continue to be cited on the subject of infantilism and pedophilia, the text must accurately reflect their exceptional claim that infantilism is pedophilia. BitterGrey (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What does "autoerotic form of pedophilia" actually mean? If you were going to summarize this idea in any way except a direct quote, what would it look like? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: Any form of pedophilia is pedophilia.

According to CB&B, Blanchard believed infantilism to be a form of pedophilia. F&B doesn't use "infantilism" or any standard term, but four of six diaper-related cases are grouped as pedophiles (with the other two grouped as masochists). F&B and CB&B suggest that Blanchard claims infantilism is pedophilia. The Wikipedia article suggests that Blanchard claims infantilism is not pedophilia.

It is interesting to note that Fruend and Blanchard are collectively mentioned in the article a total of five times, even though the citations don't imply any more than the six diaper-related cases during their careers. Blanchard's position/claim is referred to in three sections, but is never accurately conveyed. BitterGrey (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree and Freund & Blanchard are saying all paraphilic infantilists desire children as sexual partners? That's an accurate summary of their theory? How do you think their position should be conveyed on the page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about Barbaree and the late Freund, but according to Cantor, infantilism "is diagnosed as "paraphilia NOS (infantilism)" ... not pedophilia[72]. Blanchard's position might be his alone. (Oxford merely published a comment about Blanchard's interpretation, never implying that it had been adopted outside his lab.)

More than that, it appears to be based on only one case: Case 6. (Case 5 had no interest in undiapered infants, so he was probably miscategorized.) This explains the lack of support in academia, and why only Blanchard et al and Blanchard et al have been cited to support Blanchard's position. (Or, after Dec 6th, WLU's post-waffling reinterpretation put up to avoid the removal of Blanchard's exceptional claim during the previous RSN discussion[73][74].)

I agree with those RSN comments:"the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS." I'd add that it should be removed from all three places in the article.BitterGrey (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

1. I'm uninterested in what an editor said, I'm interested in what the sources say. What does "autoerotic form of pedophilia" actually mean?
2. Re-analysis of the sources is original research. What distinction does Freund & Blanchard suggest between "Infantile or juvenile self-imagery in masochistic gynaephiles" and pedophiles?
3. What do you think of these comments? [75], [76]?

In the past you have declined to answer such simple questions, I would assume it does not support your pre-existing conclusion and because the answers indicate that the sources are accurately summarized in their distinction between infantilists and pedophiles. I have little doubt that this practice will continue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, in the past WLU has badgered, ignoring my answers and multiple editors who disagree with him. These editors include James Cantor, the lead author of CB&B, who seems demoted to just "an editor" now that his comments get in the way of WLU's misrepresentation of F&B and CB&B.[77]

For WLU's latest question, the detailed answer is already here[78] and the short-short-short answer is already here[79]. I partially agree with WLU about F&B requiring wp:OR (or wp:SYNTH), but what he considers a reason to keep my position off the discussion pages, I consider to be a reason to remove his misrepresentation from three locations in the active article: F&B chose not to use the term infantilism or any established synonym.

WLU, if you honestly don't understand the sources, you shouldn't be edit-warring to cite them in multiple places. BitterGrey (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Freund & Blanchard's final three case studies discuss "masochistic gynaephiles who habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies in sexual fantasies involving adult women" - in other words, masochistic gynaephiles who are also infantilists. Only the final set of case studies discuss infantilists. What does the comments section following this set of case studies say about pedophiles versus masochistic gynaephiles who have infantilist fantasies? What does "autoerotic form of pedophilia" mean within the theory of erotic target location errors? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone else paying attention? It seems clear that nothing I, James Cantor[80], or others can write is going to change WLU's battle lines. Now he's just asking the same questions over and over to distract from his mishandling of the sources. ( On that note, he claims "Only the final set of case studies discuss infantilists." This wp:OR is simply wrong. The first set includes case #5 among others: "When he wore nappies, he felt like a baby." )

WLU's usual tactic is to continue arguing until no sane person would ever read the discussion, and then claim the discussion as support in later linkspam. Unless someone else would like to comment, I'll end this by giving WLU the last word.BitterGrey (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Christians for Democracy

[81] is being used in our article Homs by two editors (maybe). See [82] and the earlier edits [83] and [84] (we may also have COI issues here). I'm not sure how or if we can use this, and it would be nice to avoid an edit war. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look to be reliable, the source isn't used anywhere else on wikipedia [85], the only news sources that discuss the organization seem to be in Dutch (?) [86], it doesn't cite any sources on its own, and an editor placing the source is including contact phone numbers and e-mails in their edit summary in an effort to, I guess, make it more convincing? [87]. I would agree that this source is not reliable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about the events at Talk:Homs#Expulsion of Christians from Homs. The whole things seems a little off as I haven't seen it mentioned in any mainstream sources. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous independent sources, pre-established sources, that confirm these events are happening. As for "syrian-christian.org", remember, anyone and their dog can easily set up a website and fill it with all manner of material. It is not a credible source until a reasonable amount third-party evidence exists to indicates it is a credible source. Meowy 20:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Jesus as King of the Jews" Unification Church article

Hello, I tried editing the Unification Church article on something that i deem offensive. It was written there that Jews admitted Jesus as king of the jews. My edit was undone, and the person who did it cited a "reliable" source: http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1932.cfm The article is called "REV. MOON - A "JOHN THE BAPTIST" FOR ANTICHRIST?" and cuttingedge.com says that aliens are the antichrist, mormons are satanic, that catholics and the illuminati have a plan for world domination in 12/12/2012 among other things. You can also see the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unification_Church . Thank you for your time!--Albertlberman (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No Jew in his right mind would call Jesus "King of the Jews". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Easy mistake above, it's cuttingedge.org, a woowoo site and definitely not an RS. Also used at the moment is [88], clearly not a reliable source, and a comment on a blog at [89], also clearly not a reliable source. I'm deleting the claim from the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Using Ghost Adventures as a source for hauntings

There are a fair number of places which are categorized as being considered haunted on the strength of having appeared in an episode of Ghost Adventures, e.g. Old Idaho State Penitentiary. I've never seen the program, but I'm dubious about using it as an authority for this. Mangoe (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I could see a TV show being useful for saying "People consider X to be haunted, and an episode of GA was spent investigating" or something similar. Couldn't be used to day "ghosts are real and they are at X". I would say in most cases it's worth referencing the fact that the site appeared on the series, and possibly using the series to describe who the alleged ghosts are. My natural inclination though, is to use the fact that it appeared on the show as a springboard to look up further references like [90] and [91]. Though definitely reliable for saying "X has appeared on GA" (unless the editor in question is lying), it's almost certainly better to find something in a more reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO the Field Guide thing is too overly credulous to be reliable. The author states in the intro he has 'verified' each listed location as being genuinely haunted. But if used, I'd employ specific attribution ("According to The Ghost Hunters Field Guide, the Penitentiary is haunted by the spirits of past inmates") rather than vague attribution ("People believe the Penitentiary is haunted by the spirits of past inmates"). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing that concerns me is the possibility that this is a Charles Berlitz-style popular work in which otherwise unremarkable mysteries/occurrences are amplified into Paranormal Happenings because there wouldn't be episodes otherwise. I mean, if they were doing this Right there would be some external source that the show's producers were using which said "people claim that this place is haunted by thus-and-so", but if they don't ever refer to any sort of specific claim, they could also make episodes about places that they judge to be spooky but about which there aren't any actual claims of haunting. The wouldn't be lying if they double-talked around that, but they also wouldn't be testifying that the place was thought to be haunted in that case. Mangoe (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's case-by-case of course, I'd personally use the PDF from the Idaho Historical Society. My gut instinct is that any place showing up in the field guide that is also notable enough to be on wikipedia probably has better sources to the claim it's haunted, and those sources should be used. In general, the issue of whether people think a building is haunted or not should probably be sourced to mainstream books whenever possible.

Mangoe, perhaps best practice would be to note that the location appeared on a notable TV show (for all the merit that idea has) but rely and insist on better sources to flesh out the specifics of the actual haunting. Really, unless a place is famous primarily or only for being haunted, the fact that some people consider it haunted would in most cases be barely worth a half sentence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That's mostly what I'm seeing, so I'm not inclined to push too hard on removing mention. The issue that brought this on is that we have Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States, which is already being pruned for other reasons; many members are included solely on the basis of having been a subject of an episode of this show. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

IRmep: actual reliable source evidence re: FOIA docs

Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) is a Washington-based nonprofit organization headed by Grant F. Smith which “studies US-Middle East policy formulation.” Of particular interest is its Israel Lobby Archive documents which includes thousands of pages of declassified and/or Freedom of Information Act documents, most found nowhere else online. Some seem to be of historic importance, including letters from Henry Kissinger and George Shultz to President Obama [92] and FBI documents related to illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons triggers.[93] Being able to link to documents like this only improves the Wikipedia project.

The one past WP:RSN discussion of IRmep's reliability for facts only presented evidence of unreliablity. I think the following evidence that various WP:RS take IRmep/Grant Smith seriously as a source [added later just to make it perfectly clear: for primary source documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act] proves both are sufficiently WP:RS at the very least to permit linking to its archives of primary source documents per Wikipedia:Primary#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources.

• Eight paragraph article in Israel's Haaretz about the group's activities (that misidentifies it as a Muslim group).
• Journalist Philip Weiss writes Smith is doing “the best investigative work” on the Israel lobby here.
• A Jeff Stein Washington Post blog paragraph about IRmep/Smith activities.
• Accounting Today article on IRmep’s activities here.
• Los Angeles Times Editors Opinion statement quoting Grant Smith.
• Mentions in The Jordan Times [94], The Palestine Telegraph [95], The Arab American News [96].
• Reuters republication of IRmep press releases: [97], [98], [99]
• Wall Street Journal’s highly regarded MarketWatch republication of IRmep press releases: [100], [101], [102], {added later][103].
• Paragraph in “Socialism and Democracy online” (sdonline.org) article by Joel Kovel called Mearsheimer and Walt Revisited.
• CounterPunch mentions [104], [105].
• IRmep research is cited in Ben Simpfendorfer, The New Silk Road ( Macmillan , 2009).
• Searching only Scholar.Google for just one of the six Grant Smith books IRmep has published, “Spy Trade”, I found it used in Nathaniel Minnott, Harvard Law School, "The Economic Espionage Act: is the law all bark and no bite?", Information & Communications Technology Law, Volume 20, Issue 3, 2011.
• Use as a reference in Richard Bonney's False prophets: the 'clash of civilizations' and the global war on terror (Peter Lang (publishing company)).
• Use as a reference in Jack Ross's Rabbi Outcast: Elmer Berger and American Jewish Anti-Zionism, Potomac Books, Inc., 2011.
• Media interviews with Grant Smith: WBAI[106], Voice of America[107], RT News[108].
• Washington Report on Middle East Affairs articles by Smith [109], [110].
• Antiwar.com has published more than two dozen articles by Grant Smith.

[Three later additions:]

• Jewish Daily Forward details about Smith/IRmep's views/activities.
• Minneapolis Star-Tribune op-ed by Grant Smith about intolerance in academia, including vs. critics of the Israel lobby.
• District of Columbia Court of Appeals Feb. 2012 Order permitting Grant F. Smith to file an amicus brief in the case of Steven Rosen vs. American Israel Public Affairs Committee et al. (PDF on IRmep site).

[Added later, mentions/uses of IRmep/Grant Smith's books]:

• Spy Trade: How Israel's Lobby Undermines America's Economy (Nov 1, 2009): Nathaniel Minnott, Harvard Law School, "The Economic Espionage Act: is the law all bark and no bite?", Information & Communications Technology Law, Volume 20, Issue 3, 2011;
• Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal (2007) (1) Used in Jahad Atieh, Foreign Agents: Updating FARA to Protect American Democracy, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Summer, 2010, 31 U. Pa. J. Int'l L. 1051; (2)used in Clifford Attick Kiracofe, Dark crusade: Christian Zionism and US foreign policy, Volume 31 of International library of political studies, I.B. Tauris, 2009, p 207.
• America's Defense Line: The Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government (Aug 15, 2008) Used in: (1)Jahad Atieh, mentioned above and (2) Pierre Guerlain, "Fighting for the Hearts and Minds of American Jews: Identity Politics at the Crossroads of Domestic and Foreign Policy, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre, GRAAT On-Line Occasional Papers–April 2009, peer-reviewed journal GRAAT (Groupe de Recherches Anglo-Américaines de Tours, or Tours Anglo-American Research Group), Tours, Université François Rabelais
• Deadly Dogma: How Neoconservatives Broke the Law to Deceive America(Mar 3, 2006). Used in (1) Frank P. Harvey, Explaining The Iraq War: Counterfactual Theory, Logic and Evidence, Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 329 and (2) review in Small Press Bookwatch May 1, 2006 at Highbeam

Added later:

• Coke and Pepsi battle it out, AMEinfo.com, [[April 08 - 2004; two quotes on trade. (Note that Grant Smith has a Masters in International Management from University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) as he reveals in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.)

The current example under discussion at Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) is whether we can link to a November 1963 Dept. of Justice letter demanding an organization register as a foreign agent in order to establish the date of and the existence of the letter; the demand itself is mentioned in reliable sources. One editor has been busy deleting all IRmep references from other articles claiming IRmep is fringe because of its “anti-Israel propaganda”[111] and that it is "anti-Zionist garbage"[112]. I can provide links to and descriptions of other deletions upon request; most are links to documents. Another editor on the FARA article, who also has deleted IRmep links, declared the IRmep discussion "over"[113]. So I come here for more neutral opinions, hopefully from those who agree with WP:NOTCENSORED. CarolMooreDC 20:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Strike sockpuppet comment None of these are an indication that IRmep is a reliable source, quite the opposite.

• Ha'aretz calls it 'an organization with openly political motives'
• Mondoweiss is a personal blog, widely described as being part of a "anti-Israel blogosphere." and as "fulsomely, intensely anti-Israel."
• this blog post , on a now defunct blog on the Washington Post doesn't even mention IRmep
• The Palestine Telegraph is not a reliable source ,as has been discussed on this noticeboard before
• this Jordan Times link does not work

...and so on.

• republication of IRmep press releases, by wire services that republish press releases (PR Newswire, Reuters) are not an indication of notability or reliability - you pay these companies to publish your press release, and that's what they do. If that was not obvious, the Reuters link carry an explicit disclaimer "* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release. "

And on and on it goes, in a similar vain - these mentions are either in sources that are unreliable themselves, or mentions in RS'es that describe IRmep as a politically motivated group with a virulent anti-Israel agenda. IRmep itself has no reputation for fact checking, accuracy or use of its material by reliable sources. Its website lists no editorial board nor makes mention of fact checking or error correction policy - it is a political advocacy group and an unreliable source. Jeff Song (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There are two outputs from this organization, namely its commentary and the third-party documents it publishes. The former are unreliable and I don't think they should be used (except maybe as attributed opinions in some cases). The documents might be problematic due to being largely primary source material, but if they are handled within the guidelines for primary sources I don't see why they should be considered unreliable. They are not less reliable than, for example, MEMRI's documents which are widely used on Wikipedia. The main problem with documents produced by advocacy organizations like this is their bias in choosing which documents to present, so any sort of meta-analysis based on the selection has to be avoided. Zero^talk 01:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

First, User:Zero000 takes pretty much the position that I do, though I do believe the direction of things with IRMEP is that its material is being taken more and more seriously by more WP:RS.

User:Jeff Song highly exaggerates in stating that the list of WP:RS using IRMEP/Smith somehow "proves" these documents are not credible for use on Wikipedia. In response to his specific criticisms:

• Haaretz claiming a critic of Israel's most powerful American lobby is politically motivated? Who would have thunk it!
• Philip Weiss is a well known journalist.
• The Washington Post blog may no longer be published but that doesn't mean its author mentioning Grant Smith's work (obviously in this context known for being head of IRmep) is irrelevant.
• You are correct. Looking more closely The Palestine Telegraph doesn’t seem to be the WP:RS publication I thought it was. So I’ll cross that one off.
• Jordan Times archive seems to be down on a few articles. The article is called "Nuclear-free Mideast" by George S. Hishmeh and meanwhile has been reprinted at another site.
• First, do you have evidence that either Reuters or Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch accept money for printing press releases?? Second, do you have evidence that Reuters or Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch will print material it considers UNfactual or UNcredible. Such disclaimers probably are just covering their butts, rather than paying people to track down every factoid. Also This WP:RSN discussion as well as others state that a press release printed by a reliable source may have some credibility as a WP:RS. And, again, this is not necessarily to use any specific factoid published in these press release as a source for some specific edit. However, it is an excellent indication that Smith/IRmep is not merely politically motivated and virulently anti-Israel, in which case Reuters and the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch certain would not be republishing their press releases at all!!

I know some individuals may find it personally extremely emotionally upsetting that Americans will create websites having thousands of documents showing dubious and even criminal activities by Israel or its lobbies in the United States. But that is not an excuse for censoring such material from Wikipedia. CarolMooreDC 01:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

AS Zero points out source material presented by pro-Israel advocacy groups such as MEMRI, Honestreporting, Palwatch etc is widely cited in Wikipedia. In my opinion any blanket ban on IRmep on the basis of it being an advocacy group should also apply to pro-Isreal advocacy organisations such as the ones I have mentioned. Dlv999 (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's right: being biased or partisan does not make a source unreliable. It only makes it biased. Wikipedia does not require sources to be unbiased. Articles should be neutral. Sources need to be reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Strike sockpuppet comment Agree. And what is it that makes IRMep reliable? Do they have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy? Do they have editorial oversight? Do they have an error correction policy? The answer to all of these is NO. Conversely, WP:RS tells us which sources are questionable, and to be avoided: Self-published sources (yes, that's IRMep); no editorial oversight (IRMep fits this, too) ; and "websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature" - again, fits IRMep to a T, as evidenced even by the sources Carol has brought in support of IRmep. And, BTW DLv999, pro-Israel advocacy groups such as MEMRI, Honestreporting, Palwatch etc.. a routinely removed form articles, based on nothing more than their advocacy status - but you of course know this, since you are one of the people doing this: [114][115][116]. This hypocrisy is unseemly. Jeff Song (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If you really believe those sources are suitable for what they were used for, you are welcome to make a case on the relevant talk pages. But I beg you not to engage in meaningless point scoring and then pretend to hold the moral high ground. Dlv999 (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Strike sockpuppet comment I don't think they are suitable, and I don't think IRmep is suitable, on similar grounds. That is a consistent position. You, OTOH, think they are comparable in terms of reliability, yet advocate for the removal of some (as well as actively removing them!), but the retention of others - based on the POV they promote. That is hypocrisy. Jeff Song (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Time to justify your accusations Jeff. Point to any time I have ever advocated for the retention of IRmep as a source. Dlv999 (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Strike sockpuppet comment Apologies if I misunderstood your position. I took your comment timestamped 3:26, 6 April 2012 to be in support of keeping IRMep, as you seemed to be arguing that since pro-Israel advocacy groups such as MEMRI, Honestreporting, Palwatch are widely used, that IRMep should be allowed on similar grounds. But perhaps I misunderstood you. If you are saying the IRmep is unreliable and should be removed , the same way you are removing those pro-Israeli advocacy sites, I will strike out my previous accusations of hypocrisy. Jeff Song (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Zero and User:Dlv999 are both saying that IRmep's primary source documents can be taken seriously and used as sources, just like documents on the pages of those advocacy groups can be taken seriously. However, their interpretations of documents, facts, etc. cannot be used. (I don't know for sure if that is in fact the case with all those groups; and I do know there are advocacy groups that make lots of money smearing people whose opinions ARE considered WP:RS on Wikipedia. I won't mention the two I know best since I'm not pushing using IRmep's opinions, just saying IRmep's repository of documents is given credibility by various WP:RS that refer to or use or voluntarily publicize them.) CarolMooreDC 02:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jeff Song is correct about the Reuters and MarketWatch press releases. If you're a company, these are standard channels you use to get information out to the public. All the publishing news agencies do is act as a bulletin board. They publish whatever they're asked to irrespective of its content, provided the company pays the required fee. So the fact that the Reuters and MarketWatch logos decorate these IRmep press releases is meaningless. It doesn't mean Reuters and MarketWatch are in any way accountable for what's in the release.—Biosketch (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked involved editor User:Jeff Song to back up the claim these sites are paid to publish press release; he did not do so. I ask you, another involved editor, to back up your claim they'll publish "publish whatever they're asked to irrespective of its content." Thanks. CarolMooreDC 16:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This web page from Reuters might be relevant: thomsonreuters.com/products_services/financial/financial_products/corporate_services/public_relations/inpublic/ "Designed specifically for the European market, the secure self-publishing capabilities of InPublic enable you to take control of your message and its distribution." It suggests that they do not act in an editorial or fact-checking capacity. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If either or both Reuters and MarketWatch offer that "public relations service" in the US, it would be relevant if proved IRmep qualifies for that probably expensive service; ion any case those are only two of a dozen WP:RS present as evidence. CarolMooreDC 17:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Reuters distributes press releases in editorial feed; Thomson Reuters offers a suite of Web-based workflow tools and communication solutions designed for the PR professional including press release publishing. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a topic of general interest to any number of WP:RSN discussions, though not one critical to this one, let's not confuse Thomson Reuters - the parent company that offers Public Relations Services - (as the second link User:Cusop Dingle proved) and its subsidiary Reuters - the "news agency" which published IRmep press releases. Also, the first (barely reliable?) source only writes about big corporations listings in a finance related yahoo listing of news. It is possible there is a problem there since those big companies can afford to pay big fees for Thomson Reuters Public Relations Services. But that is not evidence that Thomson Reuters subsidiary Reuters - the "news agency" - is paid to publish IRmep or other nonprofit group press releases and therefore exercises no discretion in doing so. CarolMooreDC 19:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That Reuters and MarketWatch act as hired public relations agencies vis-a-vis the press releases they publish isn't really something that requires a source to establish. It's common knowledge to anyone with an iota of experience in the corporate world. We don't for a second try to argue that the New York Times or Fox News stand behind the ads they run, and press releases are basically just a more sophisticated form of advertising. In the case of publicly traded companies, whose operations are regulated by securities and exchange commissions, the company that's the source of the press release is expected to transmit accurate information to the public, even if it twists it in all sorts of ways to make it sound more appealing. When companies publish information considered to be of a misleading nature, they, and not the media that circulated the press release, are held accountable for it.—Biosketch (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This was issue was discussed above with evidence and links, not with personal attacks about someone's alleged knowledge or lack there of in the corporate world. Please see the discussion above. CarolMooreDC 12:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

non-RSes being used to establish reliability, and RSes establishing unreliability

1. The Haaretz source doesn't establish that IRmep's a reliable source. On the contrary, it calls IRmep a "U.S.-based Muslim organization" and "an organization with openly political motives." That establishes IRmep as an unreliable source.
2. Mondoweiss is a blog and not even remotely a reliable source for anything but its own opinions.
3. The Jeff Stein piece is a blog post. Per WP:NEWSBLOG we need to attribute content sourced to a blog – even in the case of blogs hosted by reliable sources – hence not itself an RS for anything but Stein's personal views.
4. AccountingToday is probably an RS, but nothing it says about IRmep in that article would lead a reader to conclude that IRmep itself is a credible organization.
5. The LATimes editorial is, of course, an editorial and not a conventional news report. And beyond that, all it's done is published the responses of two individuals to an earlier letter it ran. It doesn't take a position on whether what Grant Smith holds any validity, so how can we use it to establish IRmep's RShood? We can't.
6. The Jordan Times link doesn't load for me.
7. This page at IRmep indicates that the Arabamericannews.com piece is nothing more than an IRmep press release packaged as an original report. Note the presence of PR Newswire at the IRmep link, though. It's a press release.
8. The Reuters and MarketWatch links are to press releases, not to reports originating with these agencies.
9. Did you read that essay at sdonline.org? At one point the author tries to argue that "the goal of Zionism" is to control America. No, not a reliable source for establishing that IRmep is a reliable source.
10. CounterPunch is not a reliable source.—Biosketch (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Biosketch already has shared his opinons that IRmep is fringe because of its “anti-Israel propaganda”[117] and that it is "anti-Zionist garbage"[118]. I don't know if his use of books.google.co.il means he's an Israeli with a severe POV or even a COI.

Assuming Biosketch is accurate, if The Arab American News chooses to publish a press release as their own work, other neutral editors will have to opine if that is WP:RS for showing that the The Arab American News thinks Smith/IRmep are reliable. CarolMooreDC 20:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc, you don't know if my use of books.google.co.il means I'm "an Israeli with a severe POV and COI"? What does that even mean? And why aren't you confining your comments in this discussion to the substance of the arguments raised against your evidence instead of focusing your energies on what country your interlocutor is editing from? If you aren't capable of formulating a compelling and detached defense of the sources you brought, you could have saved us all valuable time by just accusing me directly and from the start of being "an Israeli with a severe POV and COI." That appears to be what your original case is fast degenerating into anyway. Are you interested in an honest evaluation of the sources you brought here even if the conclusions thereof aren't to your liking, or is it now your goal to disqualify me because my web browser redirects to the Israeli version of Google Books?—Biosketch (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The link to books.google.co.il only is relevant because your comments about “anti-Israel propaganda”[119] and that it is "anti-Zionist garbage"[120] express such a strong POV. The two neutral editors who responded do not see a problem with using the primary source documents on IRmep's website. And unless proven differently, Jeff Song has been blocked as a sockpuppet. So please allow other neutral editors to opine. Thank you. CarolMooreDC 12:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) This discussion seems to be going off-track (and squabbles over allegations of bias are certainly not what this board is for). Please could we focus on what this board is for, namely, answering specific questions about whether a given source is reliable for a given assertion in a given context? What specific question about reliability would you like to address? Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually this came up because User:Biosketch started a whole new subsection asking many of the same questions already addressed above, as if they had NOT been addressed before. Editor bias is not entirely irrelevant when editors engage in what looks like disruptive behavior. But here are all responses, including references to repeated ones:

• Repeated response: Haaretz claiming a critic of Israel's most powerful American lobby is politically motivated? Who would have thunk it! However, Haaretz does NOT claim the documents are falsified and we are only talking about the whether the documents are in fact real and therefore reliable and useable.
• Repeated response: Philip Weiss is a well known journalist and his blog has credibility for his opinion on IRmep.
• Repeated response: The Washington Post blog may no longer be published but that doesn't mean its author's mentioning Grant Smith's work (obviously in this context known for being head of IRmep) is irrelevant. If he said the documents were fake, I’m sure Biosketch would be happy to use that source.
• Accounting Today covers IRmep from the perspective of its area of expertise and that is sufficient; it does claim IRmep documents are fake, does it?
• The LA Times would not publish anything by Smith/IRmep if they thought he was publishing fake documents.
• Repeated response: Jordan Times archive seems to be down on a few articles. The article is called "Nuclear-free Mideast" by George S. Hishmeh and meanwhile has been reprinted at another site.
• See response to The Arab American News directly above.
• See long discussion of Reuters and MarketWatch press releases among several editors above. Note again that this WP:RSN discussion as well as others state that a press release printed by a reliable source may itself have some credibility as a WP:RS. And, again, this is not necessarily to use any specific factoid published in these press release as a source for some specific edit, except when it refers to a document on the site. However, it is an excellent indication that Smith/IRmep is not merely politically motivated and virulently anti-Israel. If that were true, Reuters and the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch certain would not be republishing their press releases at all!! (And again there is no evidence either is paid to publish IRmep's press releases.)
• Paragraph in “Socialism and Democracy online” (sdonline.org) article by Joel Kovel called Mearsheimer and Walt Revisited. A source used repeatedly on wikipedia. Biosketch writes the author writes: "the goal of Zionism" is to control America. What he actually writes is: hence, the prime goal of Zionism has been to so control America that this backing would be reliably insured. I don't think that's a very controversial statement of the goals of the pro-Israel lobby in many conservative and liberal circles now a days.
• Claim CounterPunch is not reliable based on WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_110. However, this discussion as well Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2 and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10 all pretty much agree that each of CounterPunch’s article’s reliability depends on who authored them. Therefore this one quoting Smith by a professor of economics at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa would be reliable. The second article by a non-notable activist mentions a point other WP:RS agree with an no one has contradicted: “Grant Smith, author of several books on AIPAC based on documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.” Which no one has disputed yet, and various WP:RS support.

Hopefully I won't have to answer all the same questions all over again CarolMooreDC 18:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm still finding it difficult to understand exactly what the original question is here. As noted at the top of this page, this board works best if you could provide

1. A full citation of the source in question.

2. A link to the source in question.

3. The article in which it is being used.

4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.

5. Links to relevant talk page discussion.

I assume the original question was intended to be "Is Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy a reliable source?" This board doesn't work well for such very general questions, as very few sources are ever likely to be of universally unimpeachable reliability. If you're intending to ask "Does IRMEP have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?", then that's a reasonable point for discussion, and it has been discussed, even if the answers are not always what you might have wanted to hear. The one specific point that you raised initially was about a link to a November 1963 Dept. of Justice letter demanding an organization register as a foreign agent in order to establish the date of and the existence of the letter. As a courtesy to the participants at this board, could you explain what source this letter comes from and where exactly IRMEP comes into it? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Read the first two paragraphs of this thread: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#IRmep:_actual_reliable_source_evidence. The operative sentence, which I just reinforced so there's no confusion, is: I think the following evidence that various WP:RS take IRmep/Grant Smith seriously as a source [added later just to make it perfectly clear: "for primary source documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act"] proves both are sufficiently WP:RS at the very least to permit linking to its archives of primary source documents per Wikipedia:Primary#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources.

Doing everything in number 1-5 may be necessary when it's a question of one source being used for one item. This is a broader question of whether this Institute and its site's primary source documents can be used in some circumstances. We have one editor (and a banned sockpuppet) deleting all such uses with insulting edit summaries. I did offer to provide links to those, and I still can do so, with further analysis.

But do you really think that User:Zero0000's comment, User:DVL999's comment User:WhatamIdoing's comment, all saying IRmep/Grant Smith are reliable for the primary source documents but not their interpretation of them are irrelevant to the conversation? Thanks. CarolMooreDC 00:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand what the question is now, thanks for the explanation. No, I do not consider the comments irrelevant, I just tend to disagree with them. If we write in Wikipedia that a certain document exists and says X, or that A wrote to B saying Y, and source it to a copy of that document or letter published by an organisation O, then we are using O as a source. That means that O has to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The fact that other organisations use material from O is not enough to establish that -- they may have different motives for using the material. Ideally one would have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of O directly. I didn't see that here. There's lots of evidence of use of IRMEP material, but I didn't see an objective assessment of its reputation for accuracy Until then I would say it was a questionable source and advise against using it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Cusop Dingle wrote: Ideally one would have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of O directly. That's an ideal for any source, do you apply it to every single source you opine on WP:RSN? I do see from a search you opine often.

In practice many Wikisources not only do not fulfill this criteria. Including some that are highly partisan and even criticized in their Wikipedia articles for not being reliable. These include, as other editors have mentioned in this discussion, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) (which is often accused of inaccurate translations) (see WP:RSN discussions here); HonestReporting whose constant highly partisan opinion criticisms of media used on Wikipedia (see WP:RSN discussions here); Palestinian Media Watch (Palwatch) most of whose refs are the Jerusalem Post covering its being banned from Youtube for questionable content but nevertheless is widely used on Wikipedia (see WP:RSN discussions here). Are you willing to offer that opinion the next time any of these are brought to WP:RSN?

Or perhaps are you willing to look at a list of deletions of refs to documents posted on IRmep's web site, as I've offered twice to do?

In any case, I'm going to look for some more sources using IRmep/Smith's books because after looking at the refs on the articles on the three "reliable sources" named above, it is clear that IRmep also deserves its own article and having a coherent article rather than list of links will make it easier for people to understand any notability and credibility. CarolMooreDC 14:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have given my opinion on the question posed here. I am personally keen on Wikipedia having the highest possible standards for sources, and on having evidence. If the other sources mentioned here are called into question, I may well contribute to the discussions there, assuming I have the time and feel that my contribution would be constructive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, no need to compare and contrast. While you may have a personal opinion, the point here is to look at policy. It does not say we must have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of [a source] directly. So it's useful to stick to the sources we have about the reliability of a source, instead of asking for incredibly high standards which even the most reliable sources may not meet. CarolMooreDC 17:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The object of this board is to achieve consensus, which involves various editors offering reasoned arguments. Verifiability requires that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". What is the evidence that IRMEP has such a reputation? I do not say that this "must" be from a scholarly source, only that this would be ideal. I dispute that asking for good evidence of reliability is an "incredibly high" standard -- I say that it is in fact policy. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's your whole quote: Ideally one would have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of O directly. I didn't see that here. There's lots of evidence of use of IRMEP material, but I didn't see an objective assessment of its reputation for accuracy

That is very different from WP:V's statement "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". There is no statement that if there is "no objective assessment of a reputation for accuracy" a source can't be used. Obviously, if there are positive statement's about its reputation, that's a big help. But it's not mandatory. The whole purpose of WP:RSN is for Wikipedia editors to decide if a listing of a number of reliable sources that consider a source reliable (be it for primary source links, facts, opinions) show it has a reputation for accuracy. That said, it seems to me there were a couple such statements re:IRmep - or implied statements. Do we need to list those to make you happy? CarolMooreDC 19:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems implausible that one would establish a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" without evidence, and it seems implausible that evidence other than objective would be acceptable. It isn't a matter of making me happy -- it's a matter of helping the editors at this board assess that reputation, so yes, it would be a good idea to produce that evidence. In the absence of evidence, my assessment, and, I suspect, that of anyone else who is interested, would have to be that lack of evidence implies lack of reputation, and lack of reputation implies lack of reliability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The point is that most editors see a lot of WP:RS reporting on or using a source as evidence it's reliable, which is why the WP:RS of sources mostly has been under discussion. Overall, I'm starting to feel like this point should be clarified at this noticeboard's talk page to avoid editors having to have this debate again in the future. Actual statements are just gravy. And since I'll be using such in the article itself, not a burden to look for. CarolMooreDC 19:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if Cusop and Carol are agreeing or disagreeing, or a little of both... but they are both essentially correct... when the reliability of a source is questioned, we do need to examine its reputation. Now, one quick to do that is to examine how many other sources refer to it. But that has its limitations... as it raises the question of whether those other sources have a good reputation or not (a chain of unreliable sources, all referring to each other does not make any of them reliable). When we are examining the reliability of a source, the question of which other sources refers to it is far more important than the question of how many other sources refer to it. Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for comment, Blueboar. I agree that some sources using/referring to/reporting on a source are more reliable than others. I tried to list them from most to least reliable just to make it easy. (Except for later entries, and I have put a few more up now.) And even if several are seen as unreliable, that does not mean that others do not have reliability - or do not generally support the reliability of the source for some or all purposes. If Cusop wants to list the sources he considers unreliable, fine, we can debate it. Or if someone wants to say only these six sources show it's reliable, that's fine too. I just have a problem with how I interpreted what Cusop said which I won't repeat so we don't have to discuss if I interpreted it right CarolMooreDC 20:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• A 3rd Party Opinion - If the documents are U.S. Government documents obtained through FOIA requests, shouldn't the source be considered the U.S. government rather than IRMep? It sounds like IRMep is just acting as the host. If we were relying on IRMep to interpret the documents for us and we didn't have direct access to them, IRMep would need to meet a higher standard, but if we're just limiting coverage to the primary documents themselves, I don't see why we would need to establish anything other than the fact that IRMep is not a blatantly fraudulent organization (as the U.S. government is generally considered a reliable source). Granted, there may be extenuating circumstances I'm not aware of in this rather convoluted debate, but that's my opinion from the peanut gallery. Kaldari (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't necessary to establish that IRmep is a blatantly fraudulent organization because in a sense that's already the default approach we take in situations like this where the source is advocating a fringe political agenda. Rather, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to establish that IRmep is a reliable source. Particularly in this case that we're dealing with, there are these documents on the IRmep website that IRmep is claiming are authentic, and we're endeavoring to determine where on the scale of reliability IRmep belongs in order to agree what status should be conferred on the documents. The documents themselves are of a highly charged and controversial nature in that they relate to a topic that's frequently a source of conflict between editors throughout Wikipedia. It's therefore vital that in order for us to accept IRmep's documents as authentic, we first establish a consensus around IRmep being a reliable source for information - and that's where we're stuck right now. After all, anyone can found an organization, come up with a fancy name for it, and claim to have exclusive access to all sorts of obscure documents. It's our role to be rigorous in our critical standards in proportion to the nature of the claims we're assessing. This is the root of the insistence that IRmep be shown to have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and that insistence has as yet gone unfulfilled.—Biosketch (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• @Biosketch's comments directly above only: Criticism of the powerful Israel lobby in the United States, seeking FOIA information about it, disseminating that information, and having it picked up, used, publicized by a variety of sources is hardly fringe; even that article has a few of the many examplels, even if they are sometimes overwhelmed by all the denials. The problem Biosketch describes really seems to be that a number of editors with strong ties to Israel WP:IDONTLIKE IT. (And note that WP:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration has a whole archive section on outside recruiting of pro-Israel editors dedicated to rising through the ranks and purging critical information. How successful they have been is a matter of debate.) So again I raise the issue of WP:CENSORSHIP via extreme nitpicking of sources, as say compared to use as WP:RS for extremely (and some might say extremist) pro-Israel sources like MEMRI, Palestine Media Watch and HonestReporting.com detailed above. CarolMooreDC 12:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Need uninvolved editors to examine my analysis of a source

Moved to a subsection of this thread as it turns out to be the same source being discussed. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ZScarpia_and_WLRoss, there's an issue over the proper use of a source. According to my own analysis, the use of this source fails criteria #2 of WP:SPS but no one else is agreeing with me. Can some uninvolved editors examine this source and let me know what they think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The site isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia content. Most obvious to me is that there is no true editorial oversight, and the site seems to be a collecting place for material with a specific slant. If any of the content on the site is significant enough to be included on Wikipedia you should be able to find it in good secondary and so reliable sources.(olive (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for putting this here. I have commented under Comment by Carolmooredc at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ZScarpia_and_WLRoss about the evidence presented and that four editors found it WP:RS for presenting primary source documents. It really is a bit much that just as couple dozen evidences of IRmep being reliable at least for documents is ongoing here, an editor tries to get people in trouble for using it as a source of opinion on arbitration enforcement. (Was he afraid the community might suddenly decide its opinions are valid too? Still could happen, of course.)

I do not know if LittleOlive has read the very top of this thread that lists all of those sources. Unfortunately the government does not choose to list on any website all the documents it releases through freedom of information act. And lots of other documents, news articles, etc. often dissappear from their original sites but are still useable from other sites on Wikipedia. Four editors and myself above have opined it is useable for such purposes. (Listed under my comment.)

Also, I find it interesting that two admins at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_ZScarpia_and_WLRoss thought Irmep’s opinions also sometimes may be used on Wikipedia, though others disagreed. Read whole debate there.

• ...Even assuming arguendo that the IRMEP website is not a reliable source for facts (something we need not decide to resolve this case, although it does seem true), it is surely a reliable source for IRMEP's own opinion.... T. Canens (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• @A Quest for Knowledge: WLRoss and and ZScarpia are trying to include the editorial opinion of the IRMEP organization about the Middle East Media Research Institute. It is not out of the question that one research institute's opinion of another research institute might be relevant or interesting. The two institutes seem to be acting as adversaries, so you might consider whether their views deserve space in each other's criticism sections.This would not run afoul of WP:RS because it's a question of opinion, not of facts. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Relevant policy on opinions can be found in WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. So the question is, how expert is IRmep/Smith on their opinions on topics they write about as evidenced by WP:RS using them? Something to be discussed is some next round of WP:RSN discussions, anyway. Using above list of two dozen relevant sources. CarolMooreDC 14:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There should be no problem with citing IRMEP publications as a source for their own opinions, provided of course they are stated as IRMEP's opinions, rather than as established facts. Whether those opinions are sufficiently significant to be included in any given article is not an issue for this board. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize there was a second RSN discussion about this source. In any case, isn't this essentially a self-published source and you can't use an SPS for claims about a third-party? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If IRMEP's website says "A is B", then that is a reliable source for the statement "IRMEP believes that A is B". It is not a reliable source for the statement "A is B", without further evidence as to a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Whether that opinion is worth reporting is another matter. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not if B is a claim about a third party. See criteria #2 of WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. If the claim is about the subject and not self-serving, etc. then we can use it directly. Any direct quote can be used provided that it is stated to be their opinion. If it is not reported by any independent reliable source then it is probably not worth our using it. For example, if the website of the X Institute says that "The X Institute is the only impartial think-tank based in Washington, then we can directly state "The X Institute is based in Washington", possibly "The X Institute is a think-tank based in Washington" (assuming the claim to be a think-tank is not self-serving), but not "an impartial think-tank" (definitely self-serving) or "the only impartial think-tank" (relates to other think-tanks). We can however say "The X Institute claims to be the only impartial think-tank in Washington" if we want. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

But all of those examples are claims about itself. We can't say "The X Institute believes Obama is a bad man" because Obama is a thirt-party. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

We often report opinions about third parties. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, not unless it's published by a reliable source. So, if BBC News reports that The X Institute is saying that Obama is a bad man, then we can include it. But if it can only be sourced to The X Institute, we can't include it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Then we do not agree about the meaning of WP:SPS. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

To summarise: I maintain that an entity's own publication of its opinions are a reliable source for those opinions, and we may legitimately cite them to support the assertion that its opinions are what it says they are. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You can maintain anything you like, but WP:SPS is very clear:

“ it does not involve claims about third parties ”

If you disagree with policy, then you should try to gain concensus to have condition #2 removed from WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not disagree with the policy, I disagree with your interpretation of it, which I say is wrong. If the X Institute website says "Lincoln was a bad man", then as a self-published source, we cannot use that to support Wikipedia saying in its own voice "Lincoln was a bad man", because that is an assertion about a third party. But we can use it to support Wikipedia saying in its own voice "The X Institute says Lincoln was a bad man", or better, "The X Institute says 'Lincoln was a bad man'" (in quote marks), because that is not Wikipedia making an assertion about Lincoln, it is Wikipedia making an assertion about the X Institute. Note that in the case where it's a quote, WP:RS actually prefers the use of the original: "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted."

In summary, I say that Quest has taken an overly broad interpretation of "involve". Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Where in WP:SPS does it say that it's OK to use an self-publish source to make contentious claims about third-parties as long as it's not in Wikipedia's voice? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Saying "The X Institute says 'Lincoln was a bad man'" is not making a claim about Lincoln, but only about the X Institute. So that question is irrelevant. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln is a third-party. This is exactly what WP:SPS is designed prevent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't have brought this up without a concrete example from an actual article (the kind of thing one can bring here.) But in general terms if advocacy groups/think tanks/institutes like MEMRI/IRMEP/etc. has just gotten documents X,Y,Z through FOIA or whatever reliable source about some individual/group and announces "we have documents X,Y,Z and they say blah blah. Note that blah blah is a violation of such and such law (see link to govt web site)." That should be WP:RS. If the group groups/think tanks/institutes say: "...And therefore X,Y,Z should be prosecuted immediately for violation of that law." That would be an opinion which would be open to challenge. Though the community might ultimately agree that opinion was useable. CarolMooreDC 00:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Quest, that is still wrong. Lincoln is a third party, but the fact that someone holds a particular opinion about Lincoln is not information about Lincoln, it is information about the opinion-holder. What SPS is designed to prevent is Jane Smith publishing on her website, say, "I was born in London and my father was John Smith", and us using that to source the statement "Jane's Smith father was John Smith". It is an acceptable source for "Jane Smith claimed that John Smith was her father" (except that if John Smith is still alive, a special BLP rule applies). Look at the article on David Icke, for example. He believes that the world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards, and we cheerfully source that, indeed quote, his self-published writings. For another example, look at the discussion on hopenothate.org.uk at this baord today. We should probably not report an opinion if no independent source has troubled to notice it (because reporting it would be to give it undue weight), but once we have decided to report it, a self-published source is actually a recommended source for an accurate quotation of that opinion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Carol, that's not right either. Analysis by a non-reliable source cannot be reported as fact. You can say "X Institute reports that the document said Y and claims that this violates law Z". Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at David Icke and the claim that he believes that world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards are sourced to a secondary source. In Icke's article, it's sourced to an article published by the Guardian.[121] Please cease and desist. This is getting tiresome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be incorrect. It is sourced at [37] to one of his self-published books, and his website is directly quoted at [40]. (It is also sourced to secondary sources, as one would expect for a belief which was worth reporting.) If you do not wish to pursue the discussion, by all means let us stop. I have explained your fallacy several times over and have no real desire to do so yet again. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't change goal posts, please. You asked about the claim that the world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards. That is clearly sourced to a secondary source as I just proved.[122] It is NOT sourced to his book. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you are now mispresenting the situation. As for 37, I don't think that "the race of gods known as the Anunnaki" really qualifies as a third-party since they don't exist. Yes, you really need to stop. Your arguments have no basis in policy and are now bordering on absurdity. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the citations to Icke's self-published works are in the first and second paragraph of Reptilians and shape-shifting, which refers in the first sentence to his "reptoid hypothesis", which is that the world's leaders are shape-shifting lizards, I think the goalposts are pretty firmly in place. The reptilian aliens from the planet Draco are certainly third parties. If that doesn't help, try looking at reference [34] in the paragraph above, or [36], about the plans of the world leaders, or [41],[42],[43]. All cite Icke's SPS work, all refer to third parties, all are there to support our reporting of his shape-shifting lizard theory. The statement that this theory is "NOT sourced to his book" is simply not correct (it is also sourced to other places of course). Any absurdity you see is (either in Icke's theory or) in the failure to acknowledge the rather large difference between "David Icke thinks the world's leaders are shape-shifting lizards" and "The world's leaders are shape-shifting lizards".

There you go again. You falsely claimed that the world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards was sourced to his book when it's clearly not.[123] Rather than admit you were wrong, you falsely claimed that 37 was about a third-party when it's clearly not. Rather than admit you were wrong, you're now going on about 34 and 36. What's the point of repeatedly proving you wrong when you refuse to acknowledge your mistakes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Section break

It's getting hard to keep track of the items of evidence that are being added at the top of this thread, and adding such items out of sequence can change the sense of comments like "I have seen no evidence of reliability", which may be referring to some previous iteration of the list. It would be helpful to add any new items of evidence in thread order so they can be discussed as they arrive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite a number of these newer items are examples of IRMEP or Smith having their opinions quoted. Why is this evidence of reliability? One item comments that Smith has a Master's degree. Why is this evidence of reliability? Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant. I used to teach on a Master's Degree - most of the students were admitted without having had an undergraduate degree. It wasn't a bad course and it was in a respectable university, but the students at the end still didn't have the equivalent of a good undergraduate degree IMHO. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are two sources that seem to establish reliability for matters unrelated to Israel: [124] [125]. From my reviewing of the material above and some other sources, it seems the group is sufficiently significant and reliable to merit its use as a source. The concerns about its bias against Israel/Zionism are only significant with respect to the organization's own comments on Israel, but its opinion would be noteworthy enough to mention and it is apparently trustworthy enough to consider any FOIA documents on its site to be authentic.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those sources! Obviously when there is a Wiki article on IRmep any day now that ties all this material together its reliability will be easier to gauge. The Masters I just threw in there, but obviously more relevant to an article. Anyway now there are five people and me who think it's reliable for linking to primary sources on the web site, one against, and one whose opinion I will not attempt to characterize so as not to misinterpret. CarolMooreDC 00:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's cited as IRMEPs opinion and based on FOIA documents I see no problem with them as a reliable source. It is exactly how many other advocacy groups such as MEMRI are used in WP. Wayne (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Again no, because IRmep isn't a reliable source, i.e. not a reliable publisher of information; whence it follows that any documents IRmep publishes can't be treated as though they originated with a reliable publisher. If there's another source for these documents that has established credentials – a reputation for fact-checking, editorial oversight, etc. – that's fine and the documents are fine too. But that isn't the case here, and until the issues of IRmep's unreliability are resolved, the documents retain their status of originating with a publisher of questionable credibility.—Biosketch (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that when IRMEP use FOI to get documents from normally reliable sources then those documents are no longer considered reliable? Since when is an organisation responsible for fact checking documents that have been released to them? Can you supply an instance where IRMEP has published or commented on documents that were subsequently discovered to not be reliable? Wayne (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Gaging consensus

This shouldn't need to be said, but since an editor appears to be keeping a tally of for and against opinions here, it should be stressed that RSN discussions are traditionally considered authoritative as a function of consensus among uninvolved editors. This was the original position of the editor who initiated this discussion, and it should be in that spirit that the discussion is concluded. Editors whose input is predictable based on their history in the I/P topic area (I include myself in that category) are of course important components in trying to establish consensus, but the greater weight is given to input from editors whose input isn't predictable, lest this turn into a vote.—Biosketch (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

[insert] My apologies for including myself in the tally. On the other hand, if we're supposed to get uninvolved opinion, don't you think you're opining once would be enough? Creating a whole sections to list things mostly already discussed, and constantly forcing me to clarify or explain, when other noninvolved editors don't see a problem, seems to me to be disruptive of the process, don't you think? Why else do I even have to try to summarize what's going on, unthinkingly putting myself in the consensus, except to deal with fact you keep going on and on and on? Geez, you think there'd be a rule agin' it. CarolMooreDC 13:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Christ on a bicycle, I logged in a few days ago and have been following this particular train-wreck. Documents obtained under FOIA (or similar government releases) by this group are treated as rock-solid, 100% reliable by my profession. A biased organization? Yes. A reputation for not forging documents or lying about their origins? Also yes. What's really going on here is a sophistic side-game in the battle to control underlying article content (presumably someone doesn't like what a primary document contains, so want to insist the site that hosts it is "unreliable.") As for the opinions of the group being "notable" ymmv. I concede that this back and forth nonsense, squabbling over how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, has become the preferred form of discourse here (rather than direct, logical adult conversation). So it goes.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify please can this be cited for its opinions or 3rd party or not?--Shrike (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

@User:Shrike: "Opinions or 3rd party" are not really the subject of this thread. Frankly, I think that will end having to be done on a case by case basis since IRmep has done a lot of work on a lot of different issues and there are some where WP:RS quote IRmep/Grant books, opinions, actions, etc. and others where they don't. And one really has to search with very specific key words to find much such info since as we've seen very general searches don't come up with much; but very specific searches are what have come up with the most WP:RS mentions. At this point we are just talking about the documents on the website. CarolMooreDC 13:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

@Shrike the question "can IRmep be cited for its opinions or not" has a very clear (but not a very simple answer): It depends. Let me break it down: 1. All US and other official documents hosted on their servers should be treated as genuine and reliable. 2. IRmep also writes pieces of opinion and analysis. Some of these opinion and analysis pieces are excellent, some less so. In some cases it may be appropriate to quote (with attribution) IRmep opinion and analysis, in other cases, less so. The only sensible way to deal with this is on a case by case basis as a question of editorial discretion. There is no binary "yes/no" "Up/down" judgement to be made here, and an attempt to do so is damaging, because it limits the sophistication and maturity of judgement that needs to be applied to research.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. Any disputes regarding the use of IRMEP should be handled on a case by case basis on the article talk page. Wayne (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

IRMEP - two separate issues

There appears to be two separate issues here:

1. Citing this IRMEP's opinion about third-parties.
2. Citing documents obtained in FOIA requests.

The first is not allowed per WP:SPS condition #2. The second you're not really citing IRMEP. You're citing primary documents that just happen to be hosted by IRMEP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPS condition #2 does not apply as this guidline specifically applies to be[ing] used as sources of information about themselves. For use as a source of opinion about third-parties this guidline applies Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Wayne (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to this edit,[126] Middle East Media Research Institute is clearly a third-party. Nobody has presented any evidence that the author is an established expert who's been previously published by third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

kriyayogashyamacharan.org - reliable source

Akash 2011 (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this a question, or an assertion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

...and assuming it is the former, I see no reason to see it as a reliable source for anything other than its own opinions. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In any case, what is it being cited as a reliable source for - there is no such thing as an abstract 'reliable source'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Kriya yoga is the ultimate science of spirituality. Now a days, there are several websites on this subject itself. Many of them cater wrong info though. Just for name and fame, they have created their websites with more focus on alluring people to their websites, rather than educating people on the subtle subject of Kriya yoga. Among all these, very few are still there who are reliable and upholding the true, unmodified knowledge of Kriya yoga.

Over a certain period of time, I have noticed Kriyayogashymacharan.org is one such website which has maintained that sanity. It’s the official website of Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission. Founder-director of this mission is Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee, World Kriyayoga Master.

He is disciple of Yogivar Sri Satya Charan Lahiri Mahasaya, grandson of Yogiraj Shyamacharan Lahiri Mahasaya. Lahiri Mahasaya is the greatest Yogi who revived Kriyayoga. Satya Charan Lahiri Mahasaya only, asked Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee to write one authentic biography on the life Yogiraj Lahiri Mahasaya, based on the 26 personal diaries scripted by Lahiri Mahasaya himself. This book is ‘Purana Purusha’. On a later date, another book ‘Who Is This Shama Churn’ was written, based on the same 26 diaries, again by Dr. Chatterjee. Till date, ‘Purana Purusha’ is indeed the most authentic book on ‘Kriya yoga’.

Thousands of soul seekers across the globe are getting benefitted through this website, every year. Thousands are getting initiated into Kriya yoga every year.

http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ is the official website of Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission. I would request Wikipedia to sincerely look into the matter. Considering this as a reliable source would certainly help Wikipedia readers hugely. As this website hosts loads of important data and provides careful guidance to all the soul-seekers across the globe. I would request Wikipedia to have a look into this site and its topics.

• As far as we know, the mission doesn’t believe in publicity and promotion. They don’t even have a wikipedia page like other such spiritual organizations, although catering spirituality to the mass since 1991. Neither have there been any concrete initiative to create wiki pages for Dr. Ashoke Kr. Chatterjee or 'Purana Purusha'.

But, of late, it was felt, that among huge dilution of proper knowledge in Kriya yoga; it’s high time that the exact info should be propagated to everyone. And hence, some info (which were already there) were amended in the ‘kriya yoga’ page. And http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org has been given as a reference.

Akash 2011 (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. So, if an website says - "Sun rises in the east" .. is that an opinion or a reliable source ?? !

Akash 2011 (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So, ignoring all the promotional waffle, are you going to tell us what we are supposed to be citing the website for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Absoultely. When we are talking about Kriya yoga, the assertions of the great yogi who imparted this knowledge of Sadhana - Lahiri Mahasaya has to be supreme.

Now, isn't it bewildering if we say the Yogi who imparted Kriya Yoga is giving opinions only ??!! Lahiri Mahasaya is the fountain-head of Kriya yoga. and http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ is that very site, who's info are based on the 26 confidential diaries written by Lahiri Mahasaya !!

Akash 2011 (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just putting the site as a reference in the Kriya Yoga page. Nothing more than that !!

Akash 2011 (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any other source than this website that states that "Lahiri Mahasaya is the fountain-head of Kriya yoga"? To be honest, I can't make head nor tail of the Kriya Yoga article anyway - it seems to tell us a great deal about a lot of things, but nothing whatsoever about what it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Right you are. The article is not that equipped. Well, Lahiri Mahasaya is that person who imparted Kriya Yoga.

A simple google search "Shyamacharan Lahiri Mahasaya Kriya Yoga" would reveal this fact

Akash 2011 (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the site http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ has already been referred in the article. I was just trying to modify the article. And, hence, was putting the website as reference in some places.

Regarding Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission, Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee and Kriya yoga :

Information put over there are best to their knowledge, while sticking to truthfulness - this I believe firmly.

Furthermore, other reliable resources, which I had earlier provided to substantiate the facts about http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ :

• http://www.wpsconnect.org -- The 1st Parliament of Spirituality, to be held in Hyderabad, India
• http://www.lifepositive.com -- The Life Positive website [unbiased spiritual website]
• http://www.crossandlotus.com -- The Cross and Lotus website [unbiased Spiritual website]

are quite famous platforms for spirituality from all the avenues.

• Yogacharya Dr. Chatterjee's article in The Times Of India [India's most famous english daily news paper]:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-23/science-of-spirituality/29447692_1_infinite-creation-science-religions

• Another, one of the most famous daily news paper "The Hindu" reports an event on Degradation of Human Values :

http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/22/stories/2008012250630200.htm

Akash 2011 (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, one final time. What are you asking us to say? What is it that you are attempting to cite the website for? We aren't going to be able to say whether it is 'reliable' or not, unless you can explain what it is you are trying to include in the article. This is all explained at the top of this page. We don't make abstract declarations that a source is 'reliable' without an explanation of what it is they are being cited for. So far, you have told us nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The site was already used as a reference. I was recently further modifying the article 'kriya Yoga' and hence used this site as reference.

admin Ronz deleted the portion and asked me to have a discussion on this page on whether the site is reliable resource or not !

Akash 2011 (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The portions which were added, and later asked to verify on this page :

Inside Practice section : ---------------

According to Purana Purusha by Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee -

"The sastras have similarly noted thus Niscalam Brahma ucyate—the static or still state is Brahma."

The Yogasadhana to reach that static state of Prana is Kriyayoga. The aim of kriyayoga is union with the Absolute, the Ultimate. It is science of the soul, or Atma-vidya.[9]

Dr. Chatterjee opines on this Sadhana as -

"The one and same Prana exists in humans, all living creatures, trees, earth, rocks, fire, water, air, sky, planets all are bound by the same discipline, it is the Prana-pervaded universe. Everything evolves from Prana, again after death reverts to Prana"

Inside Lineages Section : ----------------

Sri Satyacharan Lahiri the grandson of Lahiri Mahasaya authorized[22] his disciple Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee[23] to initiate in Kriya yoga. He also authorized him to write a biography "Purana Purusha" on the life of Yogiraj Sri Shyamacharan Lahiri from his 26 confidential diaries.[24]. On a later date, another book Who Is This Shama Churn was scripted by him based on these 26 diaries, revealing the divine identity of Lahiri Mahasaya.[25] In both the books, Dr. Chatterjee describes vividly on the science of Kriya yoga.[26] Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee has founded Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission on Sept 30th 1991[27]; headquartered in Kakdwip, West Bengal, India; to spread worldwide awareness about Lahiri Mahasaya and his sacred teaching - Kriyayoga. The Mission also its temples in Degaon, Pune, Maharashtra, India and Bankura, West Bengal, India.[28]

References used :

http://www.crossandlotus.com/Masters/lairi_mahasaya.html http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/pithysayings1.php

http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/akc-spiritual-lineage.php http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/Kriya_Yoga/The_science_of_soul22010.asp http://www.kriyayogashyamacharan.org/yogacharya.php http://www.wpsconnect.org/speakers http://www.kriyayogashyamacharan.org/yss-mission.php http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/yssm-centers.php

Akash 2011 (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is what admin Ronz had to say in the talk page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kriya_Yoga

Akash 2011 (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that maybe someone who can figure out what this is all about should take over here - I've no idea what this is about, or why we should have an article about it anyway, if it can't be explained in something approximating to the English language. While I appreciate that the Indian subcontinent has a deep and complex history of spiritual philosophy, and of contemplating the unknowable, we can't actually write useful articles about things nobody is prepared to describe except in words that we don't understand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Andy.

As against the quoted portions above, my simple agenda was to know - on what basis was the site kriyayogashyamacharan.org called not reliable on that particular context.

If an admin has already mentioned that, then there has to be certain reasons behind calling it non-reliable. For which, I was asked to discuss the matter here !

Akash 2011 (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, Kriya Yoga is not a subject which is confined in Indian subcontinent only. It's followed and practiced religiously by millions of people all across the globe. Yes, the origin is from India only. But, it's for all - regardless of the cast, creed, religions, colors etc.

In fact, awareness about Kriya Yoga is more in Europe or USA now a days!

Akash 2011 (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Among all these, very few are still there who are reliable and upholding the true, unmodified knowledge of Kriya yoga." - Am I right in understanding from this that you're saying only a small number of yoga practitioners adhere to the teachings of Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee? --GenericBob (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This article could use help from someone able to translate its in-universe prose into straightforward encyclopedic writing. I placed a link at WikiProject Yoga. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, No. What I'm trying to say is :

Lahiri Mahasaya is the fountain-head of Kriya Yoga. Hence he is the authority. His teachings and ideals are only to be followed, when it comes to Kriya Yoga. Over the years, Kriya Yoga, which was imparted by Lahiri Mahasaya was diluted for some known/unknown reasons. There are still few of the enlightened Yoga masters who adhere to the unmodified/exact Kriya Yoga of Lahiri Mahasaya. Yogacharya Dr. Chatterjee is one of them. That's what I tried to mean.

By the word Yoga, I mean to say, the mergence of individual consciousness into cosmic consciousness. This only is Kriya Yoga as mentioned in the 1st sloka of Yoga Sutra of Maharshi [[Patanjali]. This only happens through Kriya Yoga Pranayama. Pranayama as expatiated in Gita Chapter 4, Sloka 29.

Akash 2011 (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And I absolutely agree with you when you say that the subject should be properly understandable in english/readable and understandable version. Yoga, Pranayama, Prana are typical Sanskrit terms and quite prevalent too, I guess.

I believe, the website kriyayogashyamacharan.org is organized by professional and responsible people, who took care of this fact while writin the contents. I would request you to have a glimpse of that.

Akash 2011 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

All of the above reads like one huge advert! It is obviously not a request for advice and maybe the whole thing should be deleted. Meowy 20:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If the question is whether or not kriyayogashyamacharan.org (which identifies itself as the website of the 'Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission', and declares that "This is the one and only way", etc.) is a source of impartial, objective information about what Kriya Yoga is, I would have to say no. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems reasonable to treat it as a reliable source on the beliefs of Chatterjee's specific branch of Kriya yoga. But since the OP seems to be saying that only a few yogi (? - apologies if I have the terminology wrong) adhere to this specific branch, then we need to consider WP:WEIGHT: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." So even if it's a RS for describing Chatterjee's branch, it may not be appropriate to cite it for that purpose - certainly not to make heavy use of it.

It seems pretty clear from what the OP's said that it does not reflect a consensus agreement on what Kriya yoga is - it looks as if many other yogis disagree with it. Maybe Chatterjee is right and all the rest are wrong, but that's not a judgement for Wikipedia to make. Without that consensus, it'd be inappropriate to treat it as a RS for the views of Kriya generally.

To the OP: Wikipedia is not a place to settle disagreements about spiritual truth. All we can do here is describe the disagreements that exist (and the rare occasions where people have already settled them!) and it sounds like what you're looking for goes well beyond that. --GenericBob (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear all,

Just few things to clarify :

• There's nothing called Dr. Chatterjee's branch of Kriya Yoga. Kriya Yoga doesn't have any branch. The only source is Lahiri Mahasaya.
• Dr. Chatterjee doesn't opine anything of his own too. He only re-iterates things which are earlier expressed by Yogiraj Sri Shyamacharan Lahiri Mahasaya. Hence, there's no minority-majority. Simply, all the Kriya Yogis follow Lahiri Mahasaya's teachings only. Absolutely no division there.
• When I say - "Very few follow exact/unmodified Kriya Yoga of Lahiri Mahasaya in today's world" - I mean to say :
  • 1. Yogiraj Lahiri Mahasaya left his mortal frame in the year 1895. Till then many have followed the path of Kriya Yoga. Due to the subtleness of the subject - Kriya Yoga, may be slight deviations in their ideas are observed. But, the main source has always been/will be the same - Lahiri Mahasaya.
  • 2. Lahiri Mahasaya scripted 26 confidential diaries during his most exalted Yogic Realizations. These were revealed later too. Purana Purusha is one such book which is directly based on those 26 diaries directly. Now are they Dr. Chatterjee's opinions ? precisely NO. They are assertions of Lahiri Mahasaya himself. And I believe there's no second thought about that too. However differences there may be, this is/will be truth. And truly, everyone adheres to that too.

• • 3. Through the above 2 points, what I just tried to convey is that - there's nothing called Dr. Chatterjee's branch/way of understanding. Things are already in place, scripted by Lahiri Mahasaya. Dr. Chatterjee only re-iterated that. Someone else, who is not following Lahiri Mahasaya's Kriya Yoga, is his/her personal issue. The site kriyayogashyamacharan.org only conveys the teachings of Lahiri Mahasaya. There's no right or wrong case. As Lahiri Mahasaya himself is the fountain-head of Kriya Yoga. And millions across the globe is following him only.

Akash 2011 (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. But without verifiable evidence from independent sources, Wikipedia won't. Not a reliable source for anything except opinion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Andy,

Evidence for what ? While modifying the page Kriya Yoga, not only did I quote http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/, the following sites were also given as reference, which absolutely have no connection with Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission; I believe :

• http://www.lifepositive.com/ [Life Positive - Independent spiritual website]
• http://www.crossandlotus.com/ [The Cross and The Lotus - Independent spiritual website]
• http://www.wpsconnect.org [World's 1st "Parliament on Spirituality". Their official website !! ]
• http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ [The Times Of India - India's most famous and circulated English daily news paper]
• http://www.thehindu.com/ [The Hindu - Another famous English daily news paper]

I would request you to please be specific, what more do you want as evidence ? As I have already quoted from eminent websites and Newspapers.

Regards.

Akash 2011 (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, There's no agreeing-disagreeing or minority-majority inside this subject of Kriya Yoga. Kriya Yoga doesn't have any branch or division either. It is exactly as imparted by Lahiri Mahasaya. Dr. Chatterjee or http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ has nothing to opine on his own. It's just re-iterating the words expressed by Lahiri Mahasaya, like many others do. That's it.

May be, the way I expressed the things were not proper and hence this miscommunication. I sincerely apologize for that.

Regards. Akash 2011 (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Something like this is more in keeping with our reliable source standards for content. Ideally we want religious beliefs described by a disinterested third party who is not pushing any particular path or technique. When you wrote "Kriya Yoga doesn't have any branch or division", I remembered seeing a disambig at the top of Kriya Yoga that says "This article is about the Kriya Yoga taught by Lahiri Mahasaya. For other uses of the term Kriya Yoga, see Kriya." Someone more familiar with the subject of yoga would have to explain why this one particular branch or aspect of Kriya Yoga that now dominates the article is more notable (according to Wikipedia standards) than another. Earlier versions of the article appeared to have a much broader focus and included info about the other 'branches'. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you LuckyLouie. Thanks for your time and reply. And I need your help to sort this out.

I just want to add - Kriya Yoga is only One path. To be honest, there's nothing like 'Kriya Yoga of Lahiri Mahasaya'. Simply because Kriya Yoga is of Lahiri Mahasaya only and none else.

The book that you quoted as Something like this shows the name of Paramahansa Yogananda. His Guru is Sri Yukteswar Giri. Now, Lahiri Mahasaya is again the Guru of Sri Yukteswar Giri. Hence, the source is always the same - Lahiri Mahasaya. Fact is - Kriya Yoga was imparted by Lahiri Mahasaya only and several other Masters/Gurus followed that later on through Guru-shishya tradition. We can confirm this from the existing Wiki pages itself.

Regards.

Akash 2011 (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" used as source

I would like an independent opinion whether Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock and Shepherd the Flock of God, both published by Watch Tower, could be used as RS in articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The question is raised at JW:talk (only for Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock).

My opinions from the talk page: «It is appairently leaked on the internet, but a similar case regarding a letter headed to elders in JW congregations was dismissed as RS from most "independent" editors at RS noticeboard (I have to clearify the case is not yet closed), as the letter was not published on a reliable website, or confirmed by WTS, and was not concidered as "public accessible"» ... «The source appair not to be according to the description in Wikipedia:Published. I'll quote from the sector "discussion": "The idea behind requiring a source to be 'accessible' is to allow a third-party, unaffiliated, person to review the source ... The third party is someone who is unaffiliated with the editor, publisher, group or institution in control of the source," and a quote from examples: "Any item that is inaccessible, due to zero copies being available to the public at this time (even if copies were available to the public once upon a time) is 'inaccessible'." As far as I can see, no exemplares are legally accessible for the public.» (See talk page for full discussion, one of the editors defending the use of the book as RS claims WP:SOURCEACCESS could be used to keep using the book.)

The book is only legally accesible for JW elders (from the talkpage, defending user: "The Shepherd the Flock book, however, is indisputably published by the WTS, though its official distribution is limited to congregation elders), is considered as property of WTS, and is only borrowed by the elders.

The "letter" mentioned, is discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikileaks parallel: Leaked letter from Watch Tower Society to 13,000 congregations (the link doesn't work anymore). In my opinion it is clear parallels between the letter and the book, and the only difference I can see, is the existence of the book is confirmed by WTS. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't much care about whether the source is "legally" accessible in an editor's opinion. Is it actually accessible? Borrowing counts, by the way: we cite borrowed sources every hour of the day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

We also care whether it is indeed the actual source. An alleged "leaked copy" on some website somewhere is prima facie unreliable. An account of the contents of the book in a reliable secondary source, published by someone who has actually seen it, in a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is what we want. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not accessible in public libraries as far as I know. JW tend to want to keep the content in the books secret, but of course it is appairently leaked in some websites. My conclusion out of the answears is the books can't be used as a source directly, unless it could be proved the content is directly availably for independent third part readers, either as a printed edition, or as an online edition through a RS, but the books' content could be used by referencing a RS witch is quoting or using the book, but then by naming the RS, not the book, as source. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing: If somebody claims you could steal the book, is it accessible? One of the books is printed in maybe as many as half a million exemplares, all language editions included, and some exemplares are probably "missing" or disappaired in other ways, but not accessible in a legal way. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A JW elder could give away his copy, and this has evidently happened in the past. Though religious sanctions may apply to such a JW elder, that would not make it illegal. Both publications are readily available online. There was previously an article on Wikipedia about Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, but it was deleted due to lack of notability but not lack of authenticity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick Google search located links to the older Pay Attention JW elders' manual (mentioned above) on WikiLeaks (and many other locations). The WikiLeaks page mentions legal action brought by the publisher against the individual who initially posted the manual online (it does not mention whether or not the legal action was successful), indicating it to be the actual publication. It is unclear how a publication that 'must' only be read by JW elders and is only privately distributed could be registered for copyright, though an implicit copyright would still apply. As with other JW publications, the books state in their inside cover that "This publication is not for sale. It is provided as part of a worldwide Bible educational work supported by voluntary donations", so no financial loss has been suffered by the publisher.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright is surely not relevant here, unless of course we copy large portions into the article. Almost all the sources we cite are copyright to someone, but we are free to use, cite and indeed quote them. The question is whether it is reasonably possible for a reader to verify the citation. Becoming a registered library user to see a copy might be considered reasonable: becoming an elder of the JW church to see it would not. Cusop Dingle (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The publications are (unofficially) available online. I mentioned copyright in reference to Grrahnbahr's concerns about the legality of the file being hosted on other sites online, not in reference to Wikipedia citing the publication.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If the publication is "unofficial" then we need to pay attention to the reliability of the publisher. Do they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Cusop Dingle (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The publications are not unofficial. The availability online is unofficial.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that. By "publication" I meant "the act of publishing it unofficially", not "the thing published". The point is that if someone publishes unofficially what they claim to be a private document then we need to have a reputation for reliability on the part of the person publishing to allow us to use the thing published as an authentic copy of the private ducument. After all, anyone can put anything on a website and claim that it is some super-secret doument. In the absence of some reason to believe in the authenticity we simply cannot use it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources from the Watchtower, or, for that matter, the Vatican, can in general reasonably be considered reliable sources for non-controversial material about a subject, or for the opinions of the group itself, with some attention paid to the degree to which the material is clearly self-serving. I would have to think that those same basic standards would apply for this material as well. John Carter (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is already discussed on a policy page that I haven't seen. There's a question of definition here. A text that is only distributed within an organization is not "published". There are many such texts, in many organizations. Citing such a text is like citing an unpublished manuscript: you can do it in an academic paper if you care to, no problem at all so long as you limit your citation to "fair use" and do not breach copyright, but it's strongly deprecated on Wikipedia because, since the text is not published, others cannot verify it.

If the text has crept out, and others can get access to it whenever they take the trouble, e.g. it is made available in libraries to any user of those libraries, then the people making it available have, in effect, published it (but they may be asked to stop doing so). If the text has been copied on to a public website (not an intranet) then the owner of the website is publishing it (but, again, may be asked to stop doing so).

Wikipedia's problems with that are (a) it may be taken off the internet or withdrawn from library stock, in which case our citation can no longer be verified, (b) in the case of the web copy, we can't verify that the copy is accurate.

For these reasons, I'd say, we should avoid relying directly on the citation of an unpublished text such as this. But if any source we consider reliable has already cited it (e.g. an academic or journalistic source) we have no reason not to use that as our source. That's like citing a published edition of a manuscript: it's exactly what we do. Andrew Dalby 09:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If we are referencing a source using the book, shouldn't the source be given, rather than using the book as source? Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. "Say where you got it." Andrew Dalby 14:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot. This is really useful. We'll try to find other sources for the statements. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Just one (belated) comment: Depending on what you're trying to support with this source, I think it would be much safer if you could find an outside secondary source that cites this source. In other words, instead of citing the internally published book to say that it says such and such, find a scholarly article or book that says that the internally published book says such and such. (I hope that came through...it made sense in my mind.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly what user Andrew said: "Say where you got it". Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Number of the Beast

In Number of the Beast there are two sentences which read "A leading exponent of the Maometis interpretation was Charles Walmesley, the Roman Catholic bishop of Rama. He falsely claimed that the name Muhammad was spelled Maometis or Moametis by Euthymius Zygabenus and the Greek historians Zonaras and Cedrenus.[56]" The first sentence seems fine, but the second sentence is sourced by an anonymous review in an 1883 issue of The Gentleman's Magazine - [127]. Also, although you only discover this through the edit history, in the sentence "Gematria has also been used with the Greek word Maometis; which scholars have described as a dubiously obscure Latinsation of a Greek translation of an Arabic word." the bit about scholars describing it as dubiously etc comes from someone called David Thom who wrote a book called "The Number And Names Of The Apocalyptic Beasts " [128] in 1848 (although the editor who added this thinks it was 1923). Are either of these sources reliable sources? I just removed something about Thom as I don't see his work as significant enough for the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

And with [129] my edits have been reverted, with Thom restored and the claim that "Sources indicate that Euthymius Zygabenus and Zonaras wrote the name as Maometh and Cedrenus wrote the name Mouchoumet none of which is the "Maometis" in question." cited to the anonymous review from The Gentleman's Magazine. The editor has responded on the article's talk page but doesn't seem to understand our guidelines for sources and what 'significant' means. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the book of Brady is the only reliable source currently in use in that paragraph. Since Brady's book considers the issue over several pages, it should be enough by itself to cover the topic adequately. Zero^talk 03:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

AAT MEDRS

Does the following book look like a reliable source for medical claims? Becker, Marty (2002). The Healing Power of Pets: Harnessing the Amazing Ability of Pets to Make and Keep People Happy and Healthy. New York: Hyperion. ISBN 0-7868-6808-2. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Link to googlebook [130]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What are the specific claims? Which article? TimidGuy (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Here was the original text it was being used for [131]. Specifically the medical claims were: Animals may be able to assist persons with physical disabilities including cerebral palsy, epilepsy or seizures, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, or spinal cord injuries.Psychological disorders including panic attacks, posttraumatic stress disorder, and others may also benefit from AAT.Animals can be aware of internal states, and so they can alert individuals of an impending epileptic seizure, diabetic seizure, or a manic episode. also It is currently being used for the following text: Equine therapy has been effective in treating people with a wide spectrum of problems: physical, behavioral, social, cognitive, and psychological.

I was also concerned about it's usage as a reliable source as it appears to be a Pop med book which advocates the use of animals. The individual does not appear to be involved in the actual research on the issue. Rather he appears to be a minor tv personality and a practicing vetinarian rather than a researcher. Currently the source is used here: [132]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In the first instance, I don't see that it's making a medical claim, since it's using the word "assist." I would think that this source could possibly be used to simply observe the range of instances in which animals have been used by therapists or studied by researchers. Perhaps the wording could be adjusted even further: "Animals have been used with persons with..." I think the second assertion claiming benefits is more problematic and could be adjusted, as suggested. The third assertion, regarding equine therapy being an effective treatment, must comply with MEDRS and be based on research reviews. So that's my compromise suggestion: use the book to make an observation but explicitly avoiding medical claims. If necessary, you could add a qualifier, "Although research on effectiveness isn't yet fully established, animals have been used with persons with....." How does that sound? TimidGuy (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The major point behind our sourcing guideline is to get things right. Do you have any reason to believe that any of the material here is actually wrong (e.g., would be contradicted by a better source)? If not, then getting a "perfect source listed is essentially a cosmetic issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Carm.org - a one man "Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry"

I notice that this is used as a reference in a number of our articles.[133]. It describes itself as a "CARM is a 501(c)3, non-profit, Christian ministry dedicated to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the promotion and defense of the Christian Gospel, Doctrine, and Theology. CARM analyzes religions such as Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Universalism, Wicca, etc., and compares them to the Bible. We also analyze secular ideas such as abortion, atheism, evolution, and relativism. In all our analyses we use logic and evidence to defend Christianity and promote the truth of the Bible which is the inspired word of God." It's actually a one-man band run by one Matt Slick[134]. This reliable source [135] comments "In Slick's version of reactive countercult evangelism, potential apologists need not even understand what they are saying, let alone comprehend the questions to which they have been asked to respond. Rather, their "evangelism" requires them to do nothing more than cut, paste, and repost the prepackaged responses provided by Slick. They become "instant experts" in the very worst tradition of the World Wide Web.". I presume that there is very little that we should actually be using this site for as a source? Help would be appreciated in dealing with this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This appears to fall under WP:SELFPUB, so it is only a reliable source for information about CARM, the webmaster or, possibly, a topic where the webmaster can be shown to be a noted expert. FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's particularly problematic to use it for any contentious information given it's spotty record and criticisms in other sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Cowan is not a neutral commentator. That said, while a quick survey of his heresy articles hasn't identified anything egregiously wrong, some of them do admit as to the sources used, and we're talking works like Encarta and other encyclopedia-like works. I can't see why we should use him when there are surely more scholarly sources for pretty much anything he's used for now. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of YouTube as source for snooker article

Hi,

I have recently joined wiki and my posts have been removed to my dismay!

I understand the objections to YouTube as a source - that it is user uploaded and maybe subject to spoofs etc. however in the case of bbc or Eurosport coverage of a snooker match this objection seems to be of no concern - it seems unlikely that a user would go to the trouble of faking this. In this case first hand footage of the match seems more reliable to me than a 2nd had journalistic account of this. I recently tried to add to an article on ronnie o'sullivan saying that he had won the masters in 2005. I posted a clip of the final frame with Eurosport commentary. This was disallowed. - see below.

My request is that in the case of official sporting coverage - a YouTube link is deemed firsthand and admissible as a reference.

[edit]YouTube vs 2nd hand journalism

Are you seriously suggesting that articles from the bbc or from the guardian are more reliable than YouTube footage of the actual event? This is a ridiculous assertion. journalists make mistakes whereas YouTube footage of the match is uncontestable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.80.214 (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2012‎ No-one is contesting that he actually won the Masters, which is what that Youtube link seems to show. There is certainly no video footage of Neil Robertson saying what he did, and the other source about Steve Davis is not reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC) According to WP:NOYT: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website." This makes Youtube unreliable source. The BBC and the Guardian websites have "editorial oversight", and this makes them reliable. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 21:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. It's clear you have a higher respect for the bbc and guardian journalism than I have! They make mistakes all the time - especially in a minority sport like snooker. It's a fair point about neil Robertson, it will be hard to find in print but there may be ... YouTube footage of it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefr (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 April 2012‎ Youtube footage is still not reliable. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 21:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Individuals randomly uploading copyright violations to YouTube have no reliability in terms of retransmitting the original material "intact, complete and invariant". As such they are not reliable. The original television broadcast is citeable, its reliability would depend on the reliability of the broadcasting station, producers, network, hosts, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources in David Michael Jacobs Article

• David Michael Jacobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently added a factual and sourced edit to the page on David Michael Jacobs. Subsequently Mistereyuz (talk · contribs) removed my edit and added unsourced and libelous statements about one of Jacobs' former research subjects. I undid Mistereyuz (talk · contribs)'s edit, and posted on the talk page to explain that they must not add unsourced and libelous material about people. Mistereyuz (talk · contribs) once again removed my factual and sourced edit and reinstated their unsourced and libelous statements in the article. I then took the matter to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#David_Michael_Jacobs). On the noticeboard Cusop Dingle (talk · contribs) responded by removing Mistereyuz (talk · contribs)’s unsourced and libelous edit from the article in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, and said that such material must never be added without being supported by independent reliable sources and that it must be discussed, and consensus obtained at Talk:David Michael Jacobs first. I subsequently posted information about the sources for my factual and sourced edit on the talk page, but Mistereyuz (talk · contribs) responded with unsubstantiated personal attacks, and no consensus has been reached. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Michael_Jacobs#Reversed_Edit)

The opening sentence of the David Michael Jacobs article is:

David Michael Jacobs is an American Historian and recently retired Associate Professor of History at Temple University specializing in twentieth century American history and culture. Jacobs is also well known in the field of Ufology for his research and authoring of books on the subject of alleged alien abductions.

My edit was the following sentence about a major controversy over Jacobs’ work in the field of Ufology:

His work caused controversy in the field of Ufology following the public release of recordings of hypnosis sessions that he conducted with a research subject of his known by the pseudonym "Emma Woods".

I provided nine sources for my edit which were the following:

1) An article in the False Memory Syndrome Foundation Newsletter about Jacobs’ work which referred to the controversy.

Title: When Does “"Oral History Data Collection" Under Hypnosis Become Facilitation of False Memories and Confabulations of Personal History?

Author: False Memory Syndrome Foundation

Source: False Memory Syndrome Foundation Newsletter (Spring, 2011, Volume 20 No. 2), pp.8

Web url: http://www.fmsfonline.org/fmsf11.407.html

The False Memory Syndrome Foundation is a longstanding organization which has addressed the contentious issue of false memories created by hypnosis, including cases of false accusations of sexual abuse and the creation of false diagnoses of Multiple Personality Disorder, resulting in law suits. They would have to be extremely careful to fact check everything that they published.

2) An article in UFO Magazine about Jacobs’ work that referred to the controversy.

Title: Aliens vs. Predator: The Incredible Visitations at Emma Woods

Author: Jeremy Vaeni

Source: UFO Magazine (Vol. 24, No. 1 #154), pp.34

Web url: http://ufomag.com/ufo-magazine-archive/volume-24-2010/vol-24-no-1-154.html

UFO Magazine is a long standing leading magazine in the field of Ufology. The editor, Dr. Bill Birnes, wrote in a publishers note that Jacobs had threatened to sue the magazine if they published the article about his work. Nevertheless UFO Magazine published the article. They were obviously careful with what they published and went forward with it in confidence that it was accurate.

3) An article in Paratopia Magazine that contained a large section about Jacobs’ work that referred to the controversy.

Title: Priests of High Strangeness: Co-Creation Of "The Alien Abduction Phenomenon"

Author: Carol Rainey

Source: Paratopia Magazine (Vol. 1, Issue 1), pp.11

Web url: http://paratopia.org/?p=358

The author of the article, Carol Rainey, is an experienced and reputable documentary filmmaker who has made award-winning documentaries for PBS, cable, and commercial distribution for over two decades. She is also the former spouse and research collaborator of one of Jacobs’ colleagues. The publishers of Paratopia Magazine say that they checked all the facts in her article to cover themselves legally.

4) An interview with Jeremy Vaeni, the author of the article on Jacobs’ work that was published in UFO Magazine referenced above, on the Dreamland radio show, about the controversy.

Title: Dreamland - Special Interviews - A Difficult Problem: The Hopkins-Jacobs Controversies

Radio Show: Dreamland

Host: Whitley Streiber

Web url: url=http://www.unknowncountry.com/special/difficult-problem-hopkins-jacobs-controversies

The Dreamland radio show is a long standing show in the field of Ufology, that has a large audience. The host has had experience with a law suit in the past and would be extremely careful to fact check what is broadcast for legal reasons.

The remaining sources were a series of episodes of the Paratopia radio show that addressed Jacobs’ work and the controversy over it. The hosts, Jeremy Vaeni and Jeff Ritzmann, were careful to fact check what was broadcast to cover themselves legally, and they aired audio from Jacobs’ hypnosis sessions with his former research subject:

5) An episode of the Paratopia radio show that played audio from a hypnosis session that Jacobs conducted with his research subject known as “Emma Woods”, as well as audio from a phone conversation that he had with her.

Title: Paratopia 57: The Emma Woods Tapes

Web url: http://www.cyberears.com/index.php/Browse/playaudio/8804

6) An interview with Jacobs’ former research subject “Emma Woods” on the Paratopia radio show about the controversy over Jacobs' work.

Title: Paratopia 60: Emma Woods: The Interview

Web url: http://www.cyberears.com/index.php/Browse/playaudio/9015

7) An episode of the Paratopia radio show about the controversy over Jacobs’ work.

Web url: Paratopia 62: Threatened By Hybrids

Title: http://www.cyberears.com/index.php/Browse/playaudio/9119

8) An interview with Jacobs’ former research subject known as “Brian Reed” on the Paratopia radio show about the controversy over Jacobs' work.

Title: Paratopia 94: Brian Reed Vindicates Emma Woods

Web url: http://paratopia.org/?p=317

9) An interview with the editor of UFO Magazine, Nancy Birnes, on the Paratopia radio show, which included the controversy about Jacobs' work, and which aired audio from three of the hypnosis sessions that Jacobs conducted with his former research subject “Emma Woods”.

Title: Paratopia Episode 162: Nancy Birnes Strikes Back

Web url: http://paratopia.org/?p=850

My edit is factual and informs readers of an important controversy over David Jacobs’ work. I believe that it is sourced by reputable sources, and that it should be included in the article. I would appreciate it if you could you look into the matter for me. Thank you. Michaela181 (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Arguments about whether the editors might or might not have checked for libel are beside the point. We need evidence as to independence, reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Are they peer-reviewed? Do they have an independent editorial board of scholars? My initial impression is that none of these sources would qualify. FMSF is an advocacy group, UFO Magazine is a fringe publication, Whitley Streiber is a fringe author. I have never heard, or heard of, Paratopia. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional: citing interviews with a named person are equivalent to citing that person. Are they a recognised authority on the subject? Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Is TPRF a valid source for claims that someone is an Expert?

In the Prem Rawat article, an editor wants to insert additional material about a supporting quote, specifically mentioning that an Associate Chair of Criminal Justice of the University of Texas, San Antonio (Dr. Gilbert), is also an "expert" in the field of Restorative Justice. As evidence, he has given the following statement "When TPRF quotes Dr Gilbert, they describe him as "an expert in the new field of restorative justice."", although he has not provided any specific source for that claim within TPRF. TPRF is The Prem Rawat Foundation. It is a registered charity. They provide a program for prisoners that Dr. Gilbert endorsed. He further cites the fact that in Dr. Gilbert's CV linked from the UTSA website, it says he is "Director, Office of Community and Restorative Justice, Center for Policy Studies, College of Public Policy" (CV link here). His CV and the university (which is the source for our quote) has ample evidence that he is an expert in Criminal Justice, and our article attributes that. The editor also managed to find one article, co-written, "Putting a Human Face on Crimes: A Qualitative Study on Restorative Justice Processes for Youths by: Jung Choi, Diane Green, Michael Gilbert", in one journal, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. This editor also claims that we must enhance Dr. Gilbert's description because "If Dr Gilbert was a conventional criminologist his observations would carry a different weight. He is a forerunner in a new, and most would say, much improved and more human [sic] way of doing things." He also adds "From his LinkedIn account, he is a member of "Restorative Justice - volunteers & practitioners" and "Restorative Justice International." I believe this is fringe, and completely unnecessary text. I also don't believe that his limited demonstrable experience in this field should in any way overshadow his solid credentials as an expert in the umbrella field of Criminal Justice. Thoughts? -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

For the unbelievably bored among you, the entire discussion thus far is on the talk page here as well. -- Maelefique^(talk) 19:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's clear from the slanted tone of the above that this wording did not arise from any talk page consensus. The actual change I suggested was "UTSA associate professor of criminal justice with a special interest in (focus on?) restorative justice." According to this “Restorative Justice Project” Dr Gilbert teaches a course in Restorative Justice at UTSA. [136]

He co-authored this article on indigenous neighborhood development.

[137]

He has authored or co-authored numerous articles for the Center for Justice and Reconciliation, such as these:

[138] [139] [140]

In 2009, he organised a national conference on restorative justice

[141]

To me, this information on his deep involvement with a new (to the modern mind) system of justice is important to creating a complete picture of the subject and an understanding of his position, and I can't understand why this innocuous edit is being met with such hostility. Rumiton (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a lot of new information that was never posted on the talk page, but I'm sure that was an oversight. Thanks for adding all of that. However, despite what this "Restorative Justice Project" says Dr Gilbert teaches, his own Curriculum Vitae posted on the university website does not mention this course, nor does it mention *anything* to do with Restorative Justice as a course he teaches. Most of the articles you are just now for the first time presenting are from websites that are *also* not a source for your claim that he's an expert, and in fact, your 2009 organisation of the national conference, that message was posted in advance of the event, and the notice itself is clearly posted by Dr. Gilbert himself, how is *that* a good source? He is also not listed as a speaker at the event, but there is another Dr. from his university that is. Your "innocuous edit" is definitely undue weight, but before we can even get to that problem, you insist that we argue over the sources first, by claiming they are reliable, I disagree. If you didn't know that 2000 words ago on the talk page when I first mentioned it, now you know again. Hostility? Because I disagree? No, calling my posting here "extremely stupid", yes, I think that would be considered hostile, probably goes against WP:AGF, and WP:Civility too, oh but wait, that was you that did that, not me... -- Maelefique^(talk) 03:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Posing an undiscussed noticeboard question in a biased manner on a highly contentious subject (though God knows why it is so contentious) to me is "extremely stupid." I was attacking the edit, not the editor. But to reiterate, my proposed change to the subject's description in the article was (change in bold): "UTSA associate professor of criminal justice with a special interest in (focus on?) restorative justice." Googling <"restorative justice" Gilbert -Susan> (there is a Susan Gilbert active in the field) gives 122 000 results. I just looked through the first two pages for the above cites relevant to Dr Michael Gilbert. Stopping there was not an oversight, I thought what we already had was more than sufficient, but if even more are needed, they are easily found. Rumiton (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Here is one, FWIW. At the National Conference on Restorative Justice to be held at the University of Toledo in 2013, [142] the program track “Research and Teaching of Restorative Justice” will be overseen by Dr Gilbert. Rumiton (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Partial triple distillation on Benrinnes

Hey, I'm hoping some of you might think of something smart. I would really like to work out the distillation process on the Benrinnes article, but I don't have a proper source for it. What I do have is this blogspot post. The Blogspot post itself is kind enough to provide its sources, but I don't have access to those, so I can't look it up myself. It would certainly help the article if this could be included, but I wouldn't see how. So I'm hoping for something smart from the noticeboard here. Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

One wash still paired with two spirit stills. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you needed a source Whisky Classified: Choosing Single Malts by Flavour p74 by David Wishart Darkness Shines (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For a public Domain work, the Barnard work seems a little difficult to find, but is available here. We should really make a copy of this on Wikisource. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Amazing as this resource is (and I will use it for other things), unfortunately, the specific distillation process was used between 1974 and 2007, so it is not described here. Thanks for that great resource though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado citizenship

I'm being accused of being unreasonable for rejecting several sources on the topic of Nelly Furtado's citizenship.

• First up, http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/nelly-furtado . Note that it says "Powered by last.fm", and, if you go to http://www.last.fm/music/Nelly+Furtado?ac=Nelly+Furtado, you will see that it is a trivially different version of the same text. Last.fm is a user-editable wiki, so it doesn't qualify.
• Second, we have http://www.spiritartists.com/nelly-furtado.html, which, while not specifically crediting last.fm, has roughly the same text, and appears to be a version from somewhere around the timeframe of this diff: http://www.last.fm/music/Nelly+Furtado/+wiki/diff?b=80&a=79
• Third, we have http://soundnewfound.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/lily-allen/ , which would appear to be a blog.
• Fourth, we have the blurb from a ticket seller: http://www.onlineticketsshop.com/nelly-furtado-tickets

I don't think any of these meet our policies for reliable sourcing, but I'm posting it here to see if anyone thinks I'm missing something.—Kww(talk) 20:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

How did you determine that last.fm is a user-editiable wiki? TimidGuy (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Note the "edit" button on the biography page, and the wiki diff: http://www.last.fm/music/Nelly+Furtado/+wiki/diff?b=80&a=79 —Kww(talk) 10:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Since we all know that she is in fact Portuguese Canadian, the problem being that there is no reliable source.........why don't you state her as "Portuguese Canadian" and type "citation needed", next to it......can that be done? Because stating her as "canadian", just because there is no direct source.....doesn't make the article more accurate, in my opinion.Manas justice (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopaedia and we go by what reliable sources say, not by what "everyone knows". See this message from Jimbo Wales: There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to see the sources cited as reliable - a wiki article, a blog which mentions Futardo in passing, and 'Onlineticketsshop.com'? Nope. Not remotely WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, her bio at The Canadian Encyclopedia says she was born in Victoria, BC, raised in a Portugese ethnic heritage and that her parents were from a small village in the Azores. It does not call her Portugese-Canadian. This BBC news piece on her marriage simply calls her Canadian and this BBC news piece says "born in British Columbia to Portuguese-Azorean parents". Follow the best sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that we may be trying to answer the wrong question here. Are we trying to decide whether sources state that Futardo holds dual Canadian-Portuguese citizenship, or that she has been described as Portuguese-Canadian? These are different things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The question here was "Are any of these sources reliable?". The question at Talk:Nelly Furtado is "Should she be described as Portuguese-Canadian in the lead sentence?", which I think is a different question.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's all a bit moot anyway, because Ms Furtado has clearly and publicly denounced all citizenship by spending the last decade going round the world telling assembled groups of people that she's like a bird and she doesn't know where her home is. Formerip (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Be that as it may, she ain't going anywhere without a passport (presumably Canadian). ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not just "what everyone knows".....several members have stated that according to the laws of Portugal, children of Portuguese parents are immediately citizens of Portugal. Since Nelly's parents were both born in Portugal, Nelly is a citizen of Portugal, without any doubt, and we also have a video in which she says, "I'm Portuguese Canadian"....so is that counted as a reliable source?120.60.55.249 (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

hopenothate.org.uk

[143] asserts that hopenothate.org.uk is an RS because "they're organised by Searchlight)" The problem I have is that the website does not make that claim. At all. In fact it appears to be a specific activist organization, and hence not a "reliable source" per Wikipedia rules. [144] appears to indicate that there is no association between the two, and that the head of "HnH" is no longer associated with Searchlight. As the source is not Searchlight, and there is no connection between the two, the RS nature of the site must be considered afresh - and I assert that it does not meet the requirements of WP:RS and, at most, can only be cited as to its own opinion, properly weighted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this refers to http://hopenothate.org.uk. The other address is parked by a domain squatter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have any rule about "specific activist organizations" not being reliable. As a partisan source, it's opinions as well as contentious facts sourced to it should be attributed, and it should not be heavily relied upon for large portions of text. For straightforward factual information, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to treat it as a reliable source. Formerip (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It is used to state an opinion in Wikipedia's voice in the first section below the lede. Hope not Hate campaign has described EDL as the largest far-right threat in the UK. Which has been defended on the basis that HnH = Searchlight. If The Times made the statement, that is one thing, but HnH has a quite pronounced dog in the race, and should not have their opinion so stated as if it were substantially a fact. IMO. I find it well below major newspapers in having its opinions so promoted here. Collect (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Hope not Hate campaign has described EDL as the largest far-right threat in the UK is a classical case of a properly attributed opinion. The opinion is not stated in Wikipedia's voice. From a RS point of view, this is exactly how such a source should be handled. The only question is if the view is notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I suggest that The 'Hope not Hate' anti-fascism campaign has called the EDL the "largest rightwing threat in the UK today." is superior as it uses the opinion as expressed by that organization clearly delineated as such. I trust you see the difference herein. Collect (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO, Collect that's basically fine although, on a styslistic note, Hope Not Hate should have no quote marks and a capital n for not. Formerip (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, per the group's own usage, neither not nor hope should be capitalised. RolandR (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of Feher for dating start of Messianic Judaism

The Messianic Judaism article cites Shoshanah Feher's "Passing over Easter: Constructing the Boundaries of Messianic Judaism, Rowman Altamira" (1998, ISBN 978-0-7619-8953-0, p. 140) as positive proof that the movement began in the 1960s. The quote in fact is an off-hand undocumented assumption in the closing pages of the book ("This interest in developing a Jewish ethnic identity may not be surprising when we consider the 1960s, when Messianic Judaism arose.") Such as weak source should not be accepted as an authoritative source for the purpose it's being used.--DeknMike (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• AltaMira is an academic press with relevant field expertise. An offhand reference to dating, in a book specifically about Messianic Judaism, in an academic press work, seems good to me. Can you explain your reasoning? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There are obviously multitudes of sources on this topic. what are the dates named by the preponderance of sources? is Feher a notable outlier? have others commented on Feher's date? Has he responded? -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

To help along this discussion, I offer the following corroborating information:

• Dr. Shoshanah Feher, who received her Ph.D. in sociology from UCSB in 1995, gives the 1960s as "when Messianic Judaism arose."
• Dr. J. Gordon Melton, who received his Ph.D. in the History and Literature of Religions from Northwestern University in 1975, who is currently a research specialist in religion and New Religious Movements with the Department of Religious Studies at UCSB, who is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Baylor University's Institute for Studies of Religion, who is the second most prolific contributor to the Encyclopædia Britannica, and who authored The Encyclopedia of American Religions, says "Messianic Judaism ... emerged in the last half of the 20th century."
• Dr. Yaakov S. Ariel, Ph.D., Professor of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill says "The Rise of Messianic Judaism" was in "the early and mid-1970s"
• Dr. James R. Lewis, who received his Ph.D. in Religious Studies from the University of Wales, says "[t]he origins of Messianic Judaism date to the 1960s".
• Jewish author Dan Cohn-Sherbok gives "the 1970s".
• Dr. Bülent Şenay, who recieved his Ph.D. in religious studies from Lancaster (UK) University, says the "group emerged in the 1960s."

I am interested to review any more responses on this. Thanks... Zad68 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Zad68's arguement is that since other Jewish writers began writing about the 'emergence' of Messianic Judaism in the 60s, then Feher's unsourced comment must mean it began in the 60s. I acknowlege the book's value as a sociological study about the people in one Messianic Jewish congregation and the practices of the movement in general. However, this book does not qualify as a reliable source on the historicity of the movement writ large, but only the beliefs of the people in that congregation. Confusing the discussion with other seemingly related references (only the ones that support his POV, while discounting sources that say otherwise) is a further attempt to avert a determination on the matter at hand.--DeknMike (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not presume to say what my argument is. Feher gives the 1960s as "when Messianic Judaism arose," the article says it "arose in the 1960s and 70s." TheRedPenOfDoom specifically asked: "what are the dates named by the preponderance of sources? is Feher a notable outlier?" and I have provided 5 well-credentialed other sources that corroborate what Feher says. It is very puzzling why you have an issue with this. Zad68 (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I know it puzzles you, which is why I asked for outside readings on the validity of the source. While it may agree with other sources, you seem treat it as a primary reference, even though it would fail as a valid source in most any scholarly setting. You've said your piece quite forcefully on the article talk page. Please let others respond. I asked in good faith. Please have the courtesy to not always take offense when I question your conclusions.--DeknMike (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Feher is not a primary source, but rather is a reliable secondary source, and nobody (especially not me) is trying to argue Feher is "primary." Exactly one sentence from Feher is used in the article in the two places where the article says: "Messianic Judaism [...] arose in the 1960s and 70s." In both of those places, four other Ph.D.'s (plus Cohn-Sherbok) with directly relevant academic credentials in religious studies are cited alongside Feher and say the same thing Feher does, give or take a decade. I perhaps agree with you that of the list, the Feher cite might be the weakest one, but as Fifelfoo pointed out above here, "An offhand reference to dating, in a book specifically about Messianic Judaism, in an academic press work, seems good to me" so even the weakest cite in the list is still strong enough to stay. What exactly is your goal here, to get Feher removed from the list of 7 supporting cites for "Messianic Judaism arose in the 1960s and 70s" and cut the list down to 6? Zad68 (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hitsdailydouble.com

An IP recently added Hitsdailydouble.com to the Chris Brown discography article as a source for album sales. Is it reliable? Oz ^talk 07:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No. This was just discussed here: [[145]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources in List of scientists who believed in Biblical creation

I'm concerned about the sources cited in this article, almost all of which are from Creationist organisations and in this context I would have thought, not to be relied upon. TheLongTone (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say the sub-title of the article "...or who did not express any doubts on record" needs a serious looking at. If Albert Einstein did not actually say, "I doubt the theory of Creationism" would that mean he would be acceptable? Rumiton (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup: a POV-pushing synthesis. Regardless of the merits of the sources (which seem questionable, where cited at all), it has no place in an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the Book of Mormon Pronunciation Guide a reliable source for non-Mormon names?

The source is at [146], an appendix to the Book of Mormon. Who wrote this and where isn't clear. See for instance this edit at Dan, at Jordan[147] and Carchemish[148]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It may well be reliable as a guide to how that church believes such names are or ought to be pronounced in their particular religious context. It does not appear to be a scholarly work, so not a reliable source for current academic consensus on how these names are or might have been pronounced in a historical context. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is a reliable source, since there is no revealed expertise behind it that I can see. Better to use a mainstream dictionary. Zero^talk 07:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Youtube, again

I would like to understand what, if anything this video can be used for. It is not uploaded by the source. It is uploaded by someone who's about section says:

traveling the world fulfilled inspired by the message of Maharaji http://www.tprf.org

Since it wasn't uploaded by the producer of the footage (La Nuova TV it looks like), can it be used for *anything* other than saying this youtube video exists?

I also have questions about the RS-ness of www.lanuovatv.it (the original source I'm assuming) as well, as their website indicates no editorial oversight control or business credentials, which I think is necessary for a "news" channel, but that might be a question for another day. -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It exists, but it's certainly not showing any kind of trace of being a reliable source; nor does its existence seem notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Youtube video is definitely unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Slumz.boxden.com

Is Slumz.boxden.com reliable as a source for US album sales? Oz ^talk 20:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say No. There's no "about us," it's entirely anonymous, it looks like an anonymous blog/chat board and not a fact-checked or expert-run news source. You might be able to find a story copied onto that site, but you'd have to investigate the original source of the story to determine the reliability of the content. Zad68 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If you can find where that particular album sales listing has been copied from, you might find it can be used if you cite the original source, but you cannot cite boxden for it. Zad68 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Nuclear Physics

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Nuclear Physics and Energy Catalyzer, the misleadingly titled "Journal of Nuclear Physics" is actually a self-published blog about a purported cold fusion device. However, Masud Ahmad, Fayyazuddin, and Samar Mubarak Mand contain citations to Journal of Nuclear Physics as if it was a legitimate scientific journal. This raises the following questions:

Is there more than one thing called "Journal of Nuclear Physics"?

Should the references to JoNP on the Ahmad/Fayyazuddin/Mand pages be labeled as being from a blog as we do on the Energy Catalyzer page? Deleted? Left as is?

Is there a central place where we keep a list of sources that are known to be unreliable? Should there be? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a Journal of Nuclear and Radiation Physics(JNRP), I assume the sources you are speaking of are not this one? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is/was apparently a Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics. All three of those scientists are Pakistani. Perhaps there's a non-English journal in Pakistan with that name? Until you know for sure, leave it as is. No, I don't believe we have a list of unreliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI - There is no entry for Journal of Nuclear Physics at List of physics journals#Nuclear Physics. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thomson Reuters has only four entries in its journal database starting with "Journal of nuclear":

1. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY
2. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS
3. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
4. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Taking into account that the data base contains an exhaustive list of all peer-reviewed scientific journals, we can safely conclude that Journal of Nuclear Physics is a garbage source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That was never in question. The question is whether the references in the three BLPs of Pakistani scientists listed above are the same garbage source. --Guy Macon (talk)

I think this is a reference to a 'Journal of Nuclear Physics' produced by the Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology (PINSTECH), judging by the citations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are correct. I raised the question at Talk:Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology#PINSTECH Journal of Nuclear Physics? in the hope of double checking that we have the correct spelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I do not understand the problem. Thus, ISI Web of science search gives the following citation report for Fayyazuddin:

• Number of publications: 131.
• Sum of Times Cited without self-citations: 1557
• The most cited article (574 citations): ALGEBRA OF CURRENT COMPONENTS AND DECAY WIDTHS OF RHO AND K MESONS Author(s): RIAZUDDI.; FAYYAZUD. PHYSICAL REVIEW Volume: 147 Issue: 4 Pages: 1071-& DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.147.1071 Published: 1966 (judging by the co-author's name, and by the article's subject, FAYYAZUD and Fayyazuddin are the same person).

In connection to that, taking into account so decent list of publications, do you need to focus on one particular publication? (If you need a full list of articles authored by Fayyazuddin, I can provide it. Believe me, it is really impressive). The same can be said about other two physicists (although I am not sure I was able to correctly identify last and first names)--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You keep answering questions I didn't ask and missing the one I did ask. Please read the following carefully. We say Fayyazuddin published a paper in "Journal of Nuclear Physics." I am questioning whether a "Journal of Nuclear Physics" that Fayyazuddin published in exists. I am not saying that Fayyazuddin didn't publish somewhere or that he isn't a scientist or that wherever he did publish wasn't a peer-reviewed journal. I just think we got the name of the publication wrong on that citation. We also say Masud Ahmad published a paper in "journal of Nuclear physics, PINSTECH". I am questioning whether "journal of Nuclear physics, PINSTECH" exists. Again, Masud Ahmad is a scientist and the paper got published somewhere. That isn't the question. If it helps, we do know that a cold fusion blog exists at www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com, and that it is not where either of the above-mentioned scientists published their papers. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if each of those articles was published in Nuclear Physics A or Nuclear Physics B (which are respected publications) but just were poorly cited in the wp articles. It took some digging with google scholar, as the titles were malformed in each case. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I just checked and all the issues I had have been fixed. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

BostonHitman.com

I would like some opinions here as to whether BostonHitman.com can be considered a reliable source. It is being used in the The Friends of Eddie Coyle article to source the claim that actor Robert Mitchum met with members of the Boston underworld while researching his role in the film. This seems like a very bold claim to me, and one that would require a very good source to support it. The question, then, is whether this website can be considered such a source. I have my doubts, but would like to hear what other editors think. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the website of a book by Howie Carr. Amazon says "Howie Carr is a columnist for the Boston Herald and author of The Brothers Bulger, which spent 11 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list, and Hitman: The Untold Story of Johnny Martorano: Whitey Bulger’s Enforcer and the Most Feared Gangster in the Underworld. He also hosts a daily four-hour radio talk show syndicated throughout New England. In 1985, Carr won a National Magazine Award, and in 2008 he was elected to the National Radio Hall of Fame in Chicago. Carr lives in suburban Boston with his wife and their three daughters." Its publisher is a mainstream publisher. So I'd say yes. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)