Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to WT:V.

Robert Spencer

Is Robert Spencer a reliable source in the field of Islam? He is the author of The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, amongst other books.

He is also the director of "Jihad watch" which is considered a hate and Islamophobic website. (Sources:[1], [2]).

I think he violates WP:RS#Extremist_sources, what do you guys think?Bless sins 07:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - he would certainly seem to qualify as an extremist source (in the sense of being on the fringes). I would be very, very wary of using him as a source for anything much. -- ChrisO 09:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, I would agree... At best, he could be cited for a statement of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact. Something along the lines of: According to Robert Spencer, "blah blah Islam is bad blah blah" <citation>. This really depends on whether Mr. Spencer is considered an expert on Islam, and whether his opinions on Islam are notable or not. If he is simply a crank who wrote a book and runs a website, then his opinion does not rate mentioning per WP:UNDUE. Blueboar 14:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, per ChrisO. I remember reading how he has very little in terms of scholarly publications. In addition, I doubt he is considered an expert on Christianity either, if he were trying to do a study on comparative religion.Ngchen 14:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, on looking into the subject a bit further... I'm not so sure about that... according to our article on him (see: Robert Spencer) he does have some credentials in the field (He has an MA in Early Christianity). He has authored six best selling books on Islam, and has been an op-ed contributer to several mainstreem newpapars. While his views are controversial, he does have notable supporters. So he is not a complete crank.

Extreme? Possibly... but even extreme views might still be considered notable and worthy of discussion in an article. Controversial? Definitely. I don't think we can simply write him off as unreliable, but I do agree that we should be very careful not to give his statements more weight than they deserve. I would definitely say that anything that is included about his views be carefully attributed as being his views, and not stated as absolute fact. It really depends on the article and how he is being used in that article. This one has to be taken on a case by case basis and argued out in the article talk page. I don't think we can make a blanket determination here. Blueboar 15:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have severe doubts on the context in which he is quotable. As an expert on Islam, for example, he has limited qualifications, and might be considered extreme. As a notable critic of Islam, I thought at first he could be considered quotable in relevant situations, except that he then serves as a primary source of criticism, and we should quote instead those who have analysed his work and those of others and can represent his views in reliable secondary sources. Relata refero 20:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you slightly misstate WP:PSTS here... while secondary sources are preferred in general terms, and certainly for any statement of fact, there is no rule in Wikipedia that says we can never cite a primary source. We simply need to do so with extreme care. In fact, when discussing a particular person's views it is better to cite the primary source directly rather than getting it second hand from a secondary source (who might take something the source says out of context). Once again, we have to ask whether we are talking about statements of fact (where we should cite reliable secondary sources) or statements of opinion (where we should attribute the opinion directly and cite the primary source). I really think this gets us far beyond WP:RS... we have to consider what our three core policies (WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV) say. Please note that I am not arguing that the views of Mr. Spencer should be discussed in an article on Islam... I am simply pointing out that, under some cicumstances, it may be appropriate to do so... and in those circumstances, then we can and should cite him. I don't think we can simply exclude his views as "extremist", or declare his books unreliable by fiat under WP:RS. It depends on the context of what is said in the article. Blueboar 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he qualifies as a reliable source in any way on comparative religion in general. However, I strongly disagree with But I am more concerned with your belief that I have misinterpreted WP:PSTS.Where in PSTS does it indicate that for statements of opinion we should cite the primary source? It would be remarkable and inappropriate if it did so, because in our citing of PSes we are almost certain to fall into the trap of choosing those statements which are outrageous, or unrepresentative. In fact, PSTS says the direct opposite:"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source", and a PS should not buttress "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." In any case, choosing 'representative' statements of opinion from a primary source is the same as saying "here, I argue that this is this source's main thrust", which is clearly original research (for an example, see the history of Max Mueller). I do not claim that this is necessary everywhere - obviously no one would intend it to apply to plot synopses, for example - but for anything even reasonably contentious or challenged, we need secondary sources. Relata refero 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If we include a statement such as: According to Robert Spencer, "blah blah Islam is bad blah blah"<citation>, you have to cite exactly where he says this. In this case, it is best to cite the original work and not someone else quoting that work. Note that such wording does not contain any interpretation of the primary source. It simply quotes the source and attributes it to its author. Doing this is definitely not Original Research. Now, if the article contained any further comment on the quote... that would be OR. It would also be OR if we took the statement out of context. Thus the strong caution about using Primary Sources that is contained in WP:NOR... but it is a caution, not a ban. WP:NOR definitely does NOT say we can never use primary sources. There are times when doing so is appropriate, and citing a direct quote is one of them. Blueboar 14:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. In choosing a quote, we are choosing to represent the author's views. When the author himself is a primary source - "an individual very close to the subject of the article" - then we are, in effect, structuring an argument based on primary sources. In such occasions, we are required to use reliable secondary sources that discuss such arguments as far as possible; wikipedia users ourselves should not be given license to assume we can place all possible statements in the correct context. When Spencer is himself the subject of the article, or primary source, we can quote him directly only if that particular quote is considered relevant by secondary sources, which should also be cited. We should ideally say that "blah blah Islam is murderous blah blah according to notable critic Spencer", but source this to somebody who is an expert on Spencer. Can you seriously look at the second paragraph of this revision of the MM article, my earlier example, and tell me that this is not precisely the kind of OR that a lax approach you suggest to implementation of policy will allow?Relata refero 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In the example you raise, the statements being made are not given with direct attribution or quotes. The language used constitutes an editor's interpretation of what MM said. I would say that was OR. But that isn't what I am talking about here. I am talking about directly quoting the source (keeping the statement being quoted in context) and attributing that quote to the source. Doing so is not OR in any way shape or form. But to settle this... I will ask for the opinion of those editing at WP:NOR. Blueboar 16:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think we should exclude his views as "extremist".--Aminz 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That source is an Ad hominem attack against him. Yahel Guhan 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think his views should be allowed to be presented only in "criticism of Islam" and related articles, and then, attributed to him with According to Robert Spencer... I do not believe he is an extremist in his views, but rather partisan. Yahel Guhan 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Should the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion be used as a resource on Jews? And the source provided by Aminz is a reliable and scholarly one.Bless sins 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar and others, here is a reasonable compromise. Spencer's views should be quoted whenever another reliable source quotes it. Thus, if CNN considers some of his views noteworthy, then we quote those views. This ensures that only the most notable of Spencer's views are quoted. Otherwie we shouldn't be quoting extremist views. This is how we treat other extremist sources (such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion).Bless sins 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My view was that he should be given space only in "criticism of Islam" and related articles not because of him being reliable in anyway but because he is a notable critic of Islam: The "criticism of Islam" article is supposed to record notable criticisms of Islam and these criticisms may come from every corner. But in practice we encountered a problem: Spencer is only a contemporary critic of Islam. Islam has been around for hundreds of years. It is thus recentism and undue weight to use him too much. Furthermore most of what is attributed to Spencer does not really belong to him. We should not credit Spencer with the criticisms that he has not himself proposed but is repeating those before him.

In my view we should have a section on "contemporary criticisms" and there we include the new criticisms coming from Spencer and people like him. Right now, the criticism article rely too heavily on Spencer. --Aminz 05:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right.... although I would allow for quoting him directly. In any case, I certainly agree that his views should be limited to "criticism" sections and articles and should not be given undue weight. This is really more of a WP:NPOV issue than one of RS. Blueboar 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I say in my reply above, his views are notable in relevant articles, but WP editors should not be given license to decide which of his views are. Experts on Spencer or on the criticism of Islam more generally should. Relata refero 15:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolulte rubbish... While we can debate whether it is appropriate to discuss Mr. Spencer and his views in any given article, if you are going to discuss his views you should quote him directly, and with proper citation so that editors can check to see that the quote is in context. I seriously doubt that there are "Experts on Spencer" to quote. Blueboar 16:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold your horses. Why should we trust editors to check the context? Show me the policy that says that. And as for 'experts on Spencer', I meant, of course, experts on the criticism or political controversies surrounding Islam who discuss Spencer, of which there are many. Relata refero 17:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

...and the names are? Beit Or 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But again, that is not what I am talking about. I am saying that, as a noted critic of Islam, it might be appropriate to discuss what Spencer has to say. Once that discision has been made we have to deside how to use him. Now, given his biased (and possibly even extremist) views, I would not use him to support a bald statement of fact (ie "Islam is blah blah blah"), but instead we should use him only for a statement of opinion (ie "According to noted Anti-islamist Robert Spencer, 'Islam is blah blah blah'"). And if you do that, you should cite the quote to where Spencer says this. No more, no less. And while there is no rule that says editors have to check that sources are in context... I know plenty of editors who do check them. I know I do... Since I edit on some fairly controvercial topics, I frequently check the sources in criticims sections, and make sure that POV editors are not taking things out of context. I agree that, all to frequenlty, such quotes are used in ways that constitute OR. But (and this is a big "but") quoting someone directly is not automatically a form of OR. It can be done properly... As long as you keep the quote in context, and do not go beyond what the source is saying, it isn't OR. Blueboar 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

this passage may be of relevance from WP:SPINOUT: "However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies." Spencer wouldn't be reliable for content on Islam, Muhammad etc. - not even for criticism - except in the instance of a reliable source (i.e. book review in a reliable publication) covering the claims made by Spencer (that is, after all, how someone becomes noted for criticism). in theory, this restriction should extend to Criticism of X articles, to prevent them from becoming slanted. primary source usage in this instance has major drawbacks, as can be seen in a few such articles, where excessive attention is given to the every musing, argument and deduction emanating from him. he has plenty of books published - and thus, there is virtually no limit to the amount of content that can be added citing Spencer's works. i disagree with using a partisan source (just because it happens to be partisan) in an article which analyses partisan views as documented by reliable sources - or at least, that's what an article should be doing. ITAQALLAH 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Itaquallah, in this case, there already is a well established Criticism of Islam article. And, in that article, it would be appropriate to discuss what Spencer has to say (he is, after all, a noted modern Critic of Islam). The key is not to give his views undue weight, and not to present his views as being fact, but only as his opinion. Also, according to the folks over at WP:NOR, he counts as a secondary source on Islam. Thus, the cautions about primary sources do not really apply. I would still use him sparingly and with caution, but the point is that he can be used. Blueboar 19:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on definitions used in above discussions: Spencer is not a primary source on Islam. He's a secondary source. He may not be a good source, he may be a "one trick pony" who writes of nothing else, he may not be a source worthy of note, but he is a secondary source. Examples of primary source texts on Islam would be the Koran or Hadith texts. Neither primary sources nor secondary sources are totally unacceptable sources in every situation, so I think it would be more constructive to the dispute to focus on whether or not Spencer's views are worthy of note in a general encyclopedia. For example, where else in academia is he being cited? If the claims on the wp article about him are accurate, then his views appear notable but controversial. Where and when controversial sources can be used is the core issue here, and the "primary source" objection is just a misapplied technicality to excuse ruling out this particular source.Professor marginalia 19:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

this is how i see the issue (corrections welcomed): Spencer is a secondary source on Islam (albeit unreliable). he is, however, a primary source for his own views on Islam (meaning, he's a primary source for criticism). when the actual article subject is critical views, such as Criticism of Islam, then the critical sources are themselves primary sources for those critical views. the scope of the article (in this scenario) isn't Islam, it's what critics say about Islam. Blueboar, yes - it would be completely appropriate to discuss the views of Spencer in an article like criticism of Islam - but only to the extent that it's been covered in sources secondary to such criticism. as a noted critic of Islam, it's expected that at least his most significant or important claims will have been covered to a reasonable degree in books, newspapers, journals and so on. ITAQALLAH 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

just to clarify, this works both ways as well. in an article on `Muhammad in Islamic piety` (as a theoretical example), those texts in the form of pious or devotional passages, or other texts reflecting Islamic views, would constitute primary sources in relation to the topic, while studies on such texts and ideas would be secondary sources. ITAQALLAH 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Confirming my agreement with Itaqallah, Spencer appears not to be a reliable secondary source to base the article on, but in terms of WP:NPOV his views may be notable enough to be represented as a minority view, subject to undue weight requirements. He's a primary source for that view, and if notable enough then there should be reliable sources about his view from a mainstream perspective, which should be used as the basis for the section. However, like all primary sources, he can be cited and, if appropriate, quoted for his views providing care is taken not to introduce original research in interpreting or citing quotes out of context. .. dave souza, talk 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC) There is a logical disconnect here... Can someone explain difference between Spencer discussing Islam (where you say he is a secondary source) and Spencer criticising Islam (where you say he would be a primary source)? Are you saying that if he is saying something positive about Islam he is secondary, but that he suddenly becomes primary when saying something negative? Blueboar 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. It depends not on what he is saying, but what the subject of the article is. If we are considering quoting him about Islam, whether or not he is reliable, whether or not he is critical, he is a secondary source. If we need material for an article on Criticism of Islam, whether or not he is reliable, he is a primary source, as he is one of the most popular living critics of Islam, and as such is a major constituent of the subject of the article. Relata refero 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

that's not the implication here. speaking in very general terms (this includes Spencer and others) - a partisan (pro- or anti-) source discussing a subject is a secondary source when the article topic is about that subject ("X"). when the article topic itself is the very partisanship of the partisans ("positive/negative view of X") - the original partisan source is no longer secondary, it is primary. that's just how i believe the sources are classified, and why i think a secondary source on Criticism of X is a source which discusses critics and the views they express, not sources which themselves synthesise critiques (IMO primary). ITAQALLAH 22:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that there are RS and NPOV issues, and some PSTS disputes. I suggest focusing on RS, NPOV, and NOR as a whole, without obsessing over PSTS. Jacob Haller 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The PSTS issue emerges from OR. The question is who can correctly interpret Spencer's comments and ensure they are taken in context. One solution is that we only quote reliable sources quoting Spencer, making the assumption that reliable sources have done their homework.

Another issue is what to quote. Certainly some of Spencer's opinions are notable and certainly some aren't, and we should quote only notable opinions. One very reasonable way determining which opinion are notable, is that the notable opinion will have appeared in reliable sources, while non-notable opinion will be ignored by reliable sources.

Finally, saying that Spencer is unreliable, but still may be quoted is setting a dangerous precedent. If unreliable, yet popular sources, such as Spencer can be used, then what else? Can I use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, quite popular, to talk about the Jews? (Obviously not, nor should I be able to use Spencer).Bless sins 01:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite appalling that you compare Spencer to Protocols of the Elders of Zion; there really is no comparision. Spencer criticizes Islam (and maybe Muhammad), but doesn't specificly call muslims some of the names Protocols does. Yahel Guhan 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Both are unreliable sources, as far as WP:RS is concerned. Spencer specifically calls Islam as "the World's most Intolerant Religion". His writings are considered "bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice".[3] Anyways, I got a sufficient response out of this. Whether the Protocols are a reliable source (I beleive they aren't) is the topic of another notice.Bless sins 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You think your "resolved" tag is a funny joke, because I don't think it is funny; it really is disruptive, considering the discussion isn't resolved. Reguarding your arguement, Spencer calls "islam" intolerant. That is not bogotry. He doesn't say "all muslims are intolerant" which would be bigotry. That quote is one view, which you seem to be repeating throughout this argue. For criticism sections and articles, though, he is a reliable source, as he is a notable critic. Yahel Guhan 02:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan, when he calls Islam "the World's Most intolerant religion" he is calling all Muslim intolerant. This is because, by definition a Muslim is someone who follows the teachings of Islam. If someone doesn't believe in Islam, then they are not a Muslim.Bless sins 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that you have a point that Spencer needs to be covered in Criticism of Islam article, please note that as demonstrated above, he is not a reliable source in such articles, he is a primary source.Relata refero 08:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Relata, I disagree... Spencer is a secondary source (allbeit a biased one), even for criticism's of Islam, and from the comments at the WP:NOR Talk page, others agree with my view of the matter. But... even if he were a primary source, you are incorrect in saying that a primary source is automatically unreliable. You seem to equate reliability with "true" or "unbiased"... that is not the case. Your comparison with the Protocols is off base... what makes the Protocols unreliable is not the fact that it contains all sorts of unsubstantiated, hateful and biased allegations against jews... It is unreliable for a host of other reasons, the main ones being: The original was not reliably published. There is no accountability or editorial oversight... We do not know the author, so it is unattributable, even as a statement of opinion.... In Spencer's case, we do know who wrote it... We know who published it... And when we question the accuracy of what he says, we can phrase things as being Spencer's opinion. Blueboar 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I miswrote that: he is a reliable source, but a primary source, and thus to be used with accompanying care. Blueboar, the points you've made on NOR, while interesting, have all been satisfactorily answered, I believe.

I didn't mention the Protocols ( I wouldnt) and the comparison was made precisely because it was claimed that Spencer is a sufficiently extremist source: and, thus, we should avoid using it (though not by me, and I disagree with that.). Relata refero 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree that Spencer may be covered on Islam related articles, he should be covered by a reliable secondary source. Why? I'm outlining the problems below.Bless sins 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It just doesn't make sense to quote him from second hands when we can quote him directly. Beit Or 08:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Why directly quoting Spencer is inappropriate:

1. Spencer holds some views which are notable, and some views which are non-notable. How do we decide which views are notable? We see if those views have been covered by a reliable secondary source.
2. Quoting Spencer from a reliable source ensures that a reasonable limit is put on how much space he is given.
3. I argue that Spencer is an extremist source per WP:RS#Extremist_sources, because he is "anti-religious". Am I right? If yes, he "should be used only as source about [him]self and [his] activities in articles about [him]self, and even then with caution." Using a reliable secondary source, however, solves this problem.
4. Finally, if we quote Spencer directly, we are setting a dangerous precedent: namely that popular extremists who are not at all experts in the field may be used as sources. Do we really want wikipedia filled with hate-speech that characterizes the faith of 1.2 billion as "most intolerant", that says that the Quran teaches "cutting people's heads off"[4], that "Islam has always rejected it [reason]",[5] and last but not least "Islam is a violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the destruction or subjugation of other faiths, cultures, and systems of government." [6]?Bless sins 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave the Protocols as an example. If I dig down deep enough I could find extremist publications that demonize not just Muslims, but Jews, Christians, Hindus, women, non-whites, and all of the publications would be notable. Is this the type of encyclopedia you want?Bless sins 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the points above:

1. "Spencer holds some views which are notable, and some views which are non-notable." You postulate this distinction, but provide no evidence that it is in any way meaningful.
2. No, these are good writing, a sense of measure, and adherence to WP:NPOV that put a limit on how much space is given to any individual author.
3. "Anti-religious" is vague. Betrand Russell is fiercely anti-religious, but is he not quotable as a critic of religion in general and Christianity in particular? I don't think so.
4. This is based on the assumption that Spencer is an extremist. You have asserted his extremism, but provided no proofs.

Regarding your last paragraph on Jews, Christians etc., please mind WP:POINT. Beit Or 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether he is an 'extremist' is irrelevant to the point that in articles that focus on the subjects to which Spencer is 'close', as in articles about himself, his institute, and critics/criticism of Islam we should, wherever possible, use secondary sources rather than relying on the dubious abilities of wikipedians to extract the most notable and representative strands of his thought.

Extremism is relevant to how much he can be quoted elsewhere, of course. (So is WP:UNDUE).Relata refero 21:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Russell example above is interesting in that it might help clarify the approach; in a Criticism of Christianity article, quoting large parts of Why I am not a Christian would clearly be OR; we would need to find a secondary source that would summarise Russell's arguments, delineate their context and importance. In a Criticism of Christianity article clearly Why I am Not a Christian is a source text. Relata refero 21:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Relata... I have to respond to one of your points above... you say "I argue that Spencer is an extremist source per WP:RS#Extremist_sources, because he is "anti-religious". Am I right?"... Short answer: No you are not right. Long answer: Being anti-religious does not make you automatically extremist. In Spencer's case, he is certainly an ardent critic of Islam, but he falls way short of being extremist. For example, he does not call for the illimination of Islam, or for the eradication of Muslems the way true extremists will. Compare his comments and actions with recognized extremist groups like Hamas, the Neo Nazis, Arian Nation, the KKK etc. and you see a vast difference. No, Spencer is definitely biased, bigoted and POV... but he is not extremist. The point of WP:RS#Extremist_sources is to say that religious or anti-religious extremists have limited reliability... not to say that anyone who has a religious or anti-religious view is by definition extremist. Blueboar 21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I have no opinion on whether Spencer himself is extremist, so your points are irrelevant if addressed to me; I suggest those who do think Spencer is extremist should respond. Incidentally, if that is the interpretation of WP:RS#Extremist, that section needs to be rewritten. And you appear to confuse extremism with militancy. Extremism can be non-militant in nature. Relata refero 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument, Relata. "...quoting large parts of Why I am not a Christian would clearly be OR." Why? Is he an extremist? Is quoting small parts not OR then? I am lost. Beit Or 22:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, extremism has nothing to do with OR. Quoting large parts of a primary source is the very definition of OR. Small parts of a primary source that have been indicated by secondary sources as being central, might perhaps be quoted. Relata refero 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How then do you propose writing articles on current events, for instance, where we have primary sources (news reports) only? Beit Or 10:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper reports are not primary sources for events they cover, but are primary sources for articles about the media. Relata refero 08:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar: Yes bieng anti-religious doesn't make you extremist. But holding extreme anti-religious views does. One doesn't need to explicitly call upon the eradication of one religion to be considered an "extremist". Spreading hatred for a particular religion, without calling upon its destruction, is also extreme. Beit Or asked me to find some evidence for Spencer's extremism.

"The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism ... bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice." Source:[7] Carl W. Ernst William Kenan Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations University of North Carolina)Bless sins 10:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One man's remark on his personal website is not sufficient to establish Spencer's extremism. And where and how does Spencer spread hatred for a particular religion? Beit Or 22:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I will also point out that WP:RS#Extremist_sources starts off by saying that it is talking about: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist..." So, I think real question here should be: is Spencer widely acknowledged as an extremist. In other words, before you can write him off as an extremist, you have to show that a whole bunch of reliable sources have called him an extremist. Biased, partisan, POV... all those I will give you. Blueboar 23:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Jihadwatch

The original poster indicated that Jihadwatch was recognized as a hate site by the Council on American-Islamic Relations and The Guardian. I don't think we can trust either of those sources on anything related to US Foreign Policy. To me, Jihadwatch has been more of a website that attacks radical Islamic terrorism, rather than Islam itself. ----DanTD (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, your opinion of the Guardian is drastically at variance with established consensus and WP:RS. It has an established reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Some, mostly American, commentators see it as a haven for ultra-leftism and fabrication, but if that were the case, the UK's notoriously strict libel laws would have knocked it out of business years ago. Excluding the Guardian for facts because of its liberal/social democratic editorial line would be like excluding Canada's National Post because of its conservative/neo-conservative editorial line. <eleland/talkedits> 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New section; no, he's not an extremist, yes, he is a WP:RS

I argue that Spencer is a reliable source, not an extremist, and not 'anti-religion' (as someone stated above). He is anti-Jihad, and there's nothing extreme about being that, but rather, very rational. Look, this entire opposition to citing Robert Spencer on Wikipedia, comes entirely from biased Muslims who are opposed to Robert Spencer, not because he is wrong about Islam, but because he is critical of Islam. He is not conspiring against Islam. He is simply telling the truth about Islam, from Islam's own sources, whether it be from the actual Qu'ran or by quoting truthful Muslims like Osama Bin Laden and Anjem Choudary. I am seriously beginning to doubt if any of you have read his stuff or seen him in action. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 11:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not a Muslim, but a Christian, and I have read material by Spencer and find it biased and unreliable. In my view Spencer is an anti-Muslim bigot and a conspiracy theorist, and I am not alone

• "Regnery, a conservative publisher, has seen fit to publish another Robert Spencer book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)1. Perhaps some readers will consider this spiteful and rather vile book a camp classic, a hoot. But we Muslims will not. These assaults hurt, not because they hit home, but because they are so wildly off the mark. Spencer's reckless, scattershot approach harries the Muslim American community and leaves very little ground for moderates and humanists..." Modern-Day Crusader by Adem Carroll, The Public Eye Magazine - Summer 2006.

You don't have to be Muslim to abhor Islamophobia.--Cberlet 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From Public Eye's "about us" page: "Political Research Associates is a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society. We expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights." Nice unbiased source there, c.... Kyaa the Catlord 13:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So they are biased against "movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights?" Yeah that's a horrible bias. We should add here that the constitution of the United States of America is likewise biased. In fact I think this may be one of the worst systemic biases around in that wretched place we call "the free world." Personally I blame the Enlightenment.PelleSmith 15:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Political Research Associates -- SEWilco 15:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you find “Islamophobia” ABHORRING?!?! Anyone in his right mind should be anti-Islam as much as possible. There is nothing good about Islam and if you abhor criticism of Islam, that makes you in alliance with extremists. To criticise Islam, is common sense and a rational thing to do. There is nothing extreme about it. To answer your fallacious arguments: I have read material by Spencer and find it biased and unreliable. — On what grounds? What is unreliable about his books as far as his truthful criticism of Islam goes? How has he misrepresented his sources? Never mind his 'conservative Regnery publisher' because I don't care about which publisher he's released under, what I care about is how Robert Spencer's expertise on Islam meets a WP:RS. Also, he is a notable best seller, which qualifies him as a notable critic of Islam. Being that he is a notable best seller, would he have been a 'right wing extremist' as his opponents on the left are trying to portray him as, he would have been a lot more condemned than he is today. So tell me: how is Robert Spencer misrepresenting genuine Muslims like the righteous Muslims found in Dispatches? In my view Spencer is an anti-Muslim bigot and a conspiracy theorist, and I am not alone — Your view of Islam does not count since you don't know anything about Islam anyway, and to claim that you are not alone, is ad populum. Calling Spencer an anti-Muslim is extremely disingenuous. He is simply anti-Jihad, which means, in reality, that he is anti-Islam (as a political and religious ideology). He is not anti every Arab, Indonesian, or whatever. He is simply anti-Islam (and that's good thing). Calling him anti-Muslim is just a false tactic used in order to portray him as some sort of racist (as if Islam had anything to do with race or any kind of racial aspect for that matter). What matters here is Spencer's reliability as a notable critic of Islam, not your left-wing agenda; for the record, User:Cberlet has a long history of political controversy with Robert Spencer's boss, David Horowitz, as can be read more about in this article. This isn't a personal attack on Chip Berlet, but I'm just warning about the political POV here from his part, and that admins must have this in mind that there is a serious NPOV issue going on here. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are totally right. There is a serious NPOV problem here. Lets also warn the admins about the person who posted this: "Anyone in his right mind should be anti-Islam as much as possible. There is nothing good about Islam and if you abhor criticism of Islam, that makes you in alliance with extremists. To criticise Islam, is common sense and a rational thing to do." He/she should probably be topic banned ... don't you think?PelleSmith (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

whatever the solution... this verbose, incendiary use of Wikipedia as a soapbox must stop. ITAQALLAH 14:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Topic banned? Why? I personally don't edit Islam related articles that much to begin with, and when I do, I keep my personal POV out of the articles. It's not like I go berserk and add text that says Islam is a tool for terrorism (which is what Islam essentially is; after all, Muhammed himself stated that he had been made victorious with terror[8]). All I demand is that Islam-related articles be more NPOV and allow writers critical of Islam to be reflected in the articles (which is sort of an impossibility right now due to the influence of Muslim Wikipedians tightly controlling the articles; violating WP:OWN). I have been critical of Islam on talk pages before. But what I say on the talk pages is my personal point of view. The topics/articles is a different matter, where I try to be more professional. And for the record, this discussion is not about me, it's about Spencer's reliability as a WP:RS. If you're going to topic ban me for being critical of a terrorist religion, then you better make sure you follow through with your logic and topic ban all the atheists working on the Christianity article. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 05:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

From Public Eye's "about us" page: "Political Research Associates is a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society. We expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights." — How about, we protect movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights? Seriously, that's Islam in a nutshell, and it seems that the PRA is protecting Islam. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, I didn't realize that Chip had referred back to the group he's part of in his initial BLP violation on Spencer. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems more like a political catfight between two different political organisations, rather than anything remotely concerning Spencer's reliability as a critique of Islam. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 04:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Al insan al kamil

Al-Insān al-Kāmil#External links is a very good example of how Robert Spencer is being censored on Wikipedia by Muslim Wikipedians trying to push their POV. See the article's history regarding the link to Robert Spencer's entry on al insan al kamil Examples: [9][10] — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 04:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer is not a scholar on Islam. he isn't in a position to discuss concepts in Islamic or Sufi theology. if you have any academic, non-partisan links or references you'd like to use, please do so. ITAQALLAH 14:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. See his bio in his article. His course of study in university included Islam as a focus. He's not a Muslim theologian, but his degree is related to theology. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

as far as i know, his MA is in Early Christianity. you don't need to be a Muslim to be a reliable source on Islam. the general required standard on Wikipedia is a qualification in Islamic studies or in Near East/Oriental studies (as a verifiable demonstration of competence and expertise in the field, the same way a qualified biologist is a reliable source on biology-related topics). most major universities offer them. examples of some prominent scholars include G. R. Hawting, Annemarie Schimmel, Carl Ernst, Montgomery Watt, John Esposito, and the list continues. Spencer isn't in the same league as these individuals - scholars in general don't give his publications the time of day. ITAQALLAH 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

His degree is Religious Studies, same as the department Esposito chairs. His thesis was on monophysitism and the Church of England, but a religious studies degree doesn't necessarily focus on any one religion, especially in the case of the religions of the Book. They're all very linked and, based on my own experiences, you study them together. (Especially if he focused on early christianity, that's the heart of judaism and islam, the ME). Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

as yourself, i respectfully disagree. i don't believe a general qualification in Religious Studies (and the specific extent of his education in Islam is unknown) necessarily reflects competence in Islamic history, theology, treatises, and associated topics. a contraindication is in the comments of Carl Ernst (part of the same dept. from which Spencer qualified) who dismisses Spencer's credentials and publications.[11] ITAQALLAH 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter if his major was Monophysitism and not Islam? The opposition to Robert Spencer is purely because of his critical books on Islam, not his qualifications to speak on Islamic issues (although, that is being used as a case in point against him). His arguments about Islam are well founded and in perfect agreement with Muslims like Bin Laden and Anjem Choudary. He is not misinterpreting Islam. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

i suppose it's telling that those two aren't scholars either. ITAQALLAH 16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say they know Islam better than most scholars. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Two professionals in a field, who have strongly held viewpoints will disagree. This doesn't discredit either of them. They are both carrying degrees in the study of religion, of theology and are published authors in the field. Your, my, hell Allah's opinion doesn't matter. They are published authors writing on their field of expertise. Spencer is a notable author writing for a publishing house. This meets our credentials. Because others, and perhaps you, disagree with his statements does not make them any less reliable and it violates WP:NOR to discredit them in the manner you are attempting to. If you can find rebuttals to his exact statements, those could be used via talk on the articles his words are being used in to discuss the content of his work. He meets RS as it is written. His individual statements... may be up for discussion and review but calmly and in a calculated, reasoned manner. With all due respect, Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

it's one thing when there is scholarly difference amongst peers (scholars know how to disagree without making it personal), it's another thing when one questions the other's very education on the topic ("... he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity", says Ernst - i am inclined to believe him, he is an Islamic studies professor at the university from which Spencer graduated). i don't oppose scholars just because i disagree with their views - as one who frequents academic journals, i customarily come across views i am at odds with, whether that is Caetani's, Friedmann's, Crone's, or anyone else's . however, if a writer has a noticable lack in pedigree, does not have his work peer-reviewed by scholars nor published by academic press, then the unreliability is self-evident - irrespective of whether he is Ahmed Deedat or Robert Spencer. ITAQALLAH 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How many times should we discuss Spencer? He is only notable as a critic of Islam but he does not have any reputation as an scholar. --Aminz (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer's reputation

According to this reliable sources are "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

What reputation "for fact-checking and accuracy" does Spencer have?

Please don't answer this by arguing Spencer has a degree, because this would imply that anyone with a degree is a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See Robert Spencer#Spencer's responses to critics. He seems to be claiming that his critics have failed to show him to be inaccurate. If he were obscure and his work not examined that would be a weak argument. He seems to have provided plenty of material for critics. Google Scholar isn't much help (notice the other Spencers with work before 1980 aren't him). -- SEWilco (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

SEWilco, his work doesn't appear to have received peer-review, nor any sort of review in academic publications. as with most polemic, scholars just don't give it the time of day. ITAQALLAH 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What reputation "for fact-checking and accuracy" does Spencer have? — He has never been proven wrong by Muslims. Only personal attacks on his reliability has been made. But never ever have they proven him wrong on Islam. In fact, most Islamist pretty much agree with him on what he's saying about Islam. That said, there's nothing wrong with his reliability as far as Islam is concerned. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

reliability (and reputation) is positively established, not assumed until disproven. this non sequitur about not being "proven wrong" is also incredibly subjective. some may indeed argue that they have proved him wrong on various issues (Khaleel Mohammed, or even [12][13]) although - again - it has nothing to do with the criteria specified in WP:RS. Islamists might agree with some of what he says (just as they might with Zakir Naik), certainly not most or all - but that means nothing here. this issue has been discussed ad nauseum... perhaps it's time to give the discussion a rest until some new evidence of reliability surfaces. ITAQALLAH 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer meets the criteria at WP:V where it states, and I quote: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." He is published by Regnery Publishing and Prometheus Publishing. Do you dispute that these publishing houses exist and are, albeit sometimes controversial, respected? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

a publishing house is not necessarily reliable by default. respected? are they known for peer-reviewed, high quality publications on Islamic studies (or is this where they are, as you say, controversial[14])? (not a rhetorical question) it goes without saying that a publishing house should have a record of competence or pedigree in the topics it publishes on (Regnery's focus appears to be conservative politics and 'Politically Incorrect Guides™') and that is the spirit of the section you quote when read as a whole, regardless of the semantics of 'respected'. ITAQALLAH 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Itaqallah, do you know what a semicolon is? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

i did indeed pick up on it, but it does not exempt publishing houses from needing to possess some sort of authority in a particular field to be considered a reliable source there. peer-review is a standard facet of most reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 18:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me let you in on a very well kept secret. Journals are peer-reviewed. Non-fiction books for the most part are not. They have editors, not a peer-review process. This does not make them not reliable, actually it fulfills the same sort of fact checking required by RS... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

let's assume that peer review is not a feature of standard published texts in Islamic studies - do you concede that a publisher should be known for good quality academic material/books in the field it publishes (non-academic material is also usable where it is mainstream, see WP:SOURCES and WP:REDFLAG) for it to be considered a reliable source on that topic? ITAQALLAH 19:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that Regnancy has published at least 1 New York Times best selling book? It is a mainstream publishing house. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Kyaa, your first sentence i agree with. lots of books, including some written by Spencer, are known to be best sellers. that simply means that the book has been widely sold - something true for many controversial books which inevitably entice peoples' interest. not that it makes the books - or its publishers - reliable. as for 'mainstream' - if you mean the publishing house is well-known, then yes. if you mean that it reflects mainstream literature (in this case, on Islamic studies) - then i'd have to disagree. ITAQALLAH 21:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, he has been published and has a few bestsellers as well. If he totally made shit up about Islam, some academic scholar on religion would have proven him wrong on what he has written in his books. So far, no one has, because they can't since they know what he's writing is the truth about Islam. All they've done so far is to attack his publisher for being, and get this, "Conservative" (wow, how evil). Let's face it, he passes as a WP:RS. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 10:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

scholars don't waste their time on every crankish publication released - to claim it's because they secretly know the crankery is true is extremely naïve and reflects a poor understanding of the issue at hand. in any case, he has been criticised precisely for his fundamental lack of scholarship and expertise - by real scholars - and his publishers have been criticised for pursuing a partisan agenda (not surprised after looking at this). it's mind-boggling how a controversial writer and publisher, writing specifically for a Christian Republican target audience (do the staunchly anti-darwinist, anti-feminist, anti-liberal stances give it away?), can be hailed as a reliable resource for information on Islam. ITAQALLAH 19:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You keep repasting that Carl Ernst link as if it had any validity at all. You also make it seem like there's some universal scholarly consensus that Spencer is a fraud, by posting that link when you write 'by real scholars'. There has never been any academic debate involving "real" scholars and Robert Spencer where they have proven him wrong. All you have is one shitty scholar who was probably paid to trash Spencer's publisher (as if his publisher had any relevance beside publishing the books). Again, that link is not worthy of paying attention to, simply because it does not focus on his content. Do you understand what I am saying? Either prove Spencer wrong (not his publisher, but Spencer's statements in his book), or just accept that he is right about Islam. do the staunchly anti-darwinist, anti-feminist, anti-liberal stances give it away? — What kind of a question is that? What does anti-darwinism have to do with Spencer's truthful and accurate criticism of Islam? And what's wrong with anti-feminism and anti-liberalism? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Elias, your conditions about whether or not Spencer has been proved wrong have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy - please stop these verbose appeals to ignorance. as per what Wikipedia policy and guidelines actually say, sources are judged by their authors' qualifications, reputation for scholarly works (Spencer fails on both counts, which is what what the link shows), the presence of a peer-review system, the nature of the claim made by the source. few of your arguments have tackled these issues. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Does the criticism of the New York Times, Fox News or any other media outlet make them unreliable sources? No. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New York Times isn't a WP:RS in itself to begin with. And Faux News is obviously biased (although they can make a good point every now and then). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

comparing journalism with academic disciplines doesn't work, IMO. all news media outlets offer a perspective, but at least they are established in their journalism. Regnery's forte is clearly conservative politics - and its publications on that topic might very well be reliable sources (i've not maintained that Regnery is an unreliable publisher as a whole, only that it's evidently not a reliable one in the field of Islamic studies).

however, when it publishes in areas of academic discipline - biology, anthropology, orientalism, and so on - then partisan goals (pro-Islam or anti-Islam, for example) cannot precede scholarly endeavour. to be honest, you've a problem if you find a source or publisher declaring it will challenge mainstream understanding of an academic discipline (that's the impression i get from many of the books in the P.I.G series). when these kinds of publications are rightly criticised as polemic tracts by qualified experts, then that raises a red flag. at the end of the day, if you are going to invest in exploring a scholarly topic, you at least publish authors who have the necessary tools. ITAQALLAH 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a serious confusion. Please see Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence. The burden is upon those who add or restore the material. This would be anyone supporting the inclusion of Robert Spencer. Thus users like EliasAlucard (assuming he/she supports the inclusion of Spencer) must provide (not ask for) evidence that Spencer has a reputation for accuracy.Bless sins (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a unique interpretation of WP:V. Whoah. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't use this

This is a no-brainer - we use the author of the book The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion the day we use the author who writes: The truth about Jesus: Founder of the World's Most Violent Religion. PR^talk 16:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We link to Chip Berlet's work and Theocracy Watch's work in the Dominionism-related articles. These sources are as religiously extremist as you alleged Robert Spencer is. We use sources from ALL points of view. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

there's a lot to be said about current day muslim intolerance and about past christian violence also. the issue is not that of a flamboyant book title, but whether or not the material inside is considered reliable. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Chip Berlet's Theocracy Watch (or at least, it's web-site) does not appear to be a home of extremism, nor to pander to the violent and hate-inspired. It specifically targets those with significant political and religious influence/power, and it objects to their apparent interest in introducing religion-based government. It specifically disavows attacking individuals: "This web site is not about traditional Republicans or conservative Christians. It is about the manipulation of people of a certain faith for political power. It is about the rise of dominionists in the U.S. federal government.".

Whereas Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch most probably does pander to the violent and hate-inspired. Today's lead story targets individual clerics and people of a minority faith, linking them directly to the killing of a 16-year old by her family. Imam Alnadvi said that judging from the information he received, hijab was only one of the issues. "This girl she refused to stay at home," he said. "There were feelings that she is going in some wrong direction ... going with some other boy or some other thing." This campaign is directed against a group that understandably feels oppressed, excluded from air-lines, discriminated against in employment and harassed in their charitable works. (Note - I've no problem with him campaigning in this fashion, I might easily agree with him - but that doesn't mean we should treat him as an acceptable source).

Unless you have different evidence to hand, it seems reasonable to describe the former as regular participation in the democratic process and the latter as "extreme", as fails reliable sources.

I don't believe there are any circumstances in which you should take it on yourself to interfere with my contributions. PR^talk 17:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

PR, it's not just about whether these opinions are extreme or not. it is about whether they are competent to comment in a particular field of study. the question that has been posed here is if Spencer is a reliable source for information on Islam. the answer, taking into consideration his lack of study and competence in this discipline, his publishers' general lack of pedigree in publishing academic works on Islamic studies, and denounciations from qualified scholars in the field, can only be a resounding no. ITAQALLAH 18:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you (or perhaps I should say, I'm sure I'd come to an identical conclusion if I examined the output of this writer in more detail). But judging someone's literacy and reliability seems to cause a lot of editors rather a lot of difficulty - in fact, if we could do this reliably, we might discover a lot of dross in the editing pool and save ourselves a whole lot of grief. It's often easier to finger particular sources as "hate-sources" (or, in the more restrained language of the encyclopedia, those expressing "extreme" views).

The advantage of this approach is that we have quite well-understood red-lines eg quoting from Holocaust Deniers is a no-no, liable to lead to an indef-blocking (nobody's even bothered to write that into policy, we just accept it). David Irving is a useful touch-stone, since it's often quite difficult to prove that he was guilty of "gross historical fabrication" (it cost Deborah Lipstad some $10 million to prove, as far as I recall, just a handful of cases). It's much, much easier to prove he's an extremist.

Thats why I contributed as I did - not only is unnecessary (and potentially quite difficult) to prove Spencer cheats - making such allegations raises BLP issues. Hate-sources are barred anyway, on a much lower level of proof. PR^talk 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Any source on religion is extremeist

No source on religion is un-biased, they are either strongly pro the religion or anti that religion. The idea that Spencer can't be used but hundreds of Imams can be used because they are un-biased about Islam is a joke. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've posted on PR's talk page, its less a matter of Spencer being a reliable source (which cannot be denied seriously) it is more a matter of making certain his views are attributed to him properly and being shown as his viewpoint on a controversial subject not as fact. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(which cannot be denied seriously) ... seriously, it can. the evidence for reliability, which, let's face it, is pretty paltry, cannot stand up to the contraindications. use of partisan sources might be accepted on political-oriented articles like Israel/Palestine or Democrat/Republican - but on topics of academic discipline - they aren't. and Hypnosadist, you are grossly mistaken. see the Encyclopedia of Islam, or any other academic work for that matter. ITAQALLAH 17:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all sources on religion are strongly pro or anti. There are many reputable academics who have spent most of their lives studying religion and are capable of writing in a neutral impassionate way, and who have their work peer reviewed to ensure they don't stray from this.

As for the argument over this particular source, I have never heard of him, but it should be pretty simple to establish whether he is a reliable source or not. If his work has previously been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and he is widely credited by reputable academics as being an authority on Islam, then you should be able to cite these accolades, and that will establish that he is a reliable source. If not, then he isn't a reliable source. The onus is on the editor claiming that a particular person is a reliable source, to establish that he is considered a reliable source by other professionals in the field. Whether or not you personally think that his work is valid, true, or reliable, is irrelevant; the only relevant thing here is the opinion of other experts working in the same field. The fact that he is notable and has a personal opinion is not in dispute, but that doesn't make him a reliable source for anything other than his own article, and perhaps an Opinions of notable people on religion or something similar. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Musings: Why do some editors insist on this type of source?

For the life of me, I can't understand it. Robert Spencer writes on issues that are extensively discussed, debated, and disputed by reputable sources. It's not as if there's a shortage of academic interest in, for example, the status of minorities under medieval Islamic regimes. And yet, the views of popular ideologues and polemicists like Robert Spencer and Bat Ye'or metastasize through our encyclopedia, sucking away the blood supply from respected scholars writing in university presses. It's as if our articles on particle physics were sourced predominantly to back issues of Popular Science and a smattering of crackpot "unified theory" websites. Not to mention that every — single — book — these clowns publish seems to have a ~50kb article stuffed with praise from the "in-crowd" of Muslim-bashers.

One of the strangest things about this affair is that patrons of Spencer, Pipes, Ibn Warraq et al. genuinely don't seem to realize that their favorite writers are in any way less than mainstream. In fact, they seem to believe that Middle Eastern Studies departments in the West are just stuffed full of Hamasniks and cowed "dhimmis", and that the ideologues are thus better sources than the mainstream academics! It's not uncommon on Wikipedia to see a titled professor of Islamic Studies, heading up a department at a prestigious university, paired with some B.A. Econ with a job at a shady neo-con think tank in "He said, She said" fashion — a violation of WP:UNDUE if there ever was one.

The ideological biases of many editors undoubtedly play a role here, but so, I think, does simple laziness. People like Spencer write mass-produced missives for a general audience, they have frequently updated websites and blogs, and their ramblings tend to be quoted and mindless-link-propagated across the conservative "blogosphere". Finding legitimate academic views of a subject may actually requre — gasp! — going to the library, in order to find out something you don't already know.

In the final analysis, the views of the Spencers and Ye'ors should be confined to articles which are about them specifically, and in a limited fashion, to articles like Criticism of Islam, as long as their view is clearly set-off from the views of proper scholars. They should not be quoted in most other contexts. Notoriety and popularity do not "a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" make. <eleland/talkedits> 18:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes we need more John Esposito and what his 20 million dollar cheque paid for him to say. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. We need what more mainstream, respected scholars like John Esposito say, and less of what idiot conspiracy-mongers like the people who perpetuate that dumb smear say. <eleland/talkedits> 20:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

20 million from a man who supplies british school kids with the Protocols of the elders of Zion clearly speaks to his bias. I don't listen to what a scientist paid for by a oil company says on global warming. Just read what the donation is for, its not for academic critique of islam. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you any sources for that libelous claim? <eleland/talkedits> 06:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Search for Protocols and British schools on say the BBC news site, you won't believe me or the Jewish Chronicle [15]. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 07:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Editors of the encyclopedia will be keen not to re-cycle propaganda or give any credibility to hate-sources by eg treating the likes of JihadWatch and Robert Spencer as reliable. It's possible this story is true or partly true, but some/many regular secular sources seem to think it's been tampered with - see the Guardian "BBC2's Newsnight said examination of receipts provided by the researchers to verify their purchases showed some had been written by the same person - even though they purported to come from different mosques." That was on Thursday, so we don't know how this will pan out.

Let me remind everyone that the hate band-wagon is not just targetted on Muslims - more of this bile is aimed directly at the British, see this denial by the Holocaust Education Trust of a nonsense story that has nothing to do with Islam.

I've had a massive slew of allegations levelled at me, most of them obviously false. I face an indef-block with no further warning or possibility of appeal. The ax could very easily fall on me because of what I've said here - apparently, providing evidence in TalkPages is proof of soap-boxing and in my case that's a capital crime. Sorry about that - but I came to editing to find and document "truth", not give a veneer of respectability to propaganda. PR^talk 09:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And i could have read Policy Exchange for more on this. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if we ignored the forgery, none of your sources mention the name al-Waleed bin Talal. Stop wasting our time with this nonsense. <eleland/talkedits> 23:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The school admitted to having and teaching the Protocols to kids until 2004. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that you have no RS for this smear on John Esposito or him handing over $20 million to anyone. Furthermore, he's an American academic, unlikely to have funded anyone - and certainly unlikely to have funded a British school. Increasingly, this looks like an attempt to waste the time of good-faith editors. PR^talk 14:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So you woudn't quote from Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins either?

They are just as scathing about Islam. This is daft. You can quote him as long as it does not violate POV or UNDUE WEIGHT. Lobojo (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, no you wouldn't quote from either of these on the topic of Islam, as neither of them are experts on the topic. Dawkins on evolution - please go ahead. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Dawkins is an expert on evolution and certainly citable in that article. He isn't an expert on Islam or Christianity, so his views probably aren't relevant or desirable to cite in those articles.

I am surprised that anyone would argue against this - I mean, hypothetically, if George Bush said that he thinks atoms don't exist, then you think that because he's notable his point of view should be added to the article on atoms? Do you honestly believe that Dawkins' views on religion should be added to the Christianity article? If not, then why would citing him be appropriate in Islamic articles? You can't have it both ways. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI

Is MEMRI http://www.memri.org/ a reliable source. I think it is based on the content it has. Yahel Guhan 00:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Brian Whittaker of the Guardian (who has a Masters' in Arabic language) has exposed at least two cases where MEMRI promulgated translations which were misleading at best, and probably knowingly fraudulent. MEMRI has also been extensively criticized for its extreme one-sidedness in the guise of "Media Research". Finally, all of MEMRI's founders are former Israeli military intelligence officers, Israeli neo-cons with deep links to Likud, or both.

That being said, MEMRI might sometimes be a reliable source for opinion and commentary, but I'm very leery about using such a group for factual information in the absence of independent confirmation. <eleland/talkedits> 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It can be used if properly attributed, and when describing opinions and not facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See here for a related discussion. Relata refero 19:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a related question which is a little trickier, and pertains to the use of sources like MEMRI and CAMERA for opinion purposes.

Basically, these organizations can be counted on, every time, 100%, to praise Israel and condemn perceived enemies of Israel. Pretty much anything that happens in and around Israel, they'll express an opinion on it, and it's always the same opinion. They are well-funded and active, but it's very difficult to know how significant their views actually are. Nonetheless, such groups tend to be used heavily in Middle East articles as sources of criticism and commentary.

Now, there are some occasions when these groups do get play in actual media outlets. There was a fraudulent Sabeel-bashing editorial in the Boston Globe recently by a CAMERA member, and MEMRI scored a media home run with their mis-translation of Tomorrow's Pioneers material. Obviously, those controversies deserve mention. But a lot of the supposed controversies MEMRI, CAMERA et al document don't seem to exist outside of a narrow partisan "echo chamber" environment. Pallywood is an excellent example - Israel wonks are obsessed with it, but the media don't take it seriously and probably haven't even heard of it.

"mis-translation" or not! The difference between the tomorrows pioneers translations are minute and well within slight veriation you get when you translate anything. Given this is all that can be said against an organisation that translates thousands of TV broadcasts as well as newspaper reports every year this is clearly a very accurate translating service (used by the BBC). MEMRI does not have a news agenda it just translates what is said in the arab media. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So, what is the guideline for judging when an opinion is important enough to be mentioned? Personally, I would favor keeping to reliable factual sources and only using partisan sources when it's been established, factually, that a genuine controversy exists. Is that the usual practice? <eleland/talkedits> 20:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For evaluating whether or not they are echo chambers and to what degree they should be quoted outside their narrow concerns, I would suggest WP:FT/N. Relata refero 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I use the FTN often and greatly appreciate it, but I am leery of bringing such a fine, effective institution into the Israelistinian tarpit. <eleland/talkedits> 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just thought that Moreschi and co. might be able to evaluate the notability of opinions quite dispassionately. Relata refero 20:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

More specifically the question (at least the question I have) is whether MEMRI is a reliable source on the Qur'an, its exegesis, the hadith/sunnah or classic Islamic theology. If yes, what makes it a reliable source in any those fields? I think the best way to go about this is to look at each individual author, and evaluate him/her for his/her credentials.Bless sins (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you are asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is Is MEMRI a reliable source for views on the qur'an, exegesis, the hadith/sunnah or classic Islamic theology. Any answer your second point. Either it is or it isn't. Yahel Guhan 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The MEMRI seems to talk of Islam as if it is an expert. The question is, should we consider it as one? Also, "Either it is or it isn't" never works, since there are exceptions.Bless sins (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is very, very easy to quote from someone else's scriptures in ways liable to incite hatred. So severe and obvious is this problem that, if MEMRI really claim to be a source on Islamic Scripture (do they?) that would be another reason never to use them.

There used to be a Israeli holocaust survivor, soldier and professor who insisted on exposing what appear to be serious extremism within Judaism. Our article on him doesn't discuss his apparently well-founded views on the religious exhortation to kill civilians. Instead of which, we re-publish the very most unpleasant things his opponents said about him ("diseased mind, Nazi views"). Why would we give a body like MEMRI, an attack-dog of well-funded anti-Muslim propaganda and extremism, better treatment than an individual who put his career and personal safety on the line to oppose extremism? PR^talk 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this is relevant. MEMRI is a serious organisation, that it can be argued that they have erred in translation on two occasions, just goes to show what a RS it is. Any major news source print daily corrections and apologies, so 2 mistakes should invalidate a source? Please! Lobojo (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - as Eleland points out above, MEMRI has just the opposite reputation. Dlabtot (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni

Are the former journalists Leonard Davis, then second-in-command of AIPAC, now Israel's no.2 diplomat to the USA (as Lenny Ben-David), and Midge Decter, grande dame of the US neo-conservative movement, reliable sources for statements made by the leader of the Palestinians during the 1940s, in the absence of any further confirmation or citation?

And do the word of an ultra-right talk-radio host and Internet columnist, and the esteemed author of "The complete idiot's guide to Jewish history and culture" vouchsafe the claim? <eleland/talkedits> 01:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the esteemed editor is a historian who specializes in U.S.-Middle East policy, and the author/editor of 17 books whose work has been published in academic journals and major newspapers, the answer would seem to be 'Yes'. Please do not use this forum to soapbox about "grande dames of the US neo-conservative movements or about "ultra-right" radio hosts. Isarig 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Mitchell Bard has not been cited on the page. The citations 46, 47, and 48 are Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Chuck Morse, and Benjamin Blech. Please talk sense, and avoid trying to paint evaluations of source reliability as "using this forum to soapbox." <eleland/talkedits> 02:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Do calm down, and adopt a more civil tone. What I'm talking about is that your were asking about "Myths and Facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" - a book whose most recent editor is Mitchell Bard, a noted historian and academic author, which meets WP:RS. Now stop using this forum to rant about your political opponents, and edit according to policy. Isarig 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But the 2006 edition isn't cited. The 1982 edition is. The 2006 version is available online, and makes no mention of the Mufti's supposed statement. Accusations of my "ranting" juxtapose oddly with accusations of incivility. <eleland/talkedits> 05:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these are RSs. You are suggesting that we reject a source since they are zionist or neoconservative. Think what you like about these movements but we DO NOT reject academic sources based on their political viewpoint. This is a disgusting and nauesating suggestion. Would you have us reject all sources who happened to be anti-zionist, or Marzist?! Obscene. Lobojo (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: is a Haganah press officer and later IDF Lieutenant Colonel, a confidant of David Ben Gurion and his personal media strategy adviser, writing in 1947 during the run-up to civil war in Palestine, a reliable source for what Husayni may or may not have said during the 1940s, in the absence of further confirmation or citation? <eleland/talkedits> 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if someone is "a second-in-command of AIPAC" there is reason to suspect them of not being a reliable source on controversial Israeli-Palestinian matters. But suspicion doesn't make one an unreliable source, and the two men may very well be reliable sources. The burden of evidence is (for showing something is a reliable source) is upon those who insist on its usage. As of now I don't see any evidence provided for the reliability of Leonard Davis and Midge Decter.Bless sins (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. At the very least there should be some sort of disclaimer about the biases of neoconservative commentators. --Terrawatt (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. If there is bias then it cant go in at all. This suggestion is simply obscene. Someone is a Zionist so we need a discliamer before we can quote them, and to label them a neocon. We canont put on such a disclaimer since that vioates NPOV since it is expressing an opition to the effect "this source might be a lying neocon pig, so watch out". This is an obscene suggestion that would seem antisemitic if it were ever put into effect. Lobojo (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, this isn't the question of someone who is a scholar, but may be biased in some way. All scholars have their biases. The two sources at issue here are:

• A journalist, Haganah spokesman, and personal confidant of Ben-Gurion, writing in the heat of the 1947 civil war in Palestine, about the leader of the enemey
• A pair of lifelong "pro-Israel" lobbyists and activists, one of whom was later picked as chargé d'affairs at the Israeli embassy in Washington

Neither are scholars, neither are reliable, and neither should be used as an excuse to sling mud at Husayni. <eleland/talkedits> 01:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the second source was actually published by AIPAC and distributed literally by the caseload, and was condemned by scholars for... oh, why do I bother, you haven't even been reading the discuission you're commenting on, have you. <eleland/talkedits> 01:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

They are scholars, he is cited by others, so we cite him. You are free to describe his roles alongside any quotes in a limited and neutral way. I have never understood the motives of editors who seek to defend a confirmed Nazi who spent the war as a guest of Hitler in Berlin from "mudslinging", I think that a little more mud isn't going to make to much difference to a man who drowned in a vat of it. When people come here to defent Eichmann, we tend to view them as sick. Much like I view the suggestion that zoinist scholars and writers be labeled zionists before they can be quoted. You are free to add sources that rebut the claims they make it you want. Lobojo (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Leonard Davis is a scholar? Really? What was his academic posting? Seriously, you need to stop just making up the facts to suit your POV. Leonard J. Davis aka Lenny Ben-David was many things, but "scholar" was not one of them. <eleland/talkedits> 04:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

ArabNews

Is ArabNews a reliable source? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For what material? The reliability of a source, depends in many instances in the context in which they are used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On Daniel Pipes: In October, 2001 Pipes said, before the convention of the American Jewish Congress. "[The] increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews." [16] —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If properly attributed, I do not see why it cannot be used. Please discuss with other editors that are actively engaged in that article. WP:CONSENSUS on this as a valid source, is still needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It probably is reliable. Although I must admit I am not familiar with it. Considering how it's distributed worldwide, and its own stub article doesn't have anything denouncing it for false or misleading stories, I would make the educated guess that it is reliable.Ngchen (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do other reliable news sources quote it? Is a news outlet out of Saudi Arabia free from legal constraints about what they may write? Hard to see how we can use this as a WP:RS. IronDuke 03:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Arab news is a reliable sources since it is a mainstream newspaper (thus satisfying Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources), much like the The Washington Post, or Vancouver Sun. Infact, it is Saudi Arabia's oldest English newspaper. With regards to Daniel Pipes, you better get another source to support a contentious claim like that.Bless sins (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It is really bias. Doesn't seem reliable at all to me. Yahel Guhan 06:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this reliable to determine if he made such a distasteful statement? He also says that he said it on www.danielpipes.com, so it seems ArabNews is perfectly reliable and acceptable. Lawrence Cohen 06:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"It is really bias" Why?Bless sins (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

When Pipes makes a controversial statement at the American Jewish Congress, it is likely to receive wide coverage, and you would not be limited to Arab News as the only source. The same Arab News report that was linked above claims to be quoting from an unpublished grant proposal written by Pipes's Middle East Forum and 'obtained by journalists.' I would be more cautious with anything obtained that way. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem of bias in this case is here by editors, with inappropriate comments. On the Daniel Pipes talk page, Ironduke made reference to the source being unacceptable because it is from Saudi Arabia, and references to theocracy. Arbitrarily saying here, "bias", is another problem. There is no excuse for comments that dismiss Arab sources out of hand. Arab or Saudi sources are just as valid to use on Jewish topics as Israeli or other Western sources. Lawrence Cohen 19:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence, you're welcome to respond to the substance of my point above, and I'd certainly welcome it. Slurring insinuations on the motives of other editors and baseless accusations of bias are not as welcome. IronDuke 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What "insinuations"? At Talk:Daniel Pipes you openly claim that sources from Saudi Arabia are inherently unreliable due to "differences of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech". The latter may or may not be true but the concept that no Saudi has any journalistic integrity is an absurd, racist generalization. Amaliq (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"the concept that no Saudi has any journalistic integrity is an absurd, racist generalization." That is indeed correct. Good thing I never advanced such a concept. IronDuke 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, "differences of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech" does not mean a source is not reliable. Do we maintain a list of nations that we devalue sources from? Who maintains the list, where is it, and who decides what nations we think aren't worth noting in Wikipedia? A Saudi source is as valid as an Israeli source, as a Pakistani source, as a Japanese source. Nation of origin means nothing. Lawrence Cohen 16:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Nation of origin means nothing." That is, of course, wholly incorrect. It would be difficult, in fact, to overstate precisely how wrong that is. I'll just say that countries which do not value journalistic freedom, and in which journalists are heavily censored, do not produce reliable, quality journalism. IronDuke 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Nation

This this article from The Nation a reliable source? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Same answer as above. Reliable for what material? "Reliability" is not an absolute distinction: it requires context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

the following reference was deleted off the Daniel Pipes article b/c the user said it was a unreliable source: According to writer Kristine McNeil in The Nation, Pipes has anti-Arab views. He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most," and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers." Pipes is a regular contributor to the Gamla web site, an organization founded that endorses the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians[17] —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable. Although this source is biased, it is well-regarded as the premiere source of liberal opinion in the United States. Before people jump over me for having a liberal bias, let me say that National Review is also reliable.Ngchen (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source for facts, but certainly a reliable source for the views of liberals on the subject. As it is properly attributed, I would see no problem in using it. In any case, you will need to reach WP:CONSENSUS with involved editors there.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree about it being unreliable in terms of facts. Sure, it may present facts in a biased way, but I doubt it publishes outright falsehoods as truth.Ngchen (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that if you want to show what liberals are saying, quote a liberal source. If you want to cite a conservative opinion, use a conservative source. For other things, it is better to use a centrist source. For example, I am comfortable quoting from MSNBC and CBS for liberal opinions and Fox News for conservative opinions. This is because sources will twist around the words of opposing opinions to make them look bad. However, I find those sources to be too biased to be used for controversial content that is easily skewed like the war in Iraq. I would rather use sources that I think are more centrist like ABC News and CNN for those topics. Even though I am somewhat liberal, I am disgusted by the blatant liberal bias in CBS and MSNBC, and of course I am disgusted with the blatant conservative bias in Fox News. Some people will consider my opinion on who is the centrist sources as bad, and I know that different people will have different opinions. Jesse Viviano (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that everyone who is offering an opinion on this cite read the actual reference. I'm not certain that the article being used could be used due to the unapologetically biased nature of the article. Wow. I've not read a hit piece like that ever before... it isn't journalism. I'm not exactly certain what it is. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Having read the first page of the cite, I must say that sure, it is biased, and written in an non-encyclopedic tone. But that doesn't mean that facts gleaned from the article are unreliable. It is, perhaps muckraking journalism, IMHO.Ngchen (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it definitely falls under the WP:REDFLAG clause. I feel dirty having read it all. There's focused, driven editorializing and then there is demonizing through propaganda tactics. That article clearly is the latter. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how there is any redflag violation. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how a fringe opinion such as that is useful as a source in an NPOV manner. I was kind of hoping the last line would be something like "oh yes, and he eats babies too." Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly a fringe opinion. By all measures, the Nation is a mainstream rag. That doesn't mean that it's unbiased or doesn't have an editorial slant, but tell me what source doesn't? "Reliable source" doesn't mean no bias; that's a mistake too often made by Wikipedia editors. If there's an issue of balance in the sources used in the article, that needs to be hammered out on the talk page. But to paint the Nation as an unreliable (let alone "fringe") source, including that particular editorial, is absurd. bobanny (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That particular editorial is beyond the pale. I'd love to show you, line by line, how it uses propaganda techniques, but we're all able to read and discern for ourselves. I'd expect that sort of rant from a blog, not a reputable publication like the Nation. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The use of propaganda techniques doesn't separate the Nation from other reliable sources. Contrary to popular belief, propaganda is not the science of lying. It simply means propagating an idea or perspective through whatever means, whether rhetorical devices, logical argumentation, or whatever, all of which are used by the most respectable newspapers and magazines. Even if you don't agree with how that editorial depicts Pipes, the way it was originally used in the Wikipedia article was simply to say that this opinion of Pipes is out there. bobanny (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bobanny. According to Kyaa the Catlord's logic, most all main-stream media would be considered an unreliable source, especially Fox News--which is widely used on WIkipedia.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fox News is at least presenting itself as news as is, for example, CNN. The Nation exists mainly as a journal of opinion. Their conclusions cannot and should not be used as facts. IronDuke 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Of course, no opinion printed anywhere should be used as a fact. What I am saying is that facts extracted from The Nation can be used. Likewise, the same applies to Fox News and National Review.Ngchen (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke, in the context the text was used on the Pipes article, it is not presenting any opinion, only facts. What are you suggesting is an opinion?—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, it's reliable. Does something think the facts listed are somehow in error? The opinions can be used for certain things also (say liberal response). Hobit (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Publisher's "blurb" quotes and Bat Ye'or

A dispute has arisen as to the sourcing of favorable quotes reviewing Bat Ye'or's work. The sources are the "blurb" quotes on the back cover of her book. One side argues that since publishers of academic books are reliable sources, evidence must be presented that this particular quote is either taken from a longer review or taken out of context, or it is a priori reliable. The other side argues that blurb quotes are often taken out-of-context, even by reliable publishers, and points to a book reviewer griping about a "misleading" blurb "quoted out of context" from one of his prior reviews.

Neither side has located the originals, assuming the reviews were first published elsewhere. <eleland/talkedits> 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no problems in quoting from backmatter or dust-jacket flaps, if properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Would that mean we say "According to a review reproduced on the back cover of X, person Y said..."? <eleland/talkedits> 06:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all blurbs are created equally -- I suggest considering them on a case-by-case basis and using common sense. Blurbs exist to sell something, not to convey information. Some quote very selectively from reviews. I'd especially watch out for ellipses (…) indicating something has been removed from the text or brackets [] indicating other editing; those don't mean a blurb is automatically unreliable, just that it needs closer examination. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case, we already have a source accusing that. Somebody reviewing the English translation of one of Ye'or's books took time out to note that the English edition carried a quotation from him, "quoted out of context" in a "misleading" way, from a past review. <eleland/talkedits> 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with using blurbs is that your source then typically consist of a single, or a few, sentence(s). I believe blurbs should genereally not be used as sources since they are either: (i) taken from a larger piece of work that can be sourced, even if finding that work is difficult, (ii) only consist of a few sentences and can hence be considered as random statements. Labongo (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"According to a review reproduced on the back cover of X, person Y said..."? meets the requirements of WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems obvious, that if it was put like that then there could never be any problem, even if the quote was manipulated. The publisher is a RS. Lobojo (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Altermedia

Resolved

Is Altermedia a reliable source? --Gutza ^{T T+} 08:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No - it isn't notable, it doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia. If you think it is, then you would need to establish that before it could be a reliable source. Secondly, it seems to present articles in a very biased way with an anti-Jew anti-black POV. It is also taking a political position in support of various parties, such as the British National Party. It is definitely not neutral. I checked the front page of the UK site, headline : "Islamic beheading in UK"[18]. Contrast this with the same story from a reliable source, BBC News, which has nothing about an "Islamic beheading".[19] They are clearly distorting facts with their POV. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for existence of opinions (points of view) about some issues. Reliability as a source for facts should be weighted for every local version of Altermedia separately. --Dezidor (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia states clarly that unreliable sources may only be used in articles about themselves. Below, I explain just what is unreliable about it (and "unreliable" is an understatement). Dahn (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How does one determine which local version can be used, and which specific issues it can be used for? --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify a bit: this section is a consequence of a long thread on Romanian wikipedia, where altermedia is used as a reliable source. In the process of the discussion, I investigated a bit and it turns out that only two reliable sources (of the academic kind, mind you) even take altermedia into consideration. They are Thomas Greven, Thomas Grumke, Globalisierter Rechtsextremismus?: Die extremistische Rechte in der Ära der Globalisierung, VS Verlag, 2006, pages 171-171 and Wilhelm Hofmann, Franz Lesske, Politische Identität- visuell, LIT Verlag, 2005, page 160. Both cite altermedia as a portal, and both define it as a venue for far right extremism (with, in at least one case, emphasis on its promotion of antisemitism, xenophobia, the Klan etc.). Outside of these sources, altermedia as a whole has little covering: it is simply ignored, in both academia and mainstream journalism.

A larger debate was carried in relation to the Romanian altermedia, which, it was claimed, is an independent section - its independence is, however, easily dismissible by citing altermedia itself, as it defines itself as part of the portal in question. Three main issues have been noted. One is that ro.altermedia.info is run by a high-ranking member of the far right group Noua Dreaptă: Dan Ghiţă, whom altermedia itself indicates as its president and editor, is Noua Dreaptă's vice president (as mentioned here, here, and here) and has for its "reporter" Bogdan Stanciu, who is Noua Dreaptă's spokesman. The other issue clearly observable is its involvement with far right politics and its support for Noua Dreaptă's actions (accompanied by praises of fascist politicians such as Iron Guard leader Corneliu Zelea Codreanu); these activities are, to say the least, bordering on illegality in Romania. See for example here, here and here. I left aside the other myriad of claims it makes on all sections, all of which are visible to the naked eye (from "curing" homosexuality to denying the Holocaust to ranting about Jewish conspiracies to the links leading to "news of interest to white people").

The third and most important issue in respect to altermedia Romania is its reflection in reliable sources. For all its presence in blogs and forums, there are few reliable sources (mainstream or academic) mentioning it at all. Here they are: an article in the Romanian daily Curentul, where altermedia is referred to as an "Iron Guard nest" ("nest" is the terminology used by the Irion Guard to define its smallest active cells), and attributed the qualities of "the Guard's propaganda tentacle", "tool for propagating Noua Dreaptă's fascist ideology" etc.; an article in the magazine Observator Cultural, where altermedia's Holocaust denial is discussed in passing, where altermedia's connection with Noua Dreaptă is again mentioned, and where the author accuses it of promoting an Iron Guard-inspired view of Romanian history; an article in the daily Cotidianul, headlined "Hatred Boils Over on the Internet", where altermedia is mentioned alongside other extremist and neofascist sites; the Wiesel Institute, in a document dealing with Holocaust denial and antisemitism in contemporary Romania, cites altermedia several times (pages 10, 17, 33, 34, 40, and 44) - the document argues (page 17) that "under the cover of 'right to expression and access to information', the publication hosts messages with an antisemitic and denialist character" (a dismissal of both altermedia's character and its claim to reliability). There are a few more informal sources mentioning altermedia's neofascist character, antisemitism etc., but I just concentrated on the most relevant ones (reliable themselves).

The issue of editorial control was also brought up, and altermedia simply states that it encourages anyone to contribute as long as they feel that their material is censored elsewhere (by "the New World Order", mind you). This is a clear indication that the source is self-published and it places itself in contradiction with the mainstream (see WP:V and WP:RS for the implications of that). Altermedia, under any form and with any section, is not cited as a source of information in any reliable source. As shown, it is simply a study case for neofascism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, racism and xenophobia.

In short: there is absolutely no way that this could be considered a reliable source, under any standards on Earth. Dahn (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Dahn is correct in stating that this is basically a spill out from the Romanian Wikipedia -- I simply tried to be as neutral as possible in how I asked the questions because I didn't want to risk being accused of tainting the topic with my POV. I hope I have been successful in not revealing my personal opinion on this source's reliability or my motives for asking these questions. However (or maybe even more so), please do try to give this inquiry a bit of your attention, this is setting a precedent on our Wikipedia. Thank you. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the labeling of a source as unreliable and its entire removal from wikipedia (+policing for possible new entries) is not unprecedented. I do believe this was accomplished in the case of Stormfront, Al Qaeda and others, and I have seen editors who simply remove such links from the articles. This may be without precedent for the Romanian wikipedia, but even there, I am led to believe, there has been agreement on at least some links to sites promoting Holocaust denial. As for your query, I find it entirely reasonable. Dahn (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In short: I see that you and Gutza expand disputes from Romanian Wikipedia (see long dispute at this page) into English Wikipedia and I don´t know where else. I think that it is kind of harassment. Local Altermedias are very different as well as language versions of Wikipedia and sources in Romanian language are not problem of overwhelming majority of editors of English Wikipedia. Solve your personal problems with Romanian Altermedia at Romanian Wikipedia and write encyclopedia (this account is not about writing encyclopedia). Thank you, --Dezidor (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, me and Gutza agree that it is not a reliable source, as do several other users who formulated their opinion there. Above, I clearly indicate that the only two reliable sources even mentioning altermedia (as a portal, i.e.: in its entirety) do so only to highlight its extremist character. Additionally, the reason why this was posted here is so that the source itself, and in its totality, be exposed for scrutiny by the community. Please make sure you address these concerns, and not ulterior assumptions. Dahn (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And if you drop my account in the pot, please make sure you check out my record of contributions over here (including my two featured articles). I only joined the Romanian project very recently, after a period of contributing as an IP, and after being asked to sign in by several administrators - precisely because they appreciated my input. Dahn (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

One additional comment: writing a proper and reliable encyclopedia is precisely why one needs to look into what sources are used and for what purpose. Dahn (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you both are against this source. But sorry, it is very difficult to believe that there is no connection between your dispute at Romanian Wikipedia and your actions here. It simply look likes that you want to write at Romanian Wikipedia: At English Wikipedia they said... --Dezidor (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Dezidor, I don't see what relevancy it has that it is discussed over there, given that I am bringing up the entire source for review here. I could just as well bring it for review because I please - meaning that I have a right, and, ultimately, a duty, to ask that these sources be exposed for scrutiny by any section of wikipedia. I do believe that this is the purpose of this page. Your answer, which was the second one to Gutza's first post, was that different altermedias "should be weighted for every local version of Altermedia separately" - based on what logic, and according to what rule? For the third time: the only two mentionable sources that cite the entire portal (no "Czech altermedia is okay, Portuguese altermedia is bad") discuss it as a source for nothing other than extremism; all other reliable sources that I was able to find discuss the Romanian section (which is not subject to some peculiar and particular rules) say very much the same. Am I missing something? Dahn (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And even if I would want to cite a verdict passed on the English wikipedia as additional information there (as if what I posted there isn't as clear as what I wrote above), what's to say I'm not allowed to, given that the portal we're discussing is international, and that wikipedia enforces the same rules wherever? Dahn (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My argument that different AlterMedias should be discussed separately is based on facts that this websites has own redactions and external contributors, different quality and popularity (for example Altermedia România looks like popular website, Altermedia Österreich doesn´t), different ideological opinions (almost every mainstream and non-mainstream media has own political or economic interests and it would be violation of NPOV to support only media with some opinions), different sort of supporters and opponents (and sources that writes positively, negatively or neutrally about them), different updating (for example AlterMedia România produces new articles every day in comparison with AlterMedia Schweiz which looks like dead project), different kind of articles (for example AlterMedia UK usually includes only comments to articles by another media and external links in comparison with AlterMedia Czech Republic that usually provides articles by its own authors or by authors of friendly media) etc. Altermedia.info is rather than one project only domain that hosts different projects with different content. --Dezidor (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but: 1) number of clicks does not make reliability; 2) several sources discuss the site in its entirety, and they are the only reliable sources that even mention the site; 3) speculations about the "political interest" of academic works fade in comparison to the burden of evidence regarding the bias of altermedia (and altermedia, for sure, is not academic); 4) the sources that do actually take the site into consideration belong to media so diverse that it would have to be "all the world against altermedia" (which is basically saying the same thing about what that site is all about). I fail to see any proof that the altermedias would be separate projects, and, in fact, I see plenty of evidence that they are not (both in third-party commentary and in what altermedia states about itself). Below, you have what I consider is a full answer as to the reliability of altermedia, with a direct quote from wikipedia's policies.

To the above, I will add this document provided by the Internal Ministry in North Rhineland-Westphalia, which keeps neonazi sites under a close watch. On pages 4-5, the entire portal is exposed as a venue for right-wing extremism, the links between its supposedly separate wings are discussed as facts, and the person holding the strings is identified as the notorious David Duke. Nuff said. Dahn (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This last source that Dahn brought (from the Internal Ministry of North Rhine-Westphalia, no land after Rhine there!) clinches the case, if there was any real doubt before that. As a side note: Jürgen Rüttgers, the Minister-President of North Rhine-Westphalia, does not sound like a pinko type to me, so the fact that his interior ministry says what it says regarding AlterMedia adds an extra layer of credibility, if I'm allowed to make the inference in this discussion. Turgidson (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, never mind all the assumptions. (And by the way, Dahn is among the project's most committed editors, so please.) Yes, the debate originated at ro.wiki, but why not have it here as well? As long as everyone stays civil, I don't see the problem. It's a good idea to establish a solid case here as well that altermedia should be avoided as a source. Biruitorul (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS#Extremist_sources:

"Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."

Any publisher of material that advocates far right (or even far left) politics is not a reliable source (with the minor exception of an article about the publisher). The rules are very clear. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion came from Romanian Wikipedia, where several users added altermedia as a source at various articles. As Dezidor pointed there are differences between different branches of Altermedia. Each branch has its own redaction team, the conclusions about American or German altermedia can not be extended on other branches. Romanian Altermedia is a popular site often quoted in various publications. For example: it received an award from the spreading of free information, it was quoted by University of Galati, Romania-Israel portal, Science Academy of the Republic of Moldova, Catholica.ro - website conecting catholic parishes in Romania, "Vestitorul", The newspaper of the Greek-catholic bishopric of Oradea, The revue of bioethics, the website of the students of the Free university of Moldova, Dervent monastery website, the website of the Romanians from Australia association, Curierul Conservator website, Christian writers association, the website of a bishop of Orthodox Church in Moldova, "My bussiness" website, a newspaper of the Romanian policemen training center, Orthodox Bishopric of Suceava official site, "Our Moldova" site (a site from the Republic of Moldova), Deca Press agency, Bacaul.ro - site of the people from Romanian city of Bacau, Lugojul.ro - site of the people from Romanian city of Lugoj, Site of the Yoga movement, Site of the orthodox young people from the Republic of Moldova and several others. I fully agree with Chris that sites that are widely aknowledged as extremist should not be considered reliable sources. However, in the case of Altermedia Romania, less than 5% of those who are quoting this site are considering it as extremist, it can not be considered as "widely aknowledged as extremist". I have to point also some fallacies in Dahn's message - the article in "Curentul" the he is quoting is mentioning altermedia as a "nest" (it is a derogatory term, like in the movie "Borat, a story for people in Kazahstan"), but not as an "Iron Guard nest", the "Iron Guard" was added by Dahn from his imagination. Both "Curentul" and "Observatorul Cultural" are minor publications in Romania. The refferences at other sections of altermedia are simply irrelevant for a judgement about Romanian altermedia, in my opinion.--MariusM (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is obviously difficult for non-Romanian speakers to verify those references. Your argument is basically that, yes, the English speaking divisions of Altermedia are extremist and not reliable sources, but the Romanian division is totally different, and is actually a good, reliable source. It is not an impossible proposition, but is extremely unlikely. So I will ask:

• Is it really necessary to use this site as a reliable source? Are there no reliable sources similar to the BBC or CNN in Romania? No professional newspapers?
• The English Altermedia had content that was clearly anti-{Muslim, Jew, black}. Is the Romanian site different, or does it have a similar slant? The Romanian site uses the same tagline, "World wide news for people of European descent". The implication is obvious.
• The regional sites all link to each other without any warning that the viewer is being redirected to a completely different organisation. If you cite it as a reliable source, then how is the reader meant to know that you only believe the Romanian site is reliable?

Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that Romanian Altermedia is the best source, but sometimes they have good articles which are appropiate for Wikipedia, and other sources about those subjects are missing. When an article is added as a source, the reader is directed at a specific article from Altermedia, not at the entire network. The Romanian Altermedia has a "Frequently Asked Questions" page [20] where they claim being independent from other sections of the altermedia. I am against a fatwa forbidding any link to altermedia articles without an analysis of the specific article which is proposed to be linked (this was Dahn's proposal at Romanian wikipedia). Romanian Altermedia has a wide variety of articles, from far-right to far-left political orientation.--MariusM (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"I am against a fatwa forbidding any link to altermedia articles without an analysis of the specific article which is proposed to be linked" Well, that is the way that WP:RS works. A source is either considered reliable, or it isn't. We don't evaluate individual articles for their reliability. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

MariusM's message is spurious on several grounds: 1) the entirety of the links he cites are themselves unreliable, and most of them are blogs; 2) the publications he dismisses as "minor" are not at all minor, and all of them are mainstream, indisputably reliable, and rating above each and all of the links he so generously provides above; 3) there is no indication that altermedia Romania is an independent project, and I have made available the sources discussing both the project in general and the mainstream rejection of its Romanian branch; 4) anybody with a little knowledge of Romanian will note that altermedia publishes fringe theories of the far right persuasion as a rule (open worship for fascist politicians and war criminals, clams to cure homosexuality, Holocaust denial, etc). I do believe it is perfectly legitimate and necessary for wikipedia not to soil itself by using such stuff as its source. Dahn (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dahn is relying on the fact that few people here speak Romanian and can verify his afirmations. I've noticed that he didn't comment my observation about his wrong translation of the article from "Curentul" (where altermedia is described as a "nest", but Dahn pretended that it is described as an "Iron Guard nest").--MariusM (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice selective answers. Hoping that this is not the first in a pattern, let me note that: 1) several respected users who speak Romanian have checked the info I provided, and agreed with the terminology (by confirming that the translation was correct, and by empirically noting that it applies); 2) in the case of that particular article, the terminology is quite clear: the text lists a number of neofascist ventures in cahoots with the Iron Guard and its present-day growth Noua Dreaptă, describing all of them with the term "cuiburi" (Romanian for "nests" - n.b.: the term has a select few meanings in Romanian, one of which is part of the Iron Guard vocabulary). This relevant passage is found at the top of the screen, in an introductory section - "Şi-au format cuiburi legionare in toate judetele." ("[The Iron Guard affiliates] have formed themselves Iron Guard nests in all counties.") The article then proceeds to list various such ventures, including musical bands, xenophobic campaigns, their tentative tentacles (heh!) in a government structure etc. An entire section in this succession deals with altermedia. it is headlined "Cuibul Altermedia" ("The Altermedia Nest"). The organization is described as follows: "De fapt, Altermedia nu este decat unealta de propagare a ideologiei fasciste a Noii Drepte" ("Actually, Altermedia is nothing other than a tool for propagating Noua Dreaptă's fascist ideology"). Other such assessments follow, I just gave you the immediate context. I think we have by now moved past this straw man argument. Dahn (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

From alexa.com a comparison of different branches of altermediaalexa.com traffic details:

• Where people go on Altermedia.info:
• cz.altermedia.info - 33%
• de.altermedia.info - 21%
• ro.altermedia.info - 18%
• fr.altermedia.info - 7%
• be.altermedia.info - 3%
• altermedia.info - 3%
• es.altermedia.info - 2%
• bg.altermedia.info - 2%
• us.altermedia.info - 2%
• gr.altermedia.info - 2%
• ca.altermedia.info - 1%
• vl.altermedia.info - 1%
• ch.altermedia.info - 1%
• uk.altermedia.info - 1%
• Other websites - 3%

Romanian Altermedia has 4 times more visitors than American, UK and Canadian Altermedias together. Considering the fact that for one Romanian language speaker with acces at internet there are around 25 English language speakers with acces at internet, I will say that the weight of Romanian altermedia in Romanian culture is 100 times bigger than the weight of English language altermedias for English culture. This is why I consider irrelevant a conclusion about Romanian altermedia based on the tiny and unimportant English-language altermedias. In this case we have a completely different picture than regarding Wikipedia alexa.com traffic details, where 54% of people are using English Wikipedia, while Romanian Wikipedia is not even listed, it is in the "other websites" category.--MariusM (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How is this concoction supposed to be an argument, and how does anything about internet traffic spell out "reliability"? A rhetorical question, MariusM, as it looks like you have yourself very well understood that it does not. Never mind that the deduction about what it means to Romanian culture is bogus (comparatively, there are nowhere near as many internet users in Romania as there are in the Anglo-Saxon world). I also object to the notion that antisemitism, fascism, xenophobia, and other such ills are "acceptable" in Romania or in areas dealing with Romania, especially when based on the non sequitur according to which a larger percentage of internet users who bother to visit that site will visit that part of the site. Let me remind you all of WP:NOT, and let's not flog this dead horse any longer. Dahn (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I used the traffic data from alexa.com to show the irrelevance of the tiny and unimportant English-language altermedias in a judgement about Romanian altermedia. I never told that Romanian altermedia is a fascist site, your assumption that "fascism and other ills are acceptable in Romania" is a straw man argument. The reliability of Romanian altermedia is based on several reliable sources that are quoting this site, some of them I listed above (and those are not blogs, like you fakely pretended). The 2 articles that you found in minor Romanian publications which are criticising Romanian altermedia are not enough for a conclusion that Romanian altermedia is "widely aknowledged as extremist".--MariusM (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, this is what I said, in case you have not read it before: 1) there is no argument in which it would matter what the alleged popularity of altermedia is in Romania or anywhere else - since what wikipedia is interested in is how a topic is viewed by reliable sources, not by people clicking links (WP:V: verifiability, not truth"); 2) neither of the sites you cite itself meet the criteria outlined in WP:V or WP:RS, as you have already been made aware elsewhere - despite their fancy titles, all but a handful are informal, fringe and self-published portals, blogs and fanzines, and the remainder (who do not actually cite or discuss altermedia) are sites of some monasteries and publications of absolutely no reputation. On Romanian wikipedia, these "sources" were reviewed by other editors, who noted that they have absolutely no reputation. 3) the newspapers I cited are mainstream and widely cited in third-party sources, which, unlike speculations about popularity, is what matters here; if we are discussing your speculations about popularity, then I have to point out that they are all printed and in general circulation, and they are all more widely circulated than anything you cite above - Observator Cultural is a leading cultural magazine (virtually all of its regular contributors are academics, and the journal is widely cited by other respectable sources, both Romanian and foreign - like all but one cultural magazines, it is not audited, but, according to this article, claims to sell approx. 4,500 copies on average per issue, when the best-selling magazines in that area sell 15,000 and 8,000 respectively, and it is probably the third-selling or so; according to the same source, most cultural magazines sell, on average, 1,000 copies per issue), Cotidianul is one of the most respected, as well as popular, newspapers (2.5 million copies sold in the first half of 2007), Curentul is also quite popular (260,000 copies sold for the same period). Note that the data I am providing is verifiable and relevant, not based on number of clicks or filling this page with linkspams to all sorts of forums that we are supposed to assume are somehow relevant. Interestingly, all of the "magazines" you list above are published as posts in a thread on the internet, and not on paper. 4) In addition to the magazines in question, there is the Wiesel Institute, which was created through a decision of the Romanian government as a panel of scientists to monitor and report on, among other things, Holocaust denialist messages in Romanian society - I will not repeat the terms in which it describes altermedia as a whole, as their available for viewing above. 5) At any point in this discussion, the issue of editorial control and reliability will inevitably target altermedia more than any other source mentioned, since whatever necessary criteria are met by the sources dismissing altermedia are simply not met by altermedia itself (no audit, peer review, mainstream quality or editorial policy to speak of). And finally: 6) if the reputable sources discuss altermedia (in whole and in part) as a neofascist site, if the Romanian branch of altermedia is supposed to be "spared" the scrutiny made available for the site as a whole (because?), and if you invoke alleged popularity of one branch as some sort of panacea protecting us from these ills (n.b.: ills attributed by sources, regardless of whether I agree with what those sources say), then you're either not getting the point or are actively trying to fool us. Dahn (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

When you compare the circulation of a daily newspaper (like "Curentul" or "Cotidianul") you should consider the number of copies printed daily, not to add all the copies they print in half a year. "Curentul" is selling zero copies, as it is a freely distributed magazine [21]. I wonder if free-distributed magazines are reliable sources. "Cotidianul" didn't labeled Altermedia as a fascist site. As you know, at Romanian Wikipedia there was no consensus regarding altermedia. I didn't make "speculations" about the popularity of different branches of altermedia, I gave verifiable data from alexa.com, which I consider to be a reliable source.--MariusM (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to jam myself in this useless debate. If you note the original point I was making, popularity, if at all relevant, is secondary to the issue (if at all relevant in establishing verifiability). To this, I have added the same criterion for all newspapers I took into consideration - precisely because newspapers in general have moderate sales in Romania by world standards. As you will note, Curentul still sold copies for the given period - see the statistic in question, where the two criteria (sale and free distribution) are listed side by side, and it apparently still sells at least part of its copies. I'm leaving aside the obvious fact that, freely-distributed or not, Curentul is still mainstream and has editorial control... which altermedia does not. Your "Altermedia has 1.5 million visitors" argument is completely spurious, since number of clicks does not make individual copies or individual visitors (obviously, altermedia does not sell any copies on the market...), since site ranking does not work the same ratios as sales, and since I did not take into consideration stuff like the ranking of Cotidianul 's page. No, Cotidianul did not label altermedia fascist, for whatever reasons - it did not have to for the purpose of what is being discussed here, since it simply included it among other such sites in a study of how (literally) hatred spreads on the internet, and described as among the sites "specialized in promoting nationalism", in the same breath as the Greater Romania Party papers Tricolorul and România Mare. And, finally, I don't care where you got your data from: the speculation I was referring to is in reference to what conclusions you drew from it, and to the absurd implication that this stuff matters in assessing verifiability and reliability (such a reasoning would make Blogger, Myspace, Computer Games Online and other such sites among the most quotable ones out there!).

Now, from my part, this conversation is pretty much over, as I don't feel capable of maintaining a standard of WP:AGF. This after being confronted with all these poor attempts at twisting and turning arguments just to have altermedia quotations disgracefully seep (back) into wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right about "Curentul", I didn't scrolled down to see that in half year they sold 16000 copies and distributed freely 248000 copies, and currently they seem to be only a free-distributed magazine. You are right also about the fact that "Cotidianul" didn't labeled Altermedia as fascist, why are you still using the argument "Cotidianul" in this case? As I told, is a straw man argument that I used alexa.com data to prove reliability, I used it only to show irrelevance of tiny English language altermedias. For reliability, I provided other sources (even more sources in our discussion in Romanian Wikipedia, including one printed source which is appreciated even by "Observatorul Cultural" [22]).--MariusM (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

About Curentul: I'm afraid you need to scroll down again. Not that this endless speculation of yours has anything to do with the letter and spirit of the relevant policies, but just for fun. Well, if you don't consider the reference to altermedia as a tool for propagating hate and a source with a nationalist agenda a problem as per WP:V and WP:RS, I'm afraid you need to look into those policies again (and, btw, I quote my original statement about the Cotidianul article, in case you may want to attempt another piece of proof by verbosity - "The third and most important issue in respect to altermedia Romania is its reflection in reliable sources. For all its presence in blogs and forums, there are few reliable sources (mainstream or academic) mentioning it at all. [...] [The article in Cotidianul is] headlined "Hatred Boils Over on the Internet", where altermedia is mentioned alongside other extremist and neofascist sites"). All that concoction about the relevancy of the "tiny English language altermedias" is itself irrelevant: there is a single project discussed in all relevant links that discuss altermedia.info as a whole (as I have pointed out, they do discuss the project in its entirety and several branches at once, and they do indicate that it has a single source); the Romanian altermedia is itself noted for its "special" and "supplementary" far right connections (both attested in sources and visible to the naked eye); no branch, corner, lair, pit etc on altermedia.info and its various sprouts fits any of the syllables that line up to form words that become guidelines here on wikipedia.

As for the "printed sources" you brought up, they are actually one, where one author is allowed to express his point of view and cites himself with what he wrote on altermedia. It is, basically and yet again, altermedia saying that altermedia is reliable. The rest of your sources are basically what you posted above, and, since they themselves do not make the cut under any provision of WP:RS, methinks you should reread the part where I tell you why spamlinks don't prove anything. Dahn (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I quote what "Cotidianul" (the only serious newspaper you came with) is saying about Altermedia in the article you brought in our attention: "Spatiul virtual romanesc are parte si de publicatii specializate in promovarea nationalismului, cum ar fi (...) „publicatia online de gindire si atitudine ortodoxa Altermedia“". Translation: "The Romanian web has also sites specialized in promoting nationalism, like the magazine of orthodox thinking and attitude Altermedia". What the article is saying about other sites is not relevant for Romanian Altermedia. The article didn't label Altermedia as "fascist", "extremist" or "propagating hate" - those are only your inventions or your original research. Regarding printing sources which are quoting altermedia, there are many, I focused on sources available at internet because I already know that is too difficult for you to go to a library to check what is written in a printed book. However, in the list of links which I provided above there are also some printed publications like the newspaper of the Romanian policemen ("jandarmi") training center or the newspaper of the Greek-catholic bishopric of Oradea (despite being labeled as "orthodox" in "Cotidianul", Romanian Altermedia gained sympathies also from catholics). In a previous discussion I told you about the book coordonated by Bogdan Murgescu - "Revoluţia română din decembrie 1989. Istorie şi memorie", Polirom publishing house, ISBN 978-973-46-0695-5 (commented favourable here in "Observatorul Cultural" - the magazine you used against altermedia). Mr. Bogdan Murgescu, Phd. in history, profesor of history at Bucharest University, vicepresident of Romanian Historical Society, former visiting professor at Pittsburg University and Central Europe University from Budapest, member of the executive commitee of EUSTORY network, is quoting altermedia at page 212. Altermedia is also quoted by the scientific revue "Memorial 89" nr. 2/2007 - edited by the National Center of Documentation and Research about the Romanian Revolution of 1989 (established through Law 152/2000 and financed by the Romanian Government), by the newspaper "Evenimentul Zilei" - Vest edition from 15 December 2007 or "Bănăţeanul" from 17 December 2007 [23]. Those are few examples to show that there are more sources which are quoting in favourable terms Romanian Altermedia than sources which are criticising it, while in a democratic society everybody can be criticised at a certain moment. A small adition: The "Observatorul Cultural" newspaper didn't pretend that they sell 4500 copies. They pretend, in the article you provided, to print 4500 from which they received back 1000, that mean they pretend to sell 3500. I'm not saying that this is making a relevant difference for their reliability (anyhow, is only their claim without an independent audit), it is relevant only for your habit of manipulating through misquoting articles, relying on the fact that few people here speak Romanian language.--MariusM (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems you are unwilling to quote an article fully: Cotidianul, which is one of several newspapers discussing Romanian altermedia's political agenda, includes altermedia among sites propagating hate, as per the very subject of that article. The part I have quoted directly form that article, which you have left out of your quote, traces a direct link between it and all the other sites, and a direct link between it and the two other sites also listed as "specialized in promoting nationalism" (a term obviously used negatively, as per the title and introduction to the article, and as per the quotes Cotidianul itself furnishes). This is enough to clarify that it perceived as having an extremist agenda by Cotidianul as well.

The quote in Murgescu's work (assuming it does exist), just as well as the two other articles you mention, do not in any way validate the site, but simply discuss Marius Mioc, a 1989 Revolution participant and Timişoara resident who was deemed notable and who publishes part of his work on altermedia, ahem. They all seem to be exclusively about this material: the two sources that are available for seeing, both of them local newspapers based in Timişoara, mention in passing that Mr. Mioc has collected his material on altermedia, without quoting that material in any way. One provides some links in a section outside the article, attributing them to Mr. Mioc, the other, also at the end of the article, posts two films with the caption, verbatim: "with the approval of Marius Mioc, we present on our site as well a few fragments posted by the revolutionary on the altermedia site". These are hardly an acknowledgment of any form of reliability for altermedia itself.

Once again: wikipedia has very strict rules about reliability, and any form of material posted on such a questionable site cannot be used as a source for anything other than itself; as was said, these rules are strict precisely because it should not fall upon users to determine what is reliable about x portion of an unreliable site (if Stormfront of Aryan Nations start publishing cooking tips or ballroom dancing schemes, they would still not be quotable based on the assumption that they "are not"part of the political agenda). MariusM may see for himself that this was already clarified above and elsewhere, so I find little room left for discussion at this point. Will there be anything else before we let an admin close this debate? Dahn (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To summarize: "Cotidianul", in an article where it labeled other sites as extremist and propagating hate, is mentioning Romanian altermedia but without pretending that it propagate hate or that it is extremist (and without any specific example of an altermedia article - this is why I hardly can consider that article from "Cotidianul" as an "analysis" of Romanian altermedia). Similar situation is with the article you provided from "Observatorul Cultural" (3500 self-claimed sales) - which is criticising many Romanian organisations and media sources, main target being the mainstream newspaper "România Liberă" which happened to publish an article considered extremist (however the mainstream character of România Liberă newspaper is undisputed), and Romanian altermedia is mentioned only with the guilt to quote something from "România Liberă"; the third source is the mainly free-distributed newspaper "Curentul" which is using wrong and outdated information about the political affiliation of some members of Romanian altermedia. However, there are plenty of other sources (not only blogs, as you pretended) which are quoting Romanian altermedia in different situations without any hint about the supposely "extremist" character (which need to be widely aknowledged, based on Wiki policies, in order to justify a conclusion about a site). Comparison with tiny English-language altermedias are irrelevant, same can be told about your comparison with Stormfront (it seems you are the only one who made this comparison) or other sites.--MariusM (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've read most of these sophistic arguments before, and congratulations on the new ones. Regardless, I'm simply tired of answering to you just so that you can start over every three posts or so. If anyone else has any questions, I'll be happy to answer. Dahn (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry this has essentially turned into a local issue after all, this hasn't been my intention at all. As far as the original request is concerned, this is closed -- and I want to thank the (few) people uninterested in the Romanian Wikipedia who have chosen to get involved. --Gutza ^{T T+} 01:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Knol as a RS?

Interestingly, the CSM reported today[24] that Salon blogger Farhad Manjoo believes[25] that the Google Knol project will serve as source material for Wikipedia. This raises the question: Does (will) Knol meet the reliable publication process standards of WP:V? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately we have Wikipedia:Verifiability so we don't need to rely on what bloggers say. Knol is no different from any other self-published blog, or website that lacks editorial oversight: it is not presumed to be a reliable source except for non-controversial information about the writer. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're probably wrong, or at least on the wrong side of consensus. There's a discussion on the mailing list about this. Relata refero (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The mailing list is informative but does not govern policy. The mailing list includes malcontents, banned users and others whose opinion would not be persuasive on Wikipedia, and the sometimes toxic atmosphere there has led to very low participation. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates

I see that in this edit, a cite from Antiwar.com was removed on the grounds of being self-published. It was removed from the bio of Chip Berlet, the main attraction at Political Research Associates, which is abundantly cited as a source all over Wikipedia. This seems ironic to me because I can see no structural difference between Antiwar and PRA. They are both highly opinionated commentary sites. Why is one better than the other? --Niels Gade (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I also can see no difference. It appears to be a case of goose and gander. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Echos of the disparate treatment of Frontpage Magazine and MMFA and FAIR. But it's hardly news that Wikipedia editors have net group biases. But Chip Berlet has a special history, as it seems it was a long-term project of SlimVirgin and a like-minded claque of admins to abuse and manipulate BLP policy to the detriment of NPOV in that article, among others. Andyvphil (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, antiwar.com doesn't count as self-published. It might count as a source of dubious reliability; however, there is certainly no difference between quoting the editor of that site and the editor of Publiceye.com. I'd like to disassociate myself from Andy's remarks above, though, as I don't know the facts (also, its clique). Certainly, if PRA is overused, people should feel free to remove it. Relata refero (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, claque does work in this context. --Niels Gade (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you're right. Relata refero (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any conclusion here that PRA is an unreliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We were discussing self-publishing, actually. And we usually wait a bit before deciding there's no consensus. People check this noticeboard on irregular schedules. Relata refero (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Some editors are pointing to this thread as a reason to deleted sourced material. I was simply pointing out that that is premature. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone have particular cases where they felt the PRA was used improperly as a source, for comparison? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. PRA is overused as a source, and often in ways which violate WP:BLP. There are two persons who are professional anti-LaRouche activists, Dennis King and Chip Berlet, who both have websites with arguably slanderous attacks on LaRouche. PRA is Berlet's website, and King's website has been discussed before on this page (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org.) (PRA, for example, features defamatory leaflets with instructions to print them out and distribute them at LaRouche events, not the sort of thing you would expect from a scholarly source.[26]) These attacks do not appear in the conventional press, so these two persons have opened Wikipedia accounts (User:Dking and User:Cberlet) to use Wikipedia to get greater exposure for their views. They are joined in this effort by User:Will Beback and User:Hardindr. The idea appears to be to use Wikipedia to "expose" LaRouche, since the conventional media are not doing this to their satisfaction. Material from the the websites in question is spammed into all LaRouche-related articles [27][28] [[29] in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. I think that use of PRA should be scaled way back to a level that corresponds to its notability, and never for material that conflicts with BLP -- I do not believe that PRA meets the standards required by WP:BLP. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dennis King and Chip Berlet have been professional investigative journalists, and are the acknowledged experts on Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. They've been quoted at least dozens of times in the mainstream press. King is the author of the only full-length biography, which was published by a major publishing house, Doubleday & Co. Berlet is a longtime researcher for Political Research Associates, which also meets our standards of a reliable publishing source. Some editors have tried repeatedly to have these two authors considered unreliable sources and have never succeeded.(Isn't there a statute of limitations?) Yet they haven't proven that the authors have been factually incorrect in any straighforward reporting. The reason that they are used in all the LaRouche articles is that they are the leading researchers of the LaRouche movement. Their viewpoints on LaRouche are not different from all the other reliable sources, and are consistent with the usual reporting. What erroneous material has PRA published that shows they are unreliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Who "acknowledges" them as "the experts"?

2. It looks to me like King's website was rejected as a self-published source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org.

3. PRA is loaded with what WP:BLP calls "a conjectural interpretation of a source," i.e., rampant editorializing and conspiracy theory. PRA might be acceptable in many cases for non-controversial material, but what King, Berlet and Will Beback have consistently done is use it as a source for a fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism, which has been noted by outside observers as a particular tactic of Berlet and PRA against all of their targets. As is noted at the beginning of this discussion, Activist Justin Raimondo has written that "Berlet is professional political hit man whose specialty is smearing anyone outside the traditional left-right categories as an extremist, at best, and a nascent Nazi at worst."[30] This is why PRA should be used sparingly and with particular caution in BLP articles. Will Beback is completely mistaken to say that "Their viewpoints on LaRouche are not different from all the other reliable sources." --Niels Gade (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you want me to plaster a talk page with all of he times that Berlet and King have been cited? I'll do so if that convinces you.

Being cited in an article isn't the same as being "acknowledged as the experts." I would be interested in seeing reliably sourced commentary that says they are "the experts." --Niels Gade (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

2. I don't see a consensus there. I see one editor piping in, but without a full understanding of our policies.

3. I don't think you are accurately describing my actions. The whole concept of "fringe theories" concerning LaRouche is a bit humorous, considering how many fringe theories he's come up with and how frequently he's describned as "fringe". Raimondo is hardly an objective commentator. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How would you describe your actions? What is inaccurate in Niels' description? --Terrawatt (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been advancing the "fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You have supported King and Berlet when they do it. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you substantiate that accusation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, you have vehemently defended the use of King's book as a source.[31][32][33] King's book is simply a very long essay defending this fringe theory. The mere fact that something has been published by a large publishing house does not make it automatically a suitable source for BLP. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That book is the best, most reliable source we have for the life of Lyndon LaRouche. Being published by a major publishing house does, in fact, make it a suitable source for a BLP. I have certainly not sought to advance the theory that that "behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But the book you are promoting does advance that theory. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that using the book as a source is the same as "promoting" it. I haven't written an article about it, or any other promotional actitivity. I have defended it's use as a source. No one has presented any verifibale factual errors on the book, and Niels Gade himself has confirmed facts from it. No one is suggesting that there's a more reliable 3rd-party source for the life of LaRouche. If you call using the book as a source "promotion" then are those editors who use LaRouche-published books and articles "promoting" them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes, if they are using them in articles outside of the "LaRouche-related" articles. King's book is a reliable source on King's views, and would certainly be acceptable in the article on Dennis King. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Using a reliable source isn't promoting it. The job of Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Dennis King and Chip Berlet's books and articles are reliable sources written by acknowledged experts on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. Using their work is no different than using a NY Times or Washington Post article. Though, of course, I know you regard those as unreliable too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. May I ask how you happened to arrive at this conclusion about me? --Marvin Diode (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I wrong? Do you consider such mainstream media as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, or NBC to be reliable sources on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes to both questions, and I have said so explicitly. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

<unindent-Perhaps I misunderstood this comment of yours:

• Major publications are not above conducting dirty tricks campaigns where politics is involved -- this has been true for a long time, and not likely to change soon. [34]

It appeared that you were denying that major publications were a reliable source. What did you mean and in reference to which publications? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant just what I said. We have to use major publications as a source, unless there are peer-reviewed journals or some other, stronger source available. As you may recall, in my request for arbitration[35] I proposed that "when [King's or Berlet's] views have appeared in mainstream publications, those may be used as sources and would not be disputed (this satisfies the requirements of WP:REDFLAG.)" I emphatically disagree with your statement that using the websites of King or Berlet "is no different than using a NY Times or Washington Post article." This doesn't mean, of course, that I consider the NY Times, Washington Post or Wall Street journal to be infallible. Mature editorial judgment should be excercised with any source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not say that I have "confirmed facts" from King's book, as if that makes it a reliable source. The book may correctly say that February is the second month of the calendar year; that doesn't in any way excuse the fact that it is full of outrageous, propagandistic speculation and innuendo. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You have confirmed facts from the book. You have not offered any evidence that there are factual errors in it. The book meets WP's standards for a reliable source. However that book isn't the topic of this thread. It has already been discussed before and there's no need to keep bringing it up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to put things in perspective, has anyone offered any evidence that there are factual errors in the LaRouche publications? I don't believe that this is the sole criterion for use of a source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Clippings of factual errors promoted by LaRouche.

• On the talk show, LaRouche blamed the Soviet Union for engineering what he termed the the AIDS "conspiracy." "There is no question that it can be transmitted by mosquitoes," LaRouche said, citing as supporting evidence the high incidence of the disease in Africa, the Caribbean and southern Florida.
• On the KGO talk show, LaRouche pointed to the "insect-bite belt," which he said includes Florida and the Caribbean. "In the insect-bite belt, we have a very large transmission of AIDS among poor people," he said. "The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta has been suppressing this evidence."
• Indeed, Secretary of State March Fong Eu said last week she would challenge in court "blatantly false" sections of the ballot argument for Proposition 64 submitted by LaRouche backers, including claims that "AIDS is not hard to get," and that potential insect and respiratory transmission of the disease and transmission by casual contact are "well established."

Do you want to argue that he was correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Other thread

1. I have no problem with using King and Berlet as a source when they are cited by legitimate publications, because those publications may be expected to excercise some discretion about which of their theories are suitable for responsible publication. The Kronberg interview you mention below has not appeared anywhere, to my knowledge, outside of the PRA site.

2. I see a consensus.

3. Actually, I think it is quite appropriate to compare LaRouche with Berlet as "fringe" commentators. In fact, both of them frequently describe their opponents as neo-fascists or proto-fascists. The difference is that I have not seen quotes from LaRouche plastered all over Wikipedia. The quotes from LaRouche appear to be confined mainly to the articles about LaRouche and his organization. I think it would be appropriate if quotes from PRA and Chip Berlet were largely limited to articles Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates. As far as Raimondo is concerned, would you say that he is less objective than Berlet? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Who are the participatns in this consensus you see?

3. I'm not sure what the point is of comparing the reliablility of two sources. As for Raimondo, he appears to be more of a commentator than an investigative journalist. Michael Rubin of Frontpagemag.com says, "Citing statements replicated in recent Mujahedin-e Khalq publications brings as much credibility as quoting from Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review. Quality of sourcing always matters: Justin Raimondo is hardly a trustworthy authority.[36]" His footnote goes to an article titled "Justin Raimondo: An American Neo-Fascist", written by Stephen Schwartz. Do you think he's a reliable source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Kronberg interview

The dicussion above is rather vague and compares the position of one source versus another. On a more specific point: is there any reason why this interview on PRA with Marielle Kronberg should not be considered a reliable source for her words? Does anyone assert that the interview is faked or altered? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as this interview is not considered the absolute truth as is quoted only to show the opinions of Marielle Kronberg, and if the opinion of this lady is relevant for the Wikipedia article where it is intended to be added, I don't see any reason to avoid the usage of this interview as a source.--MariusM (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have indicated elsewhere that I don't object to it appearing in one article, but spamming it into every LaRouche-related article is undue weight. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't object to the sourcing why did you just remove it from an article, claiming a sourcing issue? "the sourcing issues are discussed at WP:RSN#Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates. The only actual criticism is sourced to PRA. The rest of the paragraph is context."[37] If there's no sourcing issue then please restore it. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Telephone interview as source

A user reverted my removal of this difficult-to-verify and highly general statement from the Malt liquor article: "Country Club is now owned by Pabst and is still sold today, though its sales were eclipsed years ago by almost every malt liquor on the market" (emphasis added). He also added a source--of sorts: Gary Galeke, Brand Historian, Pabst Brewing Company. Telephone. October 1, 2006. I'm not sure telephone interviews with alleged experts are considerable reliable sources, by Wikipedia's definition--and they are certainly not verifiable. What is the best way to handle this? Delete the unverifiable source? Request a better one? Engage in an edit war? (just kidding)--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds a lot like original research if he called him up and asked. // Liftarn (talk)
  • Certainly fails WP:V, so not a reliable source Mayalld (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Feel free to call the source up, I'll give you his number. Unfortuantly when it comes to nitch topics such as Malt Liquor sales, not every source can be published through traditional means. The source it's that web savvy thus the lack of email backup or web postings. However, I knew this person was a good source for the desired info not only on his job position, but several talks he gave in the local area. Why Fat Man is so honed in on these two sentences when the rest of the article is such junk, I have no idea. --Brownings (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
      • That is the definition of original research, which is not allowed. If somebody edit wars to restore the original research, let me know and I will help them stop. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
        • No worries, it doesn't look like an edit war is getting ready to start. FYI, I'm the other party in Fat Man's dispute. Since the majority here seems to be siding with Fatty, I guess I don't have a leg to stand on, which is fine. However, I am a tad upset that Fatty seems to have taken things so personal and bent on removing such a small comment from a rather insignificant article. His/Her efforts would be much more useful in actually contributing to the article, rather than perusing this nonsense. While Fatty has singled out these couple of sentences, if they are to be pulled from the article, then all information pertaining to Country Club should be deleted. While I won't do Fatty's dirty work for him/her, I'll gladly kill off the other bits if Fatty zaps the area in question. --Brownings (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
          • It's not nonsense. It's basic Wikipedia policy. Indeed, in the 2005 formulation of the No Original Research policy, a private conversation with someone, even someone who is an expert, was given as an explicit example of sources that one should not be basing one's Wikipedia contributions on. Until the experts get their information peer reviewed and published, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and our sources when making it are things that have been written down, peer reviewed, fact checked, and published, so that readers can check articles for correctness against published sources that they know to be fact checked, reliable, accurate, and actually documenting accepted human knowledge. If you aren't building Wikipedia that way, you are doing it wrongly. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content. Uncle G (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed... clearly original research. Wikipedia is not the forum for introducing unpublished material. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackery

The following two sources: Source #1 and Source #2 are being given reliance for a statement that Samuel Hahnemann was accused of quackery. Both of these sources are excerpted in relevant part in this talk page discussion. Readers are left with the impression that some verifiable accusation exists supported by reliable sources. That is not the case in my opinion.

A third source, Hahnemann himself in Section 74 of the Organon of Medicine was a strong critic of the common medical practices of his day such as the regular use of mercury and leeches as curatives. We would call those practices quackery and Hahnemann condemned them in equivalent terms. In my opinion it is a violation of NPOV to allow unreliable second- and third-hand smears by these very practitioners to be used to label Samuel Hahnemann an accused quack in the Wikipedia without balancing it with a clear explanation of the controversy.

This is especially egregious because the article is on Quackery and Hahnemann is used as the first prominent example of someone accused, when no reliable source accuses him of having been a quack. To the contrary, these sources upon which reliance is being made are supportive of Hahnemann. To cherry pick words, not even whole sentences, out of context and then formulate these vaguely made slurs as "accusations" which should stand unopposed seems strongly at variance with the sources. —Whig (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Some important points to keep in mind in this dispute:

• The truth or falsity of the accusations is not the issue and is irrelevant to this discussion.
• Hahnemann's opinions on other matters, and his life in general, are not relevant here. Even the worst of criminals may well have done some good things in their life. That would not legitimize attempts to document the fact that they had been accused of crimes. (I'm not saying Hahnemann was a criminal. That's just to illustrate the point.)
• The only thing we are after here is whether he was accused of quackery and whether the sources we are using to document that undeniable fact are RS.

The interesting thing here is that if we had used anti-homeopathy sources to document charges of quackery, we could be accused of cherry picking from biased sources to find documentation. Even though that might well be legitimate, we totally avoid this accusation by going to pro-homeopathic sources to find that even they are not in doubt that Hahnemann was accused of quackery, even while he was alive. That his accusers were right about him and wrong in other areas is irrelevant to the fact that he was accused. That is clearly documented by pro-homeopathy sources. If they were in doubt, then they wouldn't have mentioned it. To illustrate from the "other direction", it's always easy to find nice comments about oneself from one's friends, but when one's enemies make nice comments about oneself, it is even better to quote them....;-) That removes the possibility of being accused of cherrypicking or inaccuracy. If one's enemies will concede that you are a nice person, then there must be something to it. It's hard to find more RS in such a case. -- Fyslee / talk 15:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As Fyslee indicates, this is an interesting situation. From a strictly "reliable sources" perspective, the articles on the websites are signed, which is a good start, but one website is an open project [38]and the other is to all intents and purposes a personal website.[39]. Neither meets Wikipedia's standard in my opinion per WP:SPS, and since I cannot find any evidence that the authors are "established expert(s) on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications," the articles cannot qualify by that route either. However, what makes this unusual is that, as Fyslee points out, these articles are published on supposedly "friendly" homeopathy websites, which you would think would downplay or omit any allegations of quackery, but don't. However, there is in fact there is no need to rely on these websites, as the comments can be reliably sourced elsewhere. In the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 44 (5), 435–437, E. Ernst's 1997 article "Homoeopathy: past, present and future" makes clear that Hanhemann and homeopathy had from the start been subject to criticisms amounting to accusations of quackery:

From its very beginning, homoeopathy received fierce criticism. In his book: ‘Anti-Organon oder das Irrige der Hahnemannschen Lehre im Organon der Heilkunst’ (Anti-Organon or the errors of Hahnemann’s teachings in the organon) [5], J.C.H. Heinroth for instance stated that medicine was misguided to accept from Hahnemann ‘much that would not have stood the test of a sharp mind’. Others called homoeopathy ‘the highest triumph of ignorance and mysticism’ [6] and ‘a public scandal’ [7]. Oliver Wendel Holmes analysed Hahnemann’s three basic assumptions (the ‘like cures like’ principle, the theory about infinitesimal dilutions and the origin of all disease) in some detail and concluded, ‘when one man claims to have established these three independent truths, which are about as remote from each other as the discovery of the law of gravitation, the invention of printing, and that of the mariner’s compass, unless the facts in their favour are overwhelming and unanimous, the question naturally arises, is not this man deceiving himself, or trying to deceive others?’ [8]. Many physicians agreed: ‘either Hahnemann is right, in which case our science and the basis of our thinking is nonsense, or he is wrong, in which case this teaching is nonsense. There is no third option’ [9]. The Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1891 summarized the orthodox view of that time: ‘Hahnemann’s errors were great. His doctrine of specifics was highly retrograde … He led his followers far out of the track of sound views of disease … But … he had the great merit of disturbing and discrediting indefensible modes of practice’

I can email the full article to anybody who wishes. Incidentally, once again, Ernst is a homeopath himself.

::And a quick search of google books confirms that multiple contemporary sources. The Oxford Illustrated Companion to Medicine, p. 210, by Stephen Lock, John M. Last, George Dune (2001) makes the same association in a highly reliable source. [40] --Slp1 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Some excellent points. It is true that we are not dependent on these two sources, since there is pretty much universal agreement in the scientific world that homeopathy is nonsense and that Hahnemann, regardless of any good qualities he undoubtedly had, was deluded and very unscientific in his theories and conclusions, even while seeming to use some aspects of the scientific method, but in a misguided fashion. As to Edzard Ernst as a source, we would be hard pressed to find a better source, especially when we consider his credentials and professorship, although some prominent ex homeopaths are equally scathing in their criticisms. Please send the article to me by my email and post the URL here if you have it. -- Fyslee / talk 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is not available free online unless you have specific access to the journal via a university etc. Here is the Pubmed listing, however. I have sent Fyslee a copy of the article and can do so to others who want it.Slp1 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think if you want to suggest other sources be included that should be discussed in Talk:Quackery. The sources we are currently making reliance upon are the sources that I am seeking comment on. Additional sources would require further inspection. —Whig (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• The two sources fail RS. . . they are self-published.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were out - User:DoctorIsOut - but apparently you are still active. -- Fyslee / talk 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:SELFPUB as well. For what we're using these sources to claim, this may meet the criteria. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(indent) From an outside view, I do not believe that WP:SELFPUB ("Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves") applies here, since this article is about quackery, not about homeopathy per se. However, notwithstanding Whig's desire not to discuss other sources here, it appears that there are manifold contemporary sources that described homeopathy and Hahnemann as quackery and quacks respectively. Just try a google-books search for "Hahnemann quack homoeopathy" [41] . Given these, I am not sure how anyone could try to claim that he hasn't been accused of being a quack. But anyway, the answer, as stated above, is to substitute reliable sources. Here is another one that makes the claim, from History of science; an annual review of literature, research and teaching 39 (125 Pt 3): 255–83. "Homeopathy and "the progress of science" [42]. "In spite of a seemingly secure polymathic foundation, Hahnemann was vilified like his iconoclastic predecessors, and his proposed solution to the therapeutic anarchy of the day earned him even more notoriety than his critique. Typically, he was portrayed as a quack unable to earn a living from orthodox medicine, dishonest or insane, and, in a dismissal extending to all who followed his precepts, as “too weak mentally to practise medicine or even to take care of himself”." Slp1 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. I'm sympathetic to the effort to use pro-homeopathic sources to support this detail, but the effort apparently isn't fulfilling its goal of making it unarguable even to homeopathy supporters. I guess my question now is: Should we remove those citations now that we have other, reliable ones? I don't see anything in WP:SOURCES that says we can't use sources such as these in addition to reliable ones to back up the claim when they serve a purpose in doing so, but I'm not an expert in sourcing. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• A fourth source (Source #4) has been added to the first two sources as reliance for the same statement. It is precisely the same relevant text as Source #1. I believe it is unacceptable for the same reasons that I have already set forth in the posting of this notice. —Whig (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The only reason you've given is that these aren't reliable sources in your opinion, which isn't really a reason. Could you please explain why this isn't a reliable source? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that the new one was the one provided by Slp1. I've added that one in now, and there should be no problems with that one being considered reliable. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What sources are you asking about? http://homeoint.org does not appear to be a reliable source; for a start, it appears to be self-publishing by Robert Séror. Is there any evidence that experts and professionals in the field consider this to be an expert source? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand Whig's comment that the 4th source Source #4, is the same as the first source [43] as they are by entirely different authors. The fourth source is actually a very colourful retyping of a fairly widely quoted book published in 1895 called the "The Life and Letters of Dr Samuel Hahnemann" by one Thomas Lindsley Bradford, M.D. (as can be seen by this googlebooks recent re-printing by a homeopathy publisher [44])

As such it is one of many 'older' publications that makes the claim that he was called 'quack', as pointed out above. I believe this book would also be reliable sources for the claim that he was called a 'quack', but suggest that you cite the book per se not the this rather unlikely-looking (and more unreliable) website, though a link to googlebooks would be good.Slp1 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

LENR-CANR.org

LENR-CANR.org is a repository of scientific papers on cold fusion. Its home page says "It features a library of more than 500 original scientific papers in Acrobat format, reprinted with permission from the authors and publishers.". When providing sources for statements in the cold fusion article, we cite the full references to the original article and include a link to the copy on LENR-CANR.org. We believe that it is line with the wikipedia policy on copyright, which only says: "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work."

However, this approach is challenged by Guy, saying that, if we want to add the link to lenr-canr.org, we need to prove that the website does not violate copyright. Is he right ? (see the full discussion here)Pcarbonn (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Relating to the same article on cold fusion but a separate issue: what is the status of the reports of two United States Department of Energy reviews of research in this field? Are they to be regarded as reliable secondary sources or as primary sources? Also, what is the status of the following academic journals: the Journal of Electroanalytic Chemistry, Physics Letters A, the European Physics Journal, Thermochimica Acta, the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics and die Naturwissenschaften? Is the fact that a journal is listed by the Institute for Scientific Information relevant? Can we use the ISI's citation indices and other bibliometric indicators as a guide to reliability? Also (while I am making this query, although it has not been challenged) can we treat news reports in magazines such as the New Scientist as reliable for describing the current standing of this field of research? Itsmejudith (c) 17:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is no doubt as to the fact that the papers are published with permission then i don't see a problem with it. --Neon white (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of ISI's citation index for ranking journals would help to weed out the fringe journals that nobody reads. The list above by Itsmejudith seems to include some very respectable ones. The New Scientist is not peer-reviewed and it has some tabloid aspects to its science coverage. I'd not take everything which appears there at face value. This has been discussed in other threads, which could be looked up if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You said "If there is no doubt as to the fact that the papers are published with permission then i don't see a problem with it". The question is "where is the burden of proof ?". Do we have to prove that there is no doubt that the papers are published with permission (how could we prove that ?), or can we assume that it is so until proven otherwise ? Pcarbonn (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have reviewed a number of links to this site. In one case I found that a purported link to a major paper started with an editorial by the site's "librarian", [[user:JedRothwell], spinning the content to promote the fringe view that he promotes. In other cases the papers are clearly marked as copyright, and there is no evidence of permission from the rights owners. This site is not an acceptable source. Almost all the content sourced to it can be cited directly to the original journal of publication, and should be so cited; links to material hosted with no evidence of copyright permission are problematic, and where such links are on a site whose mission is to promote a fringe view it is much more of a problem. It is not, itself, a source anyway, only a repository of other materials; there is no evidence that Jed Rothwell's commentaries are authoritative here. The only uses of links to this site that I have found anywhere in Wikipedia have been to serve the agenda of advancing the low-temperature fusion fringe view. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Where full bibliographic details of a paper are available then that is sufficient, no need for a link. But I don't see that we need to make a blanket ban on lenr-canr in the cases where it is just providing web space and when a reader can click on the link and go straight to the paper. A comparable case is the satanic ritual abuse article discussed above, where the page links to an FBI officer's report hosted at the website of a POV organisation. It is just the convenience of having the web link that is sought and the link does not endorse the POV of the site. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It would appear there is a case of ownership going on at this article. I happen to have one of the books that's been removed from the Bibliography, I put the entry back in. As I said in my edit-summary "Mizuno was published by Kogakusha, translated and reprinted by Infinite Energy Press with permission. He is Dr at Dept Nuclear Eng. at Hokkaido Uni, has papers and a 2nd book on same in Japan." I was reverted with the insulting "Infinite energy press is a vanity press. Removed".

It will be impossible to produce a reasonable article on subjects such as this as long as high-handed and completely unnecesary actions, apparently motivated by some form of vendetta, are carried out by the likes of User:ScienceApologist. PR^talk 15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

An unhelpful, uncivil, confrontational and ultimately irrelevant statement. The site is not reliable, the copyright status is questionable for at least some links, the content can be better cited from the original source, and Wikipedia should not succumb to FUTON bias. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews: Please post definite answer

Okay, the discussion is stale, and has begun wandering far from the topic. There is clearly no consensus that Wikinews is a reliable source. That's your answer. This can, and probably will, change in the near future, and the issue can be re-examined then. --Haemo (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If people want to discuss the matter further, they are welcome to do so. There is no reason to "close" this discussion unilaterally. Vassyana (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like a definite answer to the question: Is Wikinews to be considered a reliable source? David Shankbone is currently insisting that it is, that if a private citizen asserts that he has conducted an interview with a famous person and placed the results of that interview on Wikinews, that interview can then be used as a source for Wikipedia -- even though he acknowledges that if the same private citizen asserts that he has conducted an interview with a famous person, trying to use that interview as a source for Wikipedia would be original research. To my knowledge Wikinews meets none of the requirements for a reliable source such as fact-checking; can someone please tell me where a general policy decision has been made that Wikinews will be accepted as a reliable source regardless of this? -- 192.250.34.161 (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Other wikis are never considered reliable sources.--Crossmr (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Crossmr... Wikis are not reliable sources by our criteria. Blueboar (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Interviews should not be used in the biographies of living people unless weight is established. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews redux. This is a general rule for interviews: they represent the interviewee's views alone and are analogous to a self-published source. The quote, as argued on the talk page, appears self-serving to me, and is unverifiable (except as Sharpton's avowed view). In this case, I don't think any bare interview would be an acceptable source, wikinews or not, and I would be much more comfortable waiting for secondary coverage (ideally not written by the same editor who inserts it). On the other hand, it's not a BLP violation because it is only presented as Sharptons's views, so perhaps it's fine—unless we treat Wikinews like other wikis.

As for the verifiability of Wikinews generally, Blueboar has started a new thread: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Wikinews interviews. Cool Hand Luke 21:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with other that wikinews is self-published, there's no guarantee to the reliablity of anything posted there. --neonwhite user page talk 21:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I firmly but politely disagree with all the comments posted so far. Wikinews interviews can be of high quality, and Wikinews has a vetting process to help ensure that. These interviews can and should be used whenever they are of good quality. Indeed, in many cases, they will be of higher quality than any interview done by the mainstream press, because the author of the interview is available to clarify any questions, and the actual audio can in many cases be made available. Interviews are different from other forms of journalism in the way they are used in Wikipedia and in the way they are conducted by journalists.

The correct answer is surely not a blanket prohibition, and of course not a blanket acceptance. We need to have some assurance that the interview was actually conducted (in a newspaper, that assurance is put forward by the reputation of the newspaper, the editorial process, etc. in a wiki, or other form of citizen journalism, there has to be some parallel reasonable method). In the current case, we are discussing interviews which were reported on in the mainstream media, by a trusted member of the Wikinews community. This is very different from a random alleged interview by an anonymous ip number.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Was this interview reported? I find no mainstream reference to this interview with Al Sharpton. You may be thinking of the more recent interview with Shimon Perez. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am thinking of the interview with Shimon Perez.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

by a trusted member of the Wikinews community. This is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. If we begin analyzing information based on the reputation of an individual user we're moving far away from WP:V. The reputation the user has with you may be very different from the reputation the user has in my eyes. As well, unless an entire publication can be said to be reliable, we're moving in to the realm of original research by having an editor evaluate a piece from wikinews and form their own conclusion on whether or not they feel its trustworthy. When it comes to a self-published source what is trustworthy to one person is not trustworthy to another. This is just begging to get us in to POV issues.--Crossmr (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think it is perfectly valid, as a part of considering the validity of a source, to consider the reputation and history of the person making the report. Consider an interview conducted and presented by Michael Moore or Ann Coulter. Cause for alarm there, since both are noted as polemicists more than as reporters. So we do consider the authorship of an interview even in those cases, naturally. The same can apply to Wikinews or other citizen journalism. The full context has to be considered.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore and Ann Coulter are very visible public figures with a long trail of information about them. Its very easy for someone to find multiple sources on these individuals and form an opinion on them. The less public the individual the more difficult it is to determine if there is a bias or anything else involved. With a non-notable wikinews editor I doubt you'd find anything from a reliable source on them for which you could base an opinion on. You'd be left to form an interpretation on their own words and again you're in to original research. How you view an editor and how I view an editor could be vastly different. We'd be basing this on personal opinions on how we view what they've done or said.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

David Shankbone is a public figure in a sense: if you want to judge him, you can check his 12K edits on WP, his countless images, his talk page, his work on Wikinews, ... you can even see how he looks, find out his real name and email address! You can get to know him a lot more than any other journalist. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Is he a public figure outside wikinews? then no, he's not really. His edits to wikinews are a single pov that I, a non-reliable and point of view entity, must analyze and insert my own bias as to whether or not I believe him. Where as Michael moore and ann coulter likely have reliable sources writing about them that would help us make the determination on whether or not they have a particular bias in regards to a particular subject. If an editor is analyzing facts and drawing conclusions which reliable sources haven't drawn, its original research and has no place here.--Crossmr (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews original reporting should not be used, unless you can check facts with a video or something. You shouldn't source facts because Shimon Perez says something to Wikinews. Articles can remain in the "See Also" section however as they supplement the encyclopedic content, same as Commons or Wiktionary does. Can you show us articles were quotes have been attributed to Wikinews and removed?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple of very interesting comments from Wikinews imply that this interview may indeed be unverifiable, and that "Wikinews cannot and should not be used as a source on wikipedia." See Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous#Wikinews on Wikipedia Cool Hand Luke 23:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• See also Talk:Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations#Pull_quote_from_Al_Sharpton. Adding a quote from an interview you've conducted yourself on Wikinews could be considered conflict of interest and original research. I'm sure it's reliable information, but I can't check it, I just trust the author and the source -but basically, it's non-verifiable. Appropriate for the article? Probably not, even then it might be better to suggest it on the talk page and see what others with no conflict of interest think about inclusion into the article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that's the main issue here. Wikinews might be an acceptable source in some cases, but this user's behavior leaves a taste of COI and OR in the mouth. User should know better than to cite their own research. Cool Hand Luke 23:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    • From your point of view maybe: I'm seeing someone who is providing 10x more good content than anyone else out there, in pictures and interviews, and somebody who is just trying in an honest manner to improve Wikipedia. This is not about User:David Shankbone's behaviour: he's traveling to Israel and working 14hours/day to get pictures and interviews! He's breaking grounds for Wikinews and Commons and he should be highly respected for that. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
      • No doubt. I think there's no bad faith here, and the user has produced thousands of free images, tons of content. Cool Hand Luke 23:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
        • And I do agree that it would be best to avoid any appearance of impropriety if Wikinews reporters refrain from citing their own work in Wikipedia. I would say the same thing for New York Times reporters.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire question is formulated wrongly at the outset. Is it a reliable source? Wikipedia isn't reliable, so why should any wiki be? The question is: is Wikinews a verifiable source? No, unless you have video or audio. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the Arkansas Herald-Times of Little Rock, Arkansas a reliable source for a quote by the current Governor of Arkansas? Well, this is a hypothetical paper because I deliberately made up the name of the newspaper, but the point is: a good quality local newspaper, is it a reliable source? In general I think we would say yes, although of course in any given particular case, there could be reasons to doubt. I see Wikinews in the same light. Something randomly appearing by an anonymous ip number on a Wikinews talk page is not a WP.RS. An interview with accompanying audio files, conducted by a reputable reporter with a longstanding history in the project(s), surely is. How about the same interview without accompanying audio files? Well, it's just going to depend: how pathbreaking is the quote, how likely is it that the reporter is manufacturing the quote, or distorting it. Those are the same kinds of judgments we might make about the hypothetical Arkansas Herald-Times, and for the same reasons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As an experiment, I went to the Sharpton interview in question... and changed something (I know... BAD Blueboar! But I had to see if it could be done. I reverted myself immediately). Right there... the fact that I could go in and change the interview... tells me that Wikinews is not and can not be considered reliable under Wikipedia standards. How are we to know if the version being quoted in the wikipedia article accurately reflects what the subject actually said... how do we know the Wikinews interview has not been vandalized? We don't. We can not verify the interview. We can not rely on it any more than we can rely on another Wikipedia article. The problem isn't Wikinews... the problem is the wiki format. This isn't about dismissing Wikinews as a project... I am sure most of Wikinews is great reporting... just as most of Wikipedia is great enclyclopedia writing. But as long as "anyone" can post an interview, and more importantly as long as "anyone" can change the interview... we can not consider it reliable.

Listing it under See Also or as an EL is a different matter. Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a glitch: normally, interviews fall under the Archiving policy and are fully protected -but we have an admin backlog. Anyway, we would still have reverted you. To address the greater issue: anyone can post an interview, as long as they provide proof (e.g. hand-written notes, audio, video,...) that satisfies the Wikinews community. We've been lazy as of late, and accepted simply to trust our own accredited reporters, although some still do this. It's just an awful lot of extra work. There's no reason to assume things are being made up if there are pictures etc; a lot of interview subjects check the interview anyway. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo hopes to solve this problem by outlining a "best practices" guideline, which would make certain articles verifiable. For example, an interview would be verifiable with the primary source if reporters posted an audio recording of the interview, like User:Stevenfruitsmaak suggests. I think that would solve the problem, although I agree with Jimbo's observation that it would be best if reporters (on Wikinews and elsewhere) don't cite their own work on Wikipedia. Per WP:COI, talk page suggestions would seem more appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 00:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Original reporting is just as good as CNN or any other agency. The fact that you say we are not reliable because its "wikinews" is ridiculous. Me including a handful of other Wikinewsies go through a lot of trouble and research and such to get the interviews or exclusive story. If you want to say all we do is recycle news, well CNN does, FOX News does etc etc. So again another excuse. We don't have accredited reporters to not get good news, we have them so others will see us as a good news site. If you want to go and say Wikinews is unreliable because its a WIki, then WP is just as bad...pot, kettle, black. DragonFire1024 (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No one here will deny we're "just as bad." "Articles and posts on Wikipedia should never be used as third-party sources." This is about the verifiability of sources, not the credibility or worth of Wikinews. Cool Hand Luke 00:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

When you question a reporters credibility, you question Wikinews's. We don't add bylines to articles and regardless of who does an interview about who, all articles are Wikinews's. So telling us just because we are a Wiki makes us unreliable is just an excuse IMO. We don't have a bunch of accredited fake reporters making up fake stories to go on WN or WP. They work just as hard if not harder than mainstream media. They don't get paid to get someone to say what they want them to. In our case, they have nothing (financially) to gain whereas CNN and or FOX News have everything to gain. We don't just give any tom dick or harry a pass and woohoo let them go nuts. Yes you can edit a story, its a wiki. But edits by anon users, who make obnoxious edits will get reverted. We watch our site closely. And to target us to make a point about editing, is just another lousy stab in the back. DragonFire1024 (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Guilty as charged m'Lud. But it goes to the core of what reliability and verifiability mean here on Wikipedia... as long as the text can be changed, we here at Wikipedia have no way of knowing if it is accurate. This isn't about whether Wikinews is credible... it is about whether Wikinews is reliable by WIKIPEDIA'S rules. It isn't... no Wiki is (not even Wikipedia itself). Now, Jimbo's suggestion that an audio version of the interview be posted would go a long way towards fixing the problem. But as long as the potential for someone to come along and change the text exists, Wikipedia can not consider it reliable. The difference between Wikinews and any other news outlet is that once the interview is published it remains intact. If Wikinews is willing to protect interviews so idiots like me can't change them... then we can reconsider. Blueboar (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, its the truth, its not an excuse. Unless there is editorial oversight on articles there is no way for an editor to independently verify the source. This is a requirement on wikipedia. If I go to an article and say "Hmm that looks dubious. It comes from wikinews. Who is this that wrote it? I have no idea, I can't verify where he got his information from, but randomeditor says this guy is a solid guy, so it must be true". When we go down that road, we're done as far as I'm concerned. Unless articles are verified as true and locked as such, I can't see their use as a source.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what policies are for. References and sources. We don't publish a story if the person does not cite sources, or provides good OR notes. That's called verifiable. WP might be large and have enormous traffic, but if you are having trouble with verifiable information, then that boils down to watching who posts what and where on WP.

Prime recent example, the WMF COO. The register published a flaming BS story, so we thought, with nothing to verify it or back it up. Yet at WN we came up with a heck of a lot more than the Register. But does that make us unverifiable because we are not the Register (bad example to compare with I know but replace the Register with your favorite news source)? No. But yet Wp will jump all over a Register article or CNN or whatever, before they think ONCE about coming over to WN.

Again...contradicting. We don't protect right away because it is a Wiki. WP doesn't protect at all. At least in terms of infinity. But thats an ultimatum thats rather disturbing. Your point is if its not protected we don't allow it?? Correct me if I am wrong...but it's Wikinews? These are rather lame and just unfounded excuses.

Jimbo is right. We do have several areas with "practices" but in messages, policies, mission statements and our own accreditation policy. Maybe we need it centralized, but I somehow sense that verifiability is not the only reason WN is not allowed to be sourced........DragonFire1024 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, verifiability and editorial oversight.--Haemo (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seemed to me that there was quite some common ground being found above, so maybe go it easy Dragonfire :). One thing I wanted to point out (which Dragonfire just stated): Articles are "locked" after a certain amount of time (its not a bot doing it, so the time varies). And I agree with the above statements made, that Wikinews articles can't be cited if they're still editable. Two solutions to this(a blend being possible):

• Wait longer till using a Wikinews article as a source (and the article is non editable), or
• accelerate the locking of interviews (as there's not much to be contributed later on in contrast to other articles).

On editorial oversight... I'm not too deeply into what goes as sources for WP, but I would have thought that using an interview is OK, even without oversight. For articles I would agree, I personally would not find it appropriate for, say the articles I wrote on the Climate conference in Bali, to be used as sources for a WP article, if there were not some sort of review (which I guess would necitate far more thourough Original reporting notes, but that would be our problem, not yours [as in WNs' not WPs'[).Sean Heron (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What about this diff: a Wikinews interview used as a reference. The interview took place in IRC, and the original text can probably be retrieved from User:TheFearow. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I see two points being raised in the foregoing discussion:

1. Is Wikinews a reliable source?

Wikinews is no more or less reliable than any other source of "citizen journalism." That is, without the editorial oversight to ensure mistakes are kept to a minimum, and with no incentive to ensure that the 'facts' are correct. As we speak, there is one article on the Wikinews main page (Dec. 22) that suggests that an aircraft crash had something to do with the fact that the plane was refueled. This is bad journalism (or poor language), and I can't imagine that a editorial oversight would not have caught it.

2. Are Wikinews and Wikipedia far enough removed from one another?

For the public, news that first appears on any 'wiki' source is going to be associated with the encyclopedia. That this is not true is immaterial; the 'wiki' name blurs the distinction between Wikinews and Wikipedia.

Further, the 'pedia doesn't have a mandate to up-to-date, so if the "news" is not something exceptional, it can be probably be avoided. But then again, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

The request for a "definitive answer" can be fulfilled thus: Like any other source of "citizen journalism," Wikinews can be cited, but shouldn't.

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Wikinews research arm

It's sad that we sell ourselves so short. We have built one of the most influential news sources in the world, yet we do not trust ourselves. On my User page is a photo of me with Shimon Peres, President of Israel, who spoke with me not so much for my affiliation with Wikinews, but for my affiliation with Wikipedia. For him, it was a chance to speak to all of us, and to also clear up some incorrect information on his page. I was one of the first people who made a big push to obtain free use images of hard-to-obtain people, places and things. When I started this in July 2006 there were not many images on the project, and I was constantly hit with "You shouldn't put your own photos on pages." I was told my photography was OR, that I had a COI in putting my own photos up, etc. Now the same arguments are raised.

Wikipedia purports to circumvent corporate interest, but we have become so beholden to the MSM that we have lost site of the DIY spirit that made Wikipedia what it is. Do it yourself. Wikinews should not be seen as a threat to Wikipedia's reliability, but a way to enhance it. Wikipedia is an inappropriate place to conduct an interview; but Wikinews is not. I recently spoke with an aging soap star named Victoria Wyndham, who spent a long time discussing what was wrong with her Wikipedia page (she's not Mexican, but Spanish, her son was featured in a play, not her, etc.), what she thought was important in her own career.... There is great potential here, under the watchful eyes of our fellow editors, to use Wikinews to improve Wikipedia further and "Do it Yourselves" instead of waiting for the MSM to tell you information they may never get around to telling you. If the idea here is to build an encyclopedia, to not have--and develop more fully--a research arm that can undertake the sort of work I have undertaken seems ridiculous and amateur. --David Shankbone 01:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm very opposed to any form of original research on Wikipedia, and to the use of "citizens' journalism" websites, because they often publish nonsense. But I have to say I agree with David here. His work is outstanding, and it seems crazy to question its use, especially because, as he says, he was granted the interviews because the subjects respect Wikipedia.

David, would it make sense for you to take the initiative here (assuming you have the time or inclination), and try to set up a research arm of Wikinews or Wikipedia, where original research/journalism of the kind you undertake can be encouraged and strictly monitored? We already allow original images. Original text is the next step, though the dangers of it mean we'd need a very, very strict accreditation system, so that the people allowed to produce material that Wikipedia could use as a "reliable source" are really the very best editors Wikipedia has. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this theoretically what the Wikinews accreditation is? Cool Hand Luke 01:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about how they work or how strict they are. Any system producing original material for Wikipedia would need to almost set up the apparatus of a newspaper, in effect. We'd need some guidance on ethics, we'd need to know the reporters/researchers were professional and mature (not necessarily in age, but in attitude), they would need some guidance on how to interview and write up a story. I don't know how much of this wikinews already does. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

before you insult the accreditation policy, (Wikinews:Accreditation policy), read it. We vote on people for accreditation, and again not just some joe schmo tom, dick or harry. People vote based on trust. Have they done work? Maybe OR? etc etc...to suggest we hand out a press pass like it was a cereal box prize is just insulting, and a low hit. DragonFire1024 (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, where on earth have I insulted anyone, or suggested passes are handed out "like a cereal box prize"? I said above that I have no idea how strict they are. Please read what people have actually written (this is one of the things good researchers need to be able to do, actually). SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is what the accreditation system is for, but we can use more people to develop exactly what SlimVirgin suggests. To be honest, my interviews took Wikinews a little off guard and we could stand to have more help over there not only in conducting them with notable people--I had trouble finding people to interview Senators and such who were willing to do interviews--but also in developing guidelines and standards. Can anyone envision instead of a YouTube Presidential debate, but a Wikipedia/Wikinews Presidential debate moderated by our own editors? Why not? In terms of content I have inserted into Wikipedia that I have created on Wikinews, it has only been from the interviews I have conducted. I think Cool Hand Luke's criticism about COI falls flat with interviews. In an interview, the interviewer is not the source of the information, the interviewee is. Al Sharpton is quoted on Tawana Brawley, not David Shankbone. I think the interview is a great place to start for us to develop an OR/Research arm, because in the end, when you quote someone, it is their words and we know the questions to ask ("Alex Kapranos: Do you consider yourself Scottish of English?" (he's coming up, by the way)). The fact is, we could use more people on Wikinews helping with this sort of work, not completely eject it from Wikipedia. We could use more people helping us to develop standards around these interviews and how to use them between the projects, not being completely shunned. There is great potential for us here. --David Shankbone 01:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

David, it's true that it's Al Sharpton talking, not David Shankbone, but interviewers can certainly influence what's said, and what's left out. This is why we'd need an excellent accreditation system and some kind of training for people wanting to do these interviews. But in theory, I think your ideas are inspired. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

COI is adding your own work into articles; although interviewers might slightly influence their subjects, the more important thing is that the quote might not be notable for the article, and as the author of the interview, you are a poor judge to whether or not it is.

I agree with SlimVirgin's idea for a Wikipedia research arm: it already exists', it's called Wikinews and you are welcome to join. A few weeks ago, I edited ' on the Dutch Wikipedia. Before, it said that Wikipedia could not give out press cards for things like getting images of news events. Now it explains about Wikinews and how people can ask me to go out there in the name of Wikinews and help out.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

David... who's this "we" you are talking about? I see Wikinews as a very different and seperate thing than Wikipedia. Yes, they are owned and run by the same company... but they have very different goals and very different rules. For example, The amount of OR that is allowable at Wikinews is completely unacceptable here. Different projects, different rules. It isn't that Wikinews is seen as a "threat" to Wikipedia's reliability... it is simply that it isn't considered a reliable source by our rules. No wiki is. Blueboar (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "we" is all of us. Commons is there for a reason: to provide media. Wikisource is there for a reason. Wikinews is there for a reason. These projects can all join together to create one source that everyone uses. Yes we - There is a "big picture" to Wikimedia's projects, and Wikinews is a part of that. It's just up to us to now start fulfilling a big picture vision here. There are roles that all the projects play. Research/interviews is one for Wikinews. We can use help from our fellow Wikipedians who want to see Wikipedia improved. --David Shankbone 02:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Except Wikileaks right? DragonFire1024 (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

David, I agree that there is a big picture to Wikimedia... and that there is some connection between Wikinews and Wikipedia. This is why I would allow Wikinews articles to be placed in the "See Also" section of a Wikipedia article. But the connection does not negate the fact that Wikipedia has very different goals and rules than Wikinews. They are seperate projects under a common banner. Wikinews has rules and guidelines that fit Wikinew's purpose... Wikipedia has different rules and guidelines that fit Wikipedia's purpose. Face it, sometimes those rules and guidelines will conflict. This is one of those times. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, I think there are levels here and I think this discussion suffers from not differentiating between types of OR that can be done on Wikinews and cited on Wikipeida. For instance, if Wikinews was to create it's own poll of Iowans about who plans to vote for whom for President in the caucuses, conduct the poll and then attempt to have it included on the 2008 campaign page, I would have a problem with that. But if Wikinews conducts an interview with a Presidential candidate about the issues, as we have done, I see no reason why Wikipedia should not acknowledge and use the information (especially when a candidate does so). There is a difference between interviews and a "story". Getting people to talk to us on the record seems to me to fall outside the realm of what we should be concerned about, and the issues are conflated as if these interviews are coming out of thin air. So if we talk to Al Sharpton about Tawana Brawley, I see no good reason why, if our goal is to educate and provide information, we should not actually use information that is provided to us via Wikinews. Not only do we have audio available, but we also have e-mails available if anyone questioned the veracity of the information. This is a very useful way to use Wikinews on Wikipedia, by giving our editors a chance to talk to the people who we write articles about, provide a source to correct inaccuracies about their work, and discuss with newsmakers the issues we cover that would help our project flesh them out better. I think as far as interviews go, this is a chance for us to get around regurgitating the corporate rags that have come newspapers and websites and pursue knowledge for knowledge sake. --David Shankbone 14:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that goes to show Slim...how many Wikipedians, particularly the ones involved in the debate actually read Wikinews...? How many of you have looked through our OR since this debate? How many have actually took the time to look at us? And I don't mean a simple edit to prove a point. DragonFire1024 (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately all wikis are self publiushed by definition. Wikinews isn't well known for fact checking or it's editorial policy and that makes it unverifiable. --neonwhite user page talk 03:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact checking? I am sorry but that's just totally untrue. Prime example: Wikinews:Former Chief Operating Officer of Wikimedia Foundation is convicted felon. If you want to talk more about fact checking: Wikinews:Death of Nancy Benoit rumour posted on Wikipedia hours prior to body being found and probably the best one because it was made with the help of three projects and maybe 100 people: Wikinews:Kenya Airways jet with at least 114 on board crashes. I can show you many more, but these are our best IMO. DragonFire1024 (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that good article don't exist on wikinews but reputation are gained over many years and as far as i know wikinews does not have such a reputation yet. --neonwhite user page talk 03:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately we are judged by our worst not our best, providing an unedited audio tape of the interview is the ONLY way to provide Verifiabilty. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The OR firewall

I have no problem with OR on Wikinews—that's the purpose of the site, what makes it better than a mishmash of already-published news. I don't even have a problem with Wikinews OR being certified with best practices and cited on Wikipedia, as Jimbo has proposed. In fact, this is a great idea, that will finally remove doubt over the use of Wikinews. However, SlimVirgin's argument that written original research is the logical progression from original photographs terrifies me. The fact that it's being proposed as a limited sort of "license to OR" is only slightly better. Frankly, we've not had a stellar record of selecting most-trusted Wikipedians. More importantly, it would topple the good rule we have against OR, replacing it with instruction creep and evasion.

I'm all for new and exciting OR projects—on Wikinews. As Durova said, this is not the time for us to ignore one of our fundamental rules. Cool Hand Luke 08:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

True... the OR on Wikinews is actually a good thing... at Wikinews. But not at Wikipedia. Different projects, different rules. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a number of the project's main attributes run counter to any effort to make Wikinews a better source for use on Wikipedia, including the fact that Wikinews reporters may report under pseudonyms or anonymously and the fact that there is no central editorial structure. As far as I can tell if a Wikinews article contains an appallingly false statement nobody within the project actually suffers for this -- and therefore nobody has any particular incentive to prevent it from happening. It's difficult to see how this problem can be rectified without undermining central values of the wiki. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't allow OR on Wikipedia because we allow anyone to edit, so editors can be anonymous, and even when they use a real name, we have no way to verify their identity. We also only report on material that has already been published. But once something is published on Wikinews as OR there, it is no longer OR here on Wikipedia. In this case we are only left to decide if Wikinews is a reliable source for the material to be used on Wikipedia. In most cases, I would say not, because Wikinews also allows anonymous or un-verified editors, and the editorial supervision is by other editors. Perhaps once the editorial process meets the Google News standard that will change. For now, it would be too easy to do an end-around on the WP:NOR policy by publishing to Wikinews first, then using the material here.

However, in the specific case of interviews with notable people conducted by accredited reporters on Wikinews who provide a complete transcript or recording of the interview, I think we can use the interview as a reliable source. I have read the Wikinews Accreditation Policy, and find it provides the key ingredient of assuring that the source is a real identifiable person with a known track record, and a reputation to protect. Because reporters must reveal their real legal name to be accredited, it is not possible to create throw-away accounts for doing mischief. As to the editorial supervision, there is a process for revoking credentials in that process. I think we can also safely assume that material will be removed if it is substantially questioned to protect the reputation of Wikinews, so this meets the needs of Wikipedia for editorial supervision. The material should not be considered self-published, because although reporters initiates the process, they do not have ultimate control of the publication process, as they would on a blog.

So the blanket dismissal of Wikinews, while convenient, is not in the best interest of either Wikipedia or Wikinews. Like most "problems" on Wikipedia, we need to use common sense, and avoid creating and following self-sustaining rules. Dhaluza (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dhaluza is correct. Furthermore, there isn't original research here going on since we have the interview on Wikinews. Wikinews interviews are by people like David who have their names public and have confirmed their real life contact info with the Foundation. Thus, they have the basic elements of a reliable source. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews editorial control

Allusion was made about to Wikinews having some kind of editorial controls, but looking the place over, I can't find any evidence of that. Is there anything that seperates it from a collectively written weblog? WilyD 13:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, they appear to be claiming they have good rules but lack the manpower to enforce them; meaning that in practice they lack actual functioning reliable editorial control. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That issue is being addressed by having approved versions live. But the key is not to sink a project for a temporary project, but to improve it and find ways to address the issues. If Welfare is not working, the key is to fix it, not to get rid of it; social security, public education, Wikipedia, Wikinews...etc. --David Shankbone 20:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Until it becomes clear that Wikinews has editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking, it's not a reliable source. No one is trying to "sink the project" — we're simply saying that without some serious editorial controls, it's not reliable. This can change, naturally — however, verifiability is an issue. --Haemo (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Those who follow foundation-l and the development of flagged revisions should be well aware that I have invested a great deal of time and effort towards soliciting input on how, with the help of this extension, we gain sufficient editorial control over the default display of Wikinews to get Google to list us on their news site. The aim there is to significantly increase the site's profile and attract new contributors and readers. Anyway, it annoys me no end to see some Wikinews contributors reacting to people's comments here by not fully digesting them and reading the worst into what is said. Nearly as much as the Wikipedians who've never even read a single Wikinews policy and dismiss us out of hand as "just a wiki - anyone can edit".

Wikinews has an archiving policy, and I have protected over 3,000 articles as part of the implementation of this policy, roughly 30%+ of Wikinews' article count. Before I do so I read every single one, although as I'd expect people to understand, I do significantly less of that work now. Perhaps our policy needs tightened up and interviews protected 36 hours after publication. Perhaps accompanying audio requires uploading to permit citing, IRC logs may be required with signatures of authenticity from various of the participants, or emails require vetted through OTRS to authenticate via details that should remain private. There is an effort to build consensus on Wikinews' Water Cooler as to what should be guides for making an article citeable, ignore the bit at the top where the loudest contributors dig their trenches and shout "you're wrong!" at each other. --Brian McNeil /^talk 22:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The concept of a WA wikinews article is heading in the right direction. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WA? --Brian McNeil /^talk 12:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to invite user Blueboar to attempt his disruption on any one of these listed articles, vandalism to prove a point is stooping pretty damn low and in this case proves procedures are not followed, not that you have an argument-winning point. --Brian McNeil /^talk 12:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not falsely accuse Blueboar. He edited a Wikinews entry to see if he could and immediately self-reverted. That is neither disruption nor vandalism. Vassyana (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is the very definition of n:WN:POINT --Deprifry (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He immediately reverted and caused no disruption. That's hardly a POINT edit. Vassyana (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The problem is that Wikinews, regardless of its worth and credibility, is essentially a self-published source. We would not allow a user to post information from their interview with someone or the results of their personal investigations. To say we should allow it if they instead post to Wikinews first is simply absurd. While I appreciate the good work people do at Wikinews, it simply is not a reliable source. Without significant editorial control and review, it's just another self-published source. That doesn't mean honor code rules and superficial community review. That means real fact-checking, reviewing interview audio, calling agencies to verify official statements and so on. Such editorial review would require fundamental changes to the project, which seems unlikely. The contributors to Wikinews are passionate, earnest and dedicated to their project, and I admire that. However, whether or not Wikinews is a worthwhile project has nothing to do with its reliability as a source under Wikipedia conventions. Vassyana (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ask yourself this: Will Wikipedia:Stable Versions make Wikipedia a reliable source? Once you realise it'd be absurd to suggest it will, ask then what would make Wikinews fundamantally different from a Wikipedia with stable versions? WilyD 13:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about Wikipedia stable versions, which are a half-assed attempt at discouraging vandals until they get bored. I want Stable Versions for Wikinews with but with an editorial board that is - potentially - prepared to put their names behind contributions. Now, can we close the "no, nay, never" discussion here and move on to how Wikinews needs to improve? The discussion for that - surprisingly enough - is on Wikinews. --Brian McNeil /^talk 14:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be saying "No, nay, never"... This has to be a "No, not yet" discussion... Wikinews wants to be a reliable source for us and, assuming this desire is achievable, we should assist them in doing so. They are going to have to make some fundamental changes for that to happen, but if they are willing to make those changes, we should not discourage them from doing so. This is a conversation that needs to take place in both locations... as they have ideas they need to come to the appropriate talk page here and ask: "If we do such and such, will that make Wikinews more likely to be accepted as a source on Wikipedia?" I would hate to have the good folks at Wikinews make changes to their proceedures, only to discover that we still don't consider Wikinews acceptable. They will need to have imput from us so they know what they will need to change. As a start, I encourage them to "read, mark and inwardly digest" our policies and guidelines... especially WP:NOR and WP:V. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

there are other good reasons for Wikinews to have stable versions that have been discussed elsewhere--prime among them in my opinion is the acceptability for GoogleNews, which not unreasonably wants to have something fixed that can be cited. But this is up to the people who work there. DGG (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Stable versions will introduce editorial control on Wikinews because only a selected group of Editors will be able to flag revisions. That's pretty much installing an Editorial Board. It's a totally different approach from Wikipedia, where it is aimed at reducing vandalism. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it functionally different? Stable versions have multiple purposes, including some form of editorial control - indeed, only a selected group of editors will be able to flag revisions (assuming it ever happens (HA!)) and so forth. Weblogs often have specific, named people approving and publishing the content, and yet are usually not considered reliable sources. The defenses of Wikinews as a source are missing the problem entirely (and why Wikinews would want to get endorsed as a reliable source here to attract a mass migration of POV warriors is beyond me. ;) Cheers, WilyD 01:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that Wikinews is a self-published source for the purposes of Wikipedia. The editor does not have ultimate control of the publication process, which is the defining characteristic of a WP:SPS. Although anyone can start an article, they do not own it, and will likely be challenged if they are making false claims or pushing a POV. Just because a Wikinews article is not self-published, that does not mean it is a reliable source, and your garden variety Wikinews article probably is not. And for the garden variety Wikinews subject, we probably have other mainstream sources to use. But in specific cases, Wikinews could be a reliable source, and should not be dismissed summarily, but objectively evaluated like any other source. Dhaluza (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Irony

This shows what some Wikipedians think of sister projects; I'm delighted to see most people who participate in deletion requests reacted with a WTF? But it is symptomatic of a noticable portion of the Wikipedia base who think this project is the be all and end all. I recall a certain contributor standing for board on a basis of shutting all sister projects. Individuals who have clearly expressed such opinions have obviously (AFAIK) rescinded any right to comment on the validity of Wikinews and other sister projects and - in utter ignorance - think people will migrate to Wikipedia from sister projects. I would - again - encourage people to join the Wikinews discussion to create best practice procedures and guidelines. We have Sue Gardner on the board - former head of CBC.ca; yes, she's busy, but she is the best person to help finalise such guidelines if there is an effort to produce them. --Brian McNeil /^talk 12:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The WikiMedia Foundation involves itself in content dispute as little as possible to maintain its legal status as a service provider and not a publisher. The English language Wikipedia community decides its criteria for reliable sources; and we decide that criteria to maximize our credibility, not for other purposes, and certainly not to push David's anti-media POV (which I agree with, but NPOV rules). WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

NO

I don't see how it can be used as a source any more that wikipedia can. The content of the page can change at any time and the "anyone can edit", so no, wikinews is no more reliable than wikipedia, and I belive that we don't consider WP a RS. Thatve is the only non-trivial point here. Have I missed something? Lobojo (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews will be a reliable source when other news organisations and other experts begin to treat it as a reliable source. The issue of the content changing is something that is not fatal; content already changes on reliable source news sites as new information comes in. The issues are oversight/responsibility and reputation. Oversight/responsiblity can be added by policy. Establishing a reputation takes time. But there is no fundamental reason why a community based news organisation can't be considered as a reliable source. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I see your point. I am doubtful that "wikinews" will ever become viewed as a reliable source though, sad to say. I wonder if wikipedia should just ditch its NOT NEWS policy (which anyway only applies to trivial news stories) and incorporate Wikinews. Lobojo (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia ditch the not news policy?! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! WMF's goal is to create and spread knowledge and this is the encyclopedic branch of that, just as Wikiquote collects quotes and Wiktionary is a dictionary. Wikipedia and Wikinews have two very distinct purposes.

Now for Wikinews never being able to be viewed as a reliable source, however, why not? Try using Wikinews for a bit. Anyone can create an article, but those articles are not published. When the template {{publish}} is put on an article, lists all around the site are automatically updated. If an article was really not ready for publishing (by not citing sources, etc.), the tag can be quickly removed. For original reporting (ie. interviews, etc.), the reporter should post notes, an audio clip, or whatever on the article talk page. A few days after publishing, the article is permanently protected and is "archived". Now not "everyone can edit".

So without just saying "Wikinews is a wiki", how come it is unreliable? Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Turn the question around: which other reliable sources have cited it? Show some evidence that it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" amongst other reliable sources. By default, sources are considered unreliable. To become reliable, evidence must be shown that notable people and other reliable sources consider the source to be reliable and cite it. Establishing a reputation takes time, and it may not be possible to show that Wikinews is considered a reliable source at the moment, even though it may have the necessary editorial and oversight policies. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

YES

WP:V is clear: Reliable sources are those which have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Wikinews does in fact have such a reputation, and also has a means of editorial oversight, which WP:RS used to mention before it was gutted to 1/3 its size by people hoping to merge it into WP:V. :( MilesAgain (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Over-Unity" and "Anti-Gravity"

I'd like to get some comments on inclusion of weblinks and use as sources for these two sites:

• http://jnaudin.free.fr/ Linksearch
• http://www.americanantigravity.com/ Linksearch

My own assessment, on which I'd like to receive comments:

I've pruned back links to these sites and content only sourced to these sites for years, but as the pruner:inserter ratio seems to swing towards the inserter-faction in the the recent past, links and content are on the rise again.

Jean-Louis Naudin is a hobbyist experimenter who discusses and tries to reproduce nearly every claim of "over-unity" (a.k.a. perpetual motion machine) and "anti-gravity" and often claims success. He has no (known) formal education in engineering, physics or related fields and doesn't published in reputable sources.

American Antigravity is something like the "professional" version of JN Labs -- professional not in the sense of any linkage to the professional societies in engineering, but regarding better web layout and more direct attempts to sell something.

--Pjacobi (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't look like reliable sources to me. --Haemo (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

While some of the links, are being used in reasonable places to document pseudo-science topics, for which they might possible be acceptable, some may not be. This should go the the SPAM notice board also. DGG (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of the question, I'd like get feedback on, is whether sources like the above really should be used for pseudo-science topics. Is it a good idea, to let crank #1 testify in support of crank #2 -- or should denying the first and second law of thermodynamics be considered to be an extremist view, per Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_sources? I sometimes get the impression of some crackpot-link-exchange-program taking place, where Naudin or Matti Pitkänen (not the skier Matti Pitkänen, but the physicist [45] of same name, compare Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Matti_Pitkanen) give positive feedback for every strange idea, just to get themself linked back and linked in Wikipedia as reference, e.g. at Searl_Effect_Generator#References. --Pjacobi (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it a good idea, to let crank #1 testify in support of crank #2? Is crank #1's testimony published in a reliable source, like a peer reviewed journal? Does their opinion carry the same weight as the laws of thermodynamics? Of the sites you list, jnaudin.free.fr/ appears to be a self-publisher of Jean-Louis Naudin. Since it's self-published, it isn't a reliable source for any article other than one on the site or author. As for americanantigravity.com/ - this doesn't look like a reliable source. The onus is on the person claiming it is a reliable source to show that it is considered reliable by other physicists working in the same field. As far as I can see, it isn't a peer reviewed journal with any notability or respect in the physics world. So no, they wouldn't be considered reliable sources. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources are not simple reliable or unreliable in and of themselves. They are reliable or unreliable depending on what you're using them to cite. If you say "Jean-Louis Naudin says that he has reversed gravity with device x that does y.[jnaudin.com]", it's a reliable source. If you say "Newton was wrong and gravity is an elaborate conspiracy.[jnaudin]" then it's an unreliable source. Cranks can be used as references for statements about themselves or their theories. Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves is close. — Omegatron 03:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Omegatron is correct in this... except that WP:SELFPUB is is discussing articles about themselves. In other words it is appropriate to include something like "Jean-Louis Naudin says that he has reversed gravity with device x that does y.[jnaudin.com]", in the article on Jean-Louis Naudin... but it may not be appropriate to include the same statement in the article on Gravity. WP:Undue weight is an effective counter-balance to WP:SELFPUB. In a case like this, I would also recommend that people read WP:FRINGE. It gives good advice on when the theories of cranks should and should not be included in Wikipedia.Blueboar (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No. WP:SELFPUB needs to be changed to remove the "in articles about themselves" clause. I've fixed this several times and it eventually winds up the way it is now again.

For instance, this is a perfectly legitimate reliably-sourced statement that could be put in the Ionocraft article:

Jean-Louis Naudin claims that he has operated lifters in a pure vacuum.^[46]

There is no rule that sources like this can only be used in articles about the source itself. — Omegatron 00:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just another example and a specific case:

• http://www.rexresearch.com/ Linksearch

And the specific case: http://www.rexresearch.com/grebenn/grebenn.htm was once used to source Viktor Grebennikov. As far as I judge the consenus here, it was removed for good reason -- leaving the problem, that all other sources for the Grebennikov article I've found, are of similiar quality (I cannot judge the source in Russian and can only hope the best). Is this enough reason for deletion? --Pjacobi (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad! The Viktor Grebennikov article is rather entertaining. Under our rules, since the content is unsourced, it needs to go. If the article could say the same thing from sources I think it would be OK. (Everything that I could find about Grebennikov's work seems to be self-published by one person or another). EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Forums Used for References

Resolved

In the Smash Lab article, a user posted criticism of the show, citing it as critics giving the show bad reviews, but the reference cited is a forum on Discovery's Website. I wanted to double check that this is not a reliable source before removing the content, and sources. Amazingracer (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No. From WR:RS:

Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are rarely regarded as reliable. While they are often controlled by a single party (as opposed to the distributed nature of Usenet), many still permit anonymous commentary and we have no way of verifying the identity of a poster.

Chris Bainbridge (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks for the quick response! Amazingracer (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

List of sites running the LiveJournal engine

Properly sourced material about one particular journal site is being repeatedly abusively deleted, with secondary issues of WP:OWN, WP:LAWYER, WP:CENSOR, and others. Your comments? -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

To add to what Davidkevin states: the dispute concerns the addition of CommieJournal to the list; the other sites on the list are several years old and have been mentioned in published news stories while CommieJournal is several months old and has not. On the other hand, it is already as large as one of the other sites already listed (JournalFen). Davidkevin seems to feel that the existence of the site is self-sourcing and that primary sources are acceptable in this context. He has additionally stated that the list should be as inclusive as possible, but has made no effort to include other unlisted journals. Davidkevin is also very quick to assume bad faith (as has been apparent not only here but on Talk:LiveJournal) but that has little to do with this noticeboard other than as an explanation for his various claims of policy violations above. I agree with him that wider contribution to this discussion would be a good thing, and have also requested it at Talk:LiveJournal. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If by "he...has made no effort to include other unlisted journals," you mean the list of dead links and journal sites with a literal handful of users at this link as mentioned on the article talk page, that's because, believe it or not, I would agree with you about their non-notability. I don't think CommieJournal is the same as they are, due to its size, rate of growth, and the reasons behind its creation and those reasons being an ongoing reaction to the problems at LiveJournal. If CommieJournal were to fade to unused non-notability as they have, or if LiveJournal management took the winds out of CommieJournal's sails by improving itself and removing the relevancy of it, I would agree with you about removing it at that time. -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Waterboarding again

Would quite a few people be willing to read this, in particular starting at Talk:Waterboarding#Shibumi2 second attempt at new article lead, and weigh in? The level nastiness and POVishness based on politics is astonishingly bad in the commentary. This page has been protected repeatedly from absolutely horrific edit wars, and given the ingrained political bitterness on the topic, the level of political dismissal of sources is amazing. The tone has gotten so horrible I'm tempted to wash my hands of the whole thing to let myself work on other articles again. Lawrence Cohen 03:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's already been pointed out many times that this is not about the reliablity of sources and doesn't belong here. I suggest a request for comment. --neonwhite user page talk 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

People saying sources aren't valid because they're (examples)

• From New York, a "liberal" city
• From an expert in France who also is a member of a civic group that at one point in WW2 offered support to Stalin (note the expert wasn't even *alive* in WW2)
• "American" views have more value because other countries haven't been through what "we" have
• Further abuse of RS is the fact that some are saying that if 100+ sources and people saying "x is x", but 1-5 say "x is y" that you can't say that "x is x" because it would violate NPOV and be biased to America (I did post to the NPOV talk page, no one seemed to care).

Is the point of this noticeboard only to judge if a source is worthy to include, but not the other way around as well, if arguments to exclude a source are worthy? Or for general abuse of how RS works? I'm posting it here again because I'm frankly frustrated at such flagrant political nonsense. It doesn't seem like something for AN or ANI. If not here, what is the best venue to ensure that out-of-policy damage to the encyclopedia is stamped out before it can take hold, when multiple people swarm in a gang to enforce it? Lawrence Cohen 14:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I just skimmed that talk page and it seems you forgot a good reason to exclude a source is because it represents:

• "fringe opinions from 100 law professors whose previously published writings indicate membership in the lunatic left-wing fringe"

It appears that you're arguing against people who, like football supporters, will back their side to the end without any willingness to compromise. I would suggest a compromise like global warming, "While individual X have voiced disagreement with Y, the overwhelming majority of X are in agreement". But would this satisfy your vocal opponents in this case?

Is the point of this noticeboard only to judge if a source is worthy to include, but not the other way around as well, if arguments to exclude a source are worthy?

People on this noticeboard comment both ways.

If the article had been written five years ago, nobody would've batted an eyelid at calling it torture: nobody argues against calling the rack torture, and yet "A History of Torture" (Scott 1940) states that waterboarding was "generally adopted when racking, in itself, proved ineffectual." There may be a difference between the legal definition of torture in the United States, and the meaning of the word in the English language. Maybe the article can make that difference clear, and make it clear that the US lawyers are only commenting on US law. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that neither side is willing to compromise, and the side that is supporting calling it torture is the one completely backed up by policy as far as I can see. When a page is overrun by people pushing advocacy for a fringe viewpoint like this, what is the policy-based mechanism that exists for stopping the nonsense of wasting everyone's time? Lawrence Cohen 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, how did the global warming editors do it? It must be possible, otherwise that article would still say that global warming was a left-wing UN plot to take over the world. I suspect it involves significantly raising the bar of what is considered a reliable source, and only allowing citing peer reviewed journal articles, whilst at the same time acknowledging that there's some minority view point. And even with all that, they're still reverting vandal edits to the article every day... Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that might've helped in the global warming case was separating it from global warming controversy. Given that the waterboarding article focuses too much on the US controversy (as the Good Article reviewer noted) it's currently poorly weighted and suffering from recentism. Maybe it could be split, with waterboarding in the U.S. controversy or something similar for the US stuff, and the main article for everything else. Having said that, it might just lead to a POV-fork. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the historical perspective is more relevant to this article than fringe views. --neonwhite user page talk 15:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Is a poll of the general public a reliable source per our standards?

• http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/06/waterboard.poll/

People on Talk:Waterboarding are citing this poll as evidence that the status of Waterboarding as a form of torture is heavily disputed. I have not seen polls used before, for a core RS on a contentious issue. Is this acceptable usage? Lawrence Cohen 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. telephone poll of 1,024 American adults was carried out over the weekend and had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points From the above poll. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The poll is citable as a reliable source for the opinions of American adults on waterboarding. It shows that, in 2007, there is some disagreement between the American public.

The question of whether the opinion of the general public of the United States is, or should be, a factor in determining the content of Wikipedia articles is a completely different one. There are certainly precedents for not following U.S. public opinion (e.g. global warming, intelligent design etc). Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing it can really cite is the result of a poll, drawing your own conclusions from results of a poll would be original research. However if, say a newspaper or journal, publishes a conclusion or interpreation based on the result that would be a different case. --neonwhite user page talk 15:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That is true - a poll itself is a primary source of statistical data, and should be avoided. However, when the poll is carried out by a reputable polling agency, and results published in a reliable source, then it is fine to cite it. In this case, the research appears to fit those criteria. Having said that, if there's any dispute regarding the poll methodology or results, and that has been covered in reliable sources, then it is fine to cite that as well.

As to whether saying there is "a dispute" when poll results show disagreement over some topic is a case of WP:SYN; I think not, the word itself suggests an elevation of a mere "disagreement" . In fact, the WordNet definition of "dispute" is "a disagreement or argument about something important". And if it wasn't important, then the poll shouldn't even be mentioned in Wikipedia in the first place. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ABUSE! Please STOP to eliminate the Quotations about Leonard Oprea's work!

YES, dear Victoriagirl, I READ and I understood very well the Wikipedia's policies concerning self-published sources and Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Therefore, I have to tell you firmly: this book of Leonard Oprea is published in the USA by a POD Publishing House. I mean - a book published by a Publishing House, NOT by a self-publishing venture etc. More - these quotations BELONG to their authors, cultural American VIP beyond any doubt, NOT to some other people. And this you or anybody else can easily check up. Thus, if it will be necessary I will RE-introduce again and again these quotations and I am telling you again:

• NO ISSUE regarding THE VERIFIABILITY of Quotations about Leonard Oprea’s work!
• Dear Victoriagirl user, please, respectfully I ask you do not be a Wikipedia censor. It is against the rules of Wikipedia free encyclopedia.
• Dear Victoriagirl since when is a section of Wikipedia article out side of the Wikipedia rules just because it is composed of quotations drawn from a self-published source (nota bene: which actually is a POD book, NOT a self-publishing book and it is a perfect legal // check up its ISBN number// publication on sale in the USA and world-wide on amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com and other more than 100 web-sites and you can also find it in the public American libraries of Boston or of the Cultural Romanian Institute of New York etc.etc.etc.)?!!
• Please, dear Victoriagirl just try to check up professionally the Quotations about Leonard Oprea’s work according to google.com, amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com, Leonard Oprea article of Romanian Wikipedia and according to who are Vladimir Tismaneanu, Norman Manea, Adam J.Sorkin and last but not least Andrei Codrescu, the well-known cultural American VIP who signed these quotations. Years ago, when these quotations were introduced in this article, their sources were carefully verified and everything was and still is according to the Wikipedia rules. Every Quotation content of this article is verifiable anytime by anyone/ sic!/. Thank you for your understanding. judetadeus (talk) 6:24PM, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What is your question? It seems you are angry at Victoriagirl. Please try discussing your issues politely with her on Talk:Leonard_Oprea. Thanks. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to the post by at Talk:Leonard Oprea. Victoriagirl (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is AUTO. Judetadeus wants to put complimentary quotes in the article which appear on the backs of books he has self-published. I have stated this is not acceptable. Situation seems to be resolved now. Tyrenius (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

IE8/Vasudev

On the IE article, there is a [Talk:Internet Explorer#About Acid2 compliance|discussion]] going on over its performance in ACID2 test. Specifically whether it needs a change in the test (via opting in to a third rendering mode apart from quirks mode and standards mode). There is no official clarification on whether the mode exists or whether the Acid2 test does/does not trigger it. In this situation, this link was added which says the existence of the mode. However, I have questions on whether he can be considered reliable and his words put to canon? I want others opinion on this. --soum ^talk 00:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Specifically these quotes from the talk page discussion are relevant:

221.128.181.109 (talk · contribs): According to the MVP FAQ here, IE8 DOES introduce another (a third) "IE8 standards mode". However, I don't see how it means IE8 "cannot be considered to pass the Acid2" as stated in the article.

Soumyasch (talk · contribs): Any evidence Abhishek has access to the inner working of the IE team and that he is not under an NDA ro reveal such information and that he is singing the official tune and this is not just a friend-of-a-friend-told-me rumor? --soum

Remember the dot (talk · contribs)"This Q&A guidance is taken from the MVPannounce mail I received from my MVP lead". As a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional, yes, he does have access to such information. —Remember the dot

Soumyasch (talk · contribs): You know what an MVP is? S/he is an independent and recognized expert on one or more products. They need not be on MS payroll. And are no way automatically a part of any MS product team. Just by being an MVP you do NOT gain access to such information. And my question is still unanswered: How the hell does he publicize information that is still under NDA (if it were not under NDA it would have come directly from the official sources or the developers). And I asked about Anand, not Vasudev. Vasudev mentions his source, Anand does not. Since he is not officially known to be a part of IE8 project, he does not consitute a source reliable enough for citation. --soum ^talk 00:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, these statements are also backed up by the MIX07 presentation by Chris Wilson, Internet Explorer Platform Architect. The Vasudev source is simply more convenient, since it is in text form. The Vasudev source reproduces, verbatim, statements from Microsoft.

Microsoft is under no obligation to share with the public the information it shares with its MVPs, and I doubt that the MVPs are required to not pass on the information they receive from Microsoft. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No these are not backed up. The MIX 07 talks was plans, this states as facts. True they speak of the same essence, but the MIX talks never says it has already happened. So, they are not a verbatim repro. Yes, MS is under no obligation, but there in not just one MVP. If they are not required to restrain their, don't you think there will be more confirmation? Even beta testers are under an NDA (unless the beta is public) and you expect MVPs to be given a discount? I highly doubt that. Btw, I posted it here not against you but to get a fresher perspective, sans mine or your bias. We can talk on the article talk page or on our talk pages. --soum ^talk 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not usually considered a reliable source. From Are blogs a reliable source: In most cases, no. Most weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. ACID compliance of browsers is widely discussed, so if this information is true it will eventually be published in a reliable source, but until then it shouldn't be cited as fact on Wikipedia. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

world policy council

The World Policy Council of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity is a nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank established in 1996 at Howard University to expand the fraternity's involvement in politics, and social and current policy to encompass important global and world issues. They describe their missions as to ‘’address issues of concern to our brotherhood, our communities, our nation, and the world.‘’

The council has issued 5 white papers in its 11 year history covering topics such as the AIDS crisis, Middle East Conflict, Extraordinary rendition and other issues it deems of national or international import.

This link here is the current position paper in PDF format. The nine board of director who research and write the papers are listed on pages 2-4 and consist of Senator Edward Brooke, Ambassadors Horace Dawson and Kenton Keith, Educator Henry Ponder, and congresmen Ron Dellums and Charles Rangel. The mission of the WPC is listed on page 5 and their positons on five issues follow.

1. The council is cited here for obtaining global headlines for their position on Nigerian Politics.
2. This video shows Senator Brooke describing the council during the last 1:30 minute. on YouTube
3. This video continues the discussion by other council members regarding purpose, compostion and the audience for the white papers for the firt 3 minutes. on YouTube

Would you consider the research and opinion of this council a reliable source to cite within wikipedia articles?--Ccson 04:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly a reliable source for the views of the World Policy Council and of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity. The reliability of think tanks in general has to be viewed with extreme caution. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll make it clear that any cited text is the position of the WPC. I'll wait to see if additional editors respond.Ccson21:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree... position papers by the council are reliable for statements about the opinion of the council. Such statements should be directly attributed (in text) as being the opinion of the council (ie: "According to the World Policy Council...."). That being said... the question then becomes one of NPOV and other policies. Is the opinion of the WPC notable on a specific topic? Would discussing this opinion violate the Undue weight clause? etc. etc. In other words... Under WP:V and WP:RS we can say that the position papers of the WPC may be used, but we can not say if they should be used in any given article. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's reliable as far as the World Policy Council and APA are concerned. It's not reliable as an expert on ER. And it does violate Undue weight. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For those of you who don't know what APA is.....it's a college fraternity. It's not a scientific think tank. It's not a political organization. It's.....a college fraternity. It's not the American Enterprise Institute. It's not Brookings. It's not the AIPAC. It's not Center for Freedom and Democracy. It's......a college fraternity. Guess what, my fraternity's members include presidents of the united states. Does that make them a reliable source to discuss world politics? No, it does not. It's just another lame attempt to give undue weight to an article that is entirely critical already. There are plenty enough RELIABLE organizations criticizing Extraordinary Rendition, that we don't need a fraternity to do so. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As noted above by others above, I would agree that the position papers would be reliable for the opinion of the WPC. Reliable, yes, but then the question is whether it is notable or not. This is not the forum, perhaps, but if it is any help based on a google search I do not find any secondary sources indicating that others think it is [47] --Slp1 (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See Jet Magazine and Divine Nine. Thanks for your comments--Ccson (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

These are above the WPC, and not about extraordinary rendition at all. We need to find something about extraordinary rendition that mentions the WPC and their views on the subject, to show that the WPC's opinion is notable. But really I do think that this is a subject for another forum, since the discussion is not really about reliable sourcing. --Slp1 (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

News of the World and Yedioth Ahronoth for BLP?

Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies#Dovid Jaffe. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-29t22:01z

• While the "News of the World" may be a tabloid it is part of News Corp along with the WSJ and The Times. I don't think there is any dispute as to their fact-checking being basically good. And Yediot Aharonot is the principal newspaper of the state of Israel. While I may not like the journalistic style of the NOTW, it remains true that it is subject to libel laws like everyone else. Lobojo (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Given its focus on sensationalism I wouldn't use NotW as a source for something that could be damaging to a person. If the fact in question is worth mentioning it should have been picked up by a serious newspaper or news magazine. If it hasn't, then the point likely isn't sufficiently important or noteworthy to include (see also WP:WEIGHT). I don't know anything about Yedioth Ahronoth.Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It was picked by Yediot, undoubtably a serious newspaper no? It was also picked up, and followed up by the Jewish Chronicle, which I forgot to mention. Lobojo (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If those are in fact reliable sources (I'm not familiar with them), then cite them instead of NotW. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Yediot one is in there. I cant find the Jewish Chronicle one right now, it must have got deleted. I think though in principle while I sympathise with your view of the NOTW as sensationalist, I am reluctant to agree that it is not an RS just because of that. While you may have to translate the information into an encyclopedic format and remove the curse words and so on, they cannot print anything that The Times cannot print. The libel laws are equally strict, and it is the same company. While some people have litigated the NOTW and won, many people have tried and failed, and the same applies to all major news outlets. I dont think that the style (however much I look down my nose at it) prejudices the RSness of a source. Lobojo (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The argument that NotW somehow must share the reliability of some of its better-regarded sister publications in News Corp is erroneous. To make a parallel, the parent company of CNN also owns properties that we wouldn't use as reliable sources. Again, if better sources are available, use them; if better sources aren't available, then one has to question the noteworthiness of the material proposed for inclusion. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really making that point. The point I'm making is that they are subject to the same libel laws, and since they are owned by the same company they are subject to similar factchecking requirements to ensure they are not litigated. Lobojo (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

A tabloid reporting a "rumor" is not a Reliable source for what is written there. Not to mention the BLP issues. Everything is subject to libel laws, but not everything is a reliable source. There is also the issue of this topic not being relevant to this article. Chocolatepizza (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor citing the News of the World to show that it is considered a reliable source. Framing the language of articles to reduce the probability of being sued is a completely different thing from being considered a reliable source. Given what I have seen of the News of the World, it is extremely unlikely that you could show that its standards of journalistic integrity are held in the same regard as BBC News, The Times, etc. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing about a rumor. The paper says he did something on a certain date and time, he repsonded by threatening to sue, 18 months later his case is yet to materialize. Lobojo (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The real question is: what are you trying to state in the article? If you are trying to state that the subject of the BLP actually did "such and such on X date" and citing News of The World as the source for that "fact" then no, it is not a reliable source. If on the other hand, you are trying to state the fact that News of the World claimed that the subject did such and such on X date, then it might be considered a bit more reliable (with lots of caveats). That said, it would be best to find a third party source that discusses the fact that the News of the World maded these claims, and cite that source instead. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is pretty clear: "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make above relates to the notability of the News of the World's claim and of the subject's subject's lawsuit against it. I agree that using the News of The World as a source to back a statement of fact (say a statement such as: "Yedioth Ahronoth kissed Bigfoot on July 12, 2007") would violate WP:BLP. However... if the fact that "On August 9th, News of The World published an article claiming that Yedioth Ahronoth had kissed Bigfoot, and now Mr. Ahronoth is suing that publication for libel" is considered a noteworthy event that should be included in a biography of Yedioth Ahronoth, then we are dealing with a slightly different situation. In such a situation, we need to establish the fact that the claim and reaction is noteworthy... and to do that you need to have a solidly reliable third party source (ie a source other than News of The World) that mentions the fact that News of the World has made a claim and that Mr. Ahronoth has reacted to it by filing a lawsuit. Once you have established that the claim and lawsuit are noteworthy, then the claims made in the original News of The World article can be discussed and cited in context (ie as verification that the claim was made, and not as verification of what the claim happens to say). If we are discussing the fact of the claim, as opposed to the facts behind and within the claim, then we are essentially dealing with a WP:Undue weight issue rather than an RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL!! I see what you are saying and I completely agree, I also believe that the paragraph in question conforms. Here is why. Mr Yedioth Ahronoth (!!) is not the name of an involved party! It is the name of Israel's premier newspaper that published an article recounting the NOTW story and adding further comment an analysis! Funny funny!! So I think the sources are good when taken together - though an investigative report printed in the NOTW that didn't get any further coverage probably would not do, though I am reluctant to class the paper as a unreliable source, it does publish real journalism (and has had many history changing scoops over the years) along side the titties and "readers wives". But seing as the story was picked up by other (more classy) newspapers, I don't doubt the RS status of the sources when taken together. Lobojo (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't add two sources together to create a composite reliable source. I have no idea if the Israeli newspaper is a reliable source. However, if they're sourcing articles from the News of the World, then that would certainly count against them.

"I am reluctant to class the paper as a unreliable source, it does publish real journalism" - Are we talking about the same News of the World? The one published in the UK with topless photos of women with large breasts in every issue? The one that showed us "proof" that "Maddie McCann was abducted ALIVE"? The one that reported as truth that "90 per cent of people on benefits are scroungers" and that "Criminals are now officially entitled to better housing than war heroes"? It would be very, very, very hard to show that this tabloid is considered a reliable source by anyone, but you're welcome to try. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes precicely. The main thing is that they are subject to editorial review and libel actions like any other major corporation, that is to say, any error about a living person puts them at a risk of unlimited liability. All the examples you quote have nothing to do with living people and are just polemic which we shuold not quote. But when they make an accusation against a living pesron they have to be meticulous with their facts, and on the few occasions when they have not been they have faces lawsuits. While I share you disdian for the paper and similar ones, we need to avoid bringing our own value judgements into this. We need to ask are the NOTW and the The Sun etc. reliable sources for information about people. Here is a list of some of the major journalistic scoops they have exposed in recent years along with some of the notable journalists who work for them: [48]. I doubt there is a newspaper in the world that has not quoted or taken stories from the NOTW or The Sun (its weekday sister paper.) (sunday veriosnLobojo (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"The main thing is that they are subject to editorial review and libel actions like any other major corporation". By your argument, every single British news publication is automatically a reliable source, just because it is subject to British libel law.

I wouldn't go that far, but major ones, that have significant assets and readership, rather than just minor private local rags would do, that is the primary issue with BLP, to cover wikipedia's ass. As long as we are merely citing an established source, then we cannot face legal action. Note that the NOTW submits to the PCC's restrictive code of conduct and abides by its rulings (see here).

"All the examples you quote have nothing to do with living people and are just polemic which we shuold not quote." You can't pick and choose which articles are considered reliable - it is the source that is considered reliable, not individual articles.

The articles are not unrealiable, they are just polemical, attention grabbing, and sensationalist. They need to be much more careful when libel is involved. I think this is clear. A source does not need to be reliable for everything. The BMJ is not a reliable source on political discourse, but is on medical matters. Lobojo (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Here is a list of some of the major journalistic scoops they have exposed in recent years" Five famous scandals since 1843 does not make them a reliable source. Please read WP:RS. If you want to use the News of the World as a reliable source, then you must show that it is considered a reliable source by other experts and other reliable sources. You may personally believe that it is a reliable source, but your personal beliefs don't hold any weight here. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It has external regualots and ombudsmen and so on. It is regularly cited in other newspapers, who clearly think that it is something of a reliable source. Lobojo (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

)

The point of WP:RS is not "to cover wikipedia's ass" or that "we cannot face legal action". It is to ensure that articles are "based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Otherwise you'd just have people adding any old rubbish to Wikipedia.

"A source does not need to be reliable for everything. The BMJ is not a reliable source on political discourse" Your example makes no sense - the BMJ is a medical journal, they do not publish articles on politics.

"It is regularly cited in other newspapers, who clearly think that it is something of a reliable source." Prove it. If the News of the World really is a reliable source, then you should be able to easily demonstrate that it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" with academics, professionals and other news organisations.

"The articles are not unrealiable" In a couple of minutes of Google searching I found "Maddie McCann was abducted ALIVE", "90 per cent of people on benefits are scroungers" and "Criminals are now officially entitled to better housing than war heroes". In what possible way are these articles reliable? And again, we don't judge individual articles for reliability - the source is either a reliable source for third party articles on Wikipedia, or it isn't. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTW is a tabloid. We can't quote it in anything related to BLP. Simple as that. Relata refero (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that being a tabloid automatically invalidates a source, all the newspapers in the UK are now in tabloid form apart from the Daily Telegraph, what does the size of the paper have to do with reliablity? Also this is not exactly the question. The question is also asking if Yediot is a reliable source. Lobojo (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

YA is fine. On NOTW, see Jimmy Wales' quote on the BLP page. Relata refero (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Use some common sense. If NOTW is a reliable source, then it would be okay to add the following to an article: "In Britain, criminals are officially entitled to better housing than war heroes"(citeNOTW). That would clearly not be a good thing for Wikipedia.

You might want to check that your understanding of the word "tabloid" in this context of British English is correct - see Tabloid#As_a_sensational.2C_gossip-filled_newspaper, as you seem to be confusing it with the print form factor. I guess it's an easy mistake for a non-native English speaker. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

People in Britain still do refer to the popular papers as "tabloids" but I would bet that the usage will gradually die out now that the serious papers are also printed in that format. "Red-top tabloids" or "red tops" is another attempt to distinguish between the two kinds of paper. Whatever way we look at it though the NoTW is a good example of the kind of paper not considered a reliable source in WP. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Non-native english speaker?! Thats nice, would you be so good as yo show me the linguustic errors I am making that would give you that idea? I suspect you are just joking or trying to be unpleasant, but I'll asume good faith. The stories you quote and mock, actually have quotes from various notable people and sources. So the question is can we refer to NOTW to cite those quotes. Do we think they are fabricating their sources? Nobody is suggesting that we use the opinion of the NOTW as sceintific sources. Lobojo (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Well, if Yediot is a reliable source I am satisfied. Lobojo (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. Lobojo, you're welcome to reply here and have the last word but the consensus is clear that NotW is not a reliable source. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats nice, would you be so good as yo show me the linguustic errors I am making that would give you that idea? I didn't mean to offend you, but you mistook "tabloid" as a reference to the form factor of the paper when it was clear from the context that the writer meant a different usage of the word. This is not a mistake a native English speaker would usually make. I also noticed that your posts contain many spelling mistakes (linguustic precicely shuold disdian pesron unrealiable reliablity asume) and non-capitalisation of "wikipedia" "english" etc., and the fact that you were asking about an Israeli newspaper led me to think you were probably not a native English speaker. I fully accept that this may have been an erroneous assumption on my part, and I apologise if you interpreted my writings as a deliberate attempt at offence. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yediot is Israel's premier newspaper? Not. It is the most widespread newspaper and but it is a tabloid. When I read anything in it (I try as little as possible) it is with a grain of salt. I would limit references to it in controversial issues. --Shuki (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncovering the Right on Campus

I'd like wider input on this book Uncovering the Right on Campus: A Guide to Resisting Conservative Attacks on Equality and Social Justice ISBN: 9780945210078,[49][50] specifically its chapter on its piece by Jennifer Pozner (formerly of FAIR) called 'Female Anti-Feminism for Fame and Profit.'

I agreed with this source's removal for Misandry because it is not directly linked to the subject and it would constitute WP:NOR to include it there. However the user who removed it did so becuase they consider its author to be "far left". This characterization is utterly incorrect and borders on being a BLP issue. I think this is a reliable source in regard to its primary subject, Christina Hoff Sommers, and that it should be useful in articles directly relating to her and her work. Any thoughts?--Cailil ^talk 16:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Asian fetish

One editor persists in repeatedly re-inserting unreliable sources (blog posts, articles in student newspapers) into the article. This same editor is also trying to discredit an article published in Salon (which generally is a reliable source) because he claims it was "heavily panned" — but all he has cited in favor of this premise is the same unreliable sources. This editor, User:Tkguy, has made virtually no edits outside of this topic. His understanding of Wikipedia policy seems to be relatively sketchy, though he has been advised of sourcing requirements several times. *** Crotalus *** 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This does not seem to be an issue for this noticeboard. You already know that blog posts etc. are unreliable sources in general. What, specifically, are you questioning the reliability of here? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that blog posts are unreliable sources, but apparently he refuses to accept this - he's put them back in a couple of times. Also, there is some question as to whether student newspapers should be included at all (this isn't just limited to him), and also whether repeated citations of AsianWeek constitutes undue weight. It would be nice to get a broader perspective on these latter two issues. *** Crotalus *** 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A student newspaper might be a reliable source - it depends on the paper; some are, not all are. "Asian Week" does not look like a reliable source to me, but it is up to the editor claiming that it is to show that to be the case. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The blog post has been reinserted, in what appears to be a violation of WP:3RR. He's claiming now that since the blogger is labeled a "managing editor," it's OK to cite a blog. Nonsense, of course; many of the more prominent bloggers (especially in the political arena) are professional or semi-pro, but their blogs are still blogs and not reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 04:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dissertations?

Are dissertations considered a reliable source? I've never had to deal with using them as a reference before so I've never run into this. I would assume that because they are reviewed by a panel of academics that they would be but I can't find a specific reference within WP:RS and I'm not sure what the verifiability of a dissertation would be. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 05:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen dissertations used as references effectively in a few articles. One criteria that could be helpful would be to look at the sources quoted in the paper. If it's well-referenced, that would lend credibility. Another criteria could be - was it self-published by the student on their own website, or by the university? If published by a university, that seems to add some reliability. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the dissertation was added by a person other than myself I haven't had time to check what it's sourcing. However it does look like it's been published by the university, Columbia.[51] The only links I can find for this online seem to be either columbia login only or one of those 'pay for full copy of the dissertation' sites. Not sure if this has any influence over the reliability or not. --ImmortalGoddezz 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In general dissertations will be a reliable source. However, if they are a primary source for new research, and your interpretation is disputed, then it would be best to find a secondary source discussing the dissertation. Also weight it appropriately - an undergraduate dissertation will usually not have been subject to as much review as, say, a PhD thesis. In fact, some undergraduate theses don't undergo formal review, but are merely marked, so falsehoods aren't corrected; in these cases, it would not be a reliable source. The fact that you have to pay for a copy has no relevance; books also cost money. Googling I found the author of the text you cite is now "assistant professor in the Holocaust and Judaic Studies Program and the Department of History at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida." and the article you cite is not just a dissertation but has now been published as a book [52] by Wayne State University Press. It's a reliable source, but you should probably cite the book. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah interesting, I'll have to get my hands on a copy then. The content that it is sourcing is not disputed, it just needs a source, however when I read that it was a dissertation sourcing it I began to wonder about the reliability of using one as a source since I'd never used a dissertation before and I'm not all that knowledgeable about th ins and outs of that process. Thanks for all the answers! --ImmortalGoddezz 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning, warning, warning. Even what seems to be an unimpeachable source can not always to be trusted. ex. As part of my profession I once dealt w a man who used "University of Chicago" as a reference. When I tried to call, the telephone operator was very clear "There is no such place as University of Chicago. There IS a University of Illinois AT Chicago". Surprise, no one at the university had ever heard of this man. Checking sources is ALWAYS much more difficult than it seems.67.161.166.20 (talk)

Some details of the example may have escaped you. See our article on the University of Chicago, founded in 1890. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In Britain some PhD thesises are published and a great many are deposited, unpublished, in National Libraries or in university archives. If published it is more than likely that, unless they are ground-breaking revelations, the print run will be minute. But again, copies will be in the National Libraries as it is a legal requirement. Therefore, upon request at those places, you should be able to access those source materials. So I cannot see why such scholarly works cannot be offered as sources. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Domestic violence information

An anon editor removed this information[53] from Father's rights movement. I double checked it and reinstated the info that was borne out by the sources[54]. These sources are available online.

The first source is 'Claims about husband battering' reprinted from Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre Newsletter, Summer 1999, authored by the academic Michael Flood.[55]

The second is a reprint of Michael Flood's fact sheet on How the fathers’ rights movement undermines the protections available to victims of violence and protects the perpetrators of violence.[56]

The fact sheet might be debatable as a RS - however both was removed by User:Blackworm on the grounds of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) - ie not "reliable, third-party, published [source] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I believe he is quoting selectively. Policy states clearly that (as long as the self published source is not a blog/personal website etc): "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable 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."

Michael Flood lectures in Sociology at the University of Wollongong. He was a Postdoctoral fellow at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society. He has published on this field, but from the opposite point of view of many Father rights advocates, as can be seen on his article here on WP. Also this source is only being described (as per WP:PSTS) it is not being used to interpret anything else. It was included to make the section comply with NPOV.

The passage that these were added to is here. The removed content criticizes the use of certain studies by Father's rights groups. --Cailil ^talk 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: After a little digging I was able to find (just using Google Scholar) 7 documents citing Flood's [57] - the majority of them Australian government documents. wider input on this issue would be much appreciated--Cailil ^talk 14:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources have to be evaluated in the context they are used, as we are not only concerned with the reliability of sources (which is not an absolute measurement), but with WP:NOPV as well, in particular undue weight aspects. You will need to discuss this at article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Jossi. I think it is an NPOV issue really. These sources were being used to reference a 2 line academic criticism of some Father's rights movement statistics. The POV of the father's rights movement takes up the majority of the paragraph - its critics take up 2 lines. Considering the number of criticisms of these stats 2 lines is short but I think anymore would indeed be undue. The talk page was deadlocked - I have found other sources published in The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health and by the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration - we'll see if this resolves the issue. Thanks for the reply--Cailil ^talk 17:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Football Teams

This is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vojvodina national football team. A large number of articles about "national" football teams have been created using this source http://roonba.50webs.com/ . There are no other seeming sources. Can http://roonba.50webs.com/ on its own constitute a reliable source? JASpencer (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say no, it does not constitute a reliable source. I don't see any "about us" information on the page that tells me it is anything more than a personal fan website. How do we know that the information listed is accurate? Where does the website obtain its information? What sort of fact checking is in place? Since we don't know, we can not rely on it. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Roads2HyCom

Hi, there is discussion on User_talk:Mion#Hydrogen_car about Roads2HyCom, which is a project from the university of Aachen, it runs as a wiki however editors are granted acces on request, point is they are collecting extensive information, like on watermanagement in fuel cells, hydrogen valves, hydrogen infrastructure, etc, articles in general are referenced, so as it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception, (read the last two words), i would like to have your opinions on it. thanks. Mion (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikis are not generally considered a reliable source because of the fact that anyone can publish there. However, this may be ok if it is the only source on a particular subject. If a better source is available i would leave this one out. --neonwhite user page talk 18:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast - Television and radio industry news, data and analysis

I've never really understood where there line is drawn, particularly when the legal disclaimers, naturally, try and disclaim liability for everything. I haven't looked, but it is it the case that even the likes of the BBC, The Times etc have such disclaimers ?

Anyway, on to this one -

"Whilst we take every care to ensure that the information on this website is accurate and complete, some of it may be supplied to us by third parties and we are unable to check its accuracy or completeness."

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/terms_and_conditions.html

Published by medium sized publisher Emap -

"A mostly paid-for publication, Broadcast has a circulation of 12,269 (ABC audited) and readership of over 72,000 industry professionals"

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/about-us.html

If it wasn't for the 3rd party supplied material or if it was syndicated from PA/Reuters etc, I'd have said reliable, but since we don't know, what do you make of it ? Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think legal disclaimers shoiuld be largely viewed as a 'get out' in case someone doesnt fact check properly, i doubt it effects the reliability a great deal. --neonwhite user page talk 18:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If a news source isn't willing to go to court to validate the truth of what it claims, then it probably isn't a reliable source. Such "get out" clauses are generally used by tabloids and other popularist news organisations to try and avoid legal action, or any requirement to correct errors in what they report. Reliable sources like BBC News don't have disclaimers saying "we don't check what we print, and don't claim that it represents an accurate version of events". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of a source

See the discussion at Talk:Chocolate Thai#RfC: Cannabis culture as a source. Uncle G (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Saul David: The Indian Mutiny

How neutral, reliable and third party source can Saul David and his book be considered in context of Indian Rebellion of 1857. This author is a BBC commentator, with this book as the only proof of his acquaintance of Indian history. However, his views appear so much oriented in favour of a certain POV that he is extensively cited on the said page to edit facts that were written there for ages now. He has become such a God of that page that sometimes it is stiffling. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really a scholarly book; "the most recent 'popular history' of events", according to one mention in peer-reviewed work; "bracing if conventional"; "a narrative histories reiterating the British version of the ‘Mutiny’"; and so on. I would urge against relying too much on works of popular history written by a popular broadcaster without peer-review. Even a review in the mainstream press has doubts about it. Relata refero (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Saul David does not just work for the BBC, he has made programs for all of the UK’s TV stations. Moreover he is visiting professor of military history at the university of Hull, as such he is a recognised academic authority in the field of milliray history.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Dr Saul David did a PHD in the Indina Mutiny. [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Wikipedia articles cannot be quoted?

I understand that Wikipedia articles cannot be quoted, but can a writing in another article with a reference to an existing Wikipedia article be outright rejected on basis of this policy? That would simply amount to acknowledging that the original article used is a farce and the editors there are idiots? Reference: Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857 Patiala & Jaipur (history sections of later two used). --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is not verifiable. What it acknowleges is that wikipedia articles are not always accurate and also subject to change. --neonwhite user page talk 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Pajamas Media

Is a collaborative blog like Pajamas Media a reliable source? // Liftarn (talk)

link to their page - http://pajamasmedia.com/

link to their contact - http://pajamasmedia.com/pages/2006/08/contact_us.php

the source is being used to state that "pajamas media reported that...." [58]

is it reliable enough for that style of phrasing? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Now you're also getting into the issue of notability. // Liftarn (talk)

Why would you claim Pajamas Media is a blog? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the obvious reason is that it is a blog (or a collaborative blog). // Liftarn (talk)

In its "About Us" section it states "Besides adding to its blog network, through its portal, PJM now provides exclusive news and opinion 24/7 in text, video and podcast from correspondents in over forty countries. Pajamas Media also has its own weekly show on XM satellite radio – PJM Political – and syndicates its original material like a news agency." That seems to be more than a "collaborative blog". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how. Relata refero (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pajamas Media is a right-wing politically extremist organization, and not all that notable. If they have anything worthwhile to say, it will be repeated in mainstream outlets, and we can use those as sources. If something is said only by Pajamas Media and not picked up by anyone else, it's probably either non-notable or inaccurate and should not be included in Wikipedia articles. Although it isn't a blog per se, it is a blog aggregator (see [59], cited in the Wikipedia article) and thus is not a reliable source for anything except information about itself and its own operations. *** Crotalus *** 08:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Right-wing yes, but "extremist" - that's just hyperbole. Pajamas Media appears to be the right-wing counterpart of Common Dreams. Currently Wikipedia links to Common Dreams 1435 times. Admittedly, the majority of these are not actual references in articles, but certainly a significant number are. Until we have a new policy that covers these kinds of sources on both sides of the political spectrum, we're going to have to be a wee bit more even-handed. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how valid that comparison is, given that much of CommonDreams' content is reprints from mainstream sources like the AP. I just randomly opened links from the first 500, and got the Philadelphia Inquirer, the New York Times, two stories from The Independent, and a transcript of Q&A at the White House with Ari Fleischer. <eleland/talkedits> 03:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be re-publishing original content from Common Dreams either; it is not a reliable source, and for many of the same reasons. We should only cite Common Dreams when they are the only available source for notable content that was published elsewhere. According to their Wikipedia article, Common Dreams "re-publishes syndicated content from Associated Press, columnists such as the late Molly Ivins, and news stories from a number of mainstream mass-market newspapers." If the same reliable material is available freely from a more neutral site, we should use that other site instead. If Common Dreams is the only way to get the content online without charge, then that link is better than nothing and aids in verifying the content of the citation. *** Crotalus *** 04:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better comparison is to CounterPunch, which is currently linked to over 1000 times on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

PajamasMedia is more than just a collaborative blog. It includes notable media personalities, including names on the left, and it has attracted $3.5 million in venture capital to start with.

If it says "pajamas media reported that...." then it's worth using as a reference. In the example at the top of this section, a link goes to a PajamasMedia article by Nidra Poller, who also writes for National Review, City-Journal, among others. It's definitely not just some blogger without an organization standing behind them.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's just the problem. Any right-wing extremist can go to Scaife, Bradley, or Coors for a handout, and suddenly they've got an office, a respectable-sounding think tank name, and an "organization standing behind them." We need to take into account whether we're talking about a genuine movement, or just astroturfing. The Scientologists have tons of money, too, but we don't go around generally citing them as reliable sources just because they have a big and rich organization. *** Crotalus *** 04:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. There's clearly money in this. It's a real media business.

Furthermore, it's possible to believe they could fool a lot of people but not David Corn.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually we do treat the Scientologists as reliable sources on issues concerning the Church of Scientology. Though obviously we would not treat them as a reliable source on, say, psychiatry, where their views are so fringey and extreme that citing them would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that this source is considered reliable by recognised reliable sources? Where is its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? If this really is a reliable source, show that they're cited by other reliable sources, and that they have such a reputation with those sources. The issue of money is irrelevant; tabloids often have a large income and are highly profitable, but that doesn't make them a reliable source. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair question but I don't think it can be the only criterion. PajamasMedia is still quite small in comparison to the networks. I think a lot of sources considered reliable on WP wouldn't pass that test.

The track records of its contributors is a gauge similar to what you're asking for. If their writers are commonly accepted by other reliable sources, then that says quite a bit.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a determining factor. To quote WP:V, reliable sources are defined as "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The determining factor is the reputation of the publishers, not the writers. The majority of blogs are unreliable sources, as WP:V acknowledges, because their publishers do not exercise editorial control. Pajamas Media seems to be no exception to that rule. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Like anything, it depends on the context. Pajamas Media is probably not going to be the most reliable or objective source on most topics. But blogs can be reliable sources about themselves. It is possible that if Pajamas Media had some notable involvement in a subject, then we may want to go and cite Pajamas Media as the original source to ensure accuracy (along with 3rd party sources to show relevance), and in that limited case at least, they would be a reliable source. Dhaluza (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, it's hardly a blog any more. It has a number of editors, correspondents in 48 countries, and syndicates its original content. That doesn't make it the New York Times, but it's considerably more than just a blog. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So does the Huffington Post. They're both still blogs. If a notable individual writes something on PJM, we can quote that person; but a person does not become a notable opinion purely through writing for HP or PJM. Relata refero (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I note in the page that Jay helpfully links above, PJM describes itself as a news blog. Relata refero (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• http://info.pajamasmedia.com/pj-pressroom.php "About Pajamas Media: Pajamas Media is a new blogging venture..."
• Luntz, Frank (2007). Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear. Hyperion. "right-wing bloggers, and a new group of centrist and conservative bloggers led by Roger L. Simon and Charles Johnson named their new blog Pajamas Media"
• Bruns, Axel (2007). "Methodologies for Mapping the Political Blogosphere: An Exploration Using the IssueCrawler Research Tool". First Monday. 12 (5). Chicago. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)"the usual suspects, U.S. pundit-bloggers Instapundit and Talking Points Memo, as well as the commercial conservative group blog Pajamas Media"

<eleland/talkedits> 06:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"That's a fair question but I don't think it can be the only criterion." - It is the criteria. WP:RS says:

This page in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

"I think a lot of sources considered reliable on WP wouldn't pass that test." - Then they aren't really reliable sources, their use in any article should be strongly discouraged, and they should definitely not be cited in any controversial, notable, or BLP articles. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You've made a big jump from "based on" to "use". While an article based only on Pajamas Media as a source, without 3rd party verification, would probably be deleted; that does not mean we cannot use them as a source in any possible context. Dhaluza (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your semantic interpretation, in which it would be allowable to use any source in an article, so long as some other reliable sources are also cited, is a much, much larger leap, and one that I doubt you will find much support for. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted what I said. I did not say it was allowable to use any source in an article, what I said was that there are some exceptional cases when it would be allowable to use a source like Pajamas Media. People tend to take policy and guideline to their absolute extremes, and we need to remember not to throw common sense out the window. Dhaluza (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

the source is being used to state that "pajamas media reported that...." [60]

is it reliable enough for that style of phrasing? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly doubt it; they don't have any reputation yet for the rigorous fact-checking that goes with investigative journalism. If their claim is picked up by RSes - say the Jerusalem Post, which might well be interested in this instance - then it can be reported as a notable claim. Otherwise I think we are stretching things a little too far. Relata refero (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's get back to basics here. As WP:RS says, "in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The political orientation of the source isn't a criterion, nor is the medium used to publish it, nor is the number of editors nor even the fact that it has editors in the first place. (What do they actually do?) The nutshell statement instead gives five distinct criteria. Let's consider these and how they apply to Pajamas Media, and by extension to any other group blog:

• Reliability. Some people seem to interpret this as meaning "is it compatible with my ideological outlook?", but it's more useful to think of it as a function of the remainder of the criteria. If a source meets the remaining criteria, I'd consider it reliable.

• Third-party. Is the source published by the writer or a third party? Blogging platforms such as PM blur this division. The platform may be owned by the third party (PM in this case) but as far as I'm aware, the act of publication is carried out by the writer. I'm not aware of there being any intermediate stage, such as a piece going to an editor for review, before something is published. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.) It seems to be essentially a self-publishing platform for a number of approved contributors.

• Published. Obviously unpublished sources can't be used, since they're not verifiable. This at least isn't a problem with online sources, though it may be an issue if pieces disappear from the web without being archived in places like archive.org.

• Fact-checking and accuracy. This is the key issue. Does the source go through a process of review and checking? Quality publications have a highly structured approach to doing this (see for instance the Detroit Free Press editorial checklist). Blogs generally don't have a process like this. Even newspaper blogs don't operate the same way as the rest of the operation - for instance, the Guardian's "Comment is free" blog editor, Georgina Henry, says: "I won't be doing what I've spent my life as an editor on the paper doing - close copy editing and going back and forth to writers working with them to change their pieces, improve their pieces or think about arguments they haven't thought about. The nature of the blog is that we will have to try and let go a bit and let peple say what they want within the bounds of libel and the constraints of our blogging guidelines." [61] I'd be very surprised indeed if PM was run any differently.

• Reputation. It's not enough to have a review process - the process also has to work and to be seen to work. If other reliable sources agree that a particular source is reliable and quote from it, we can say that it has a reputation for reliability. Is PM ever quoted by mainstream sources? A look at Google News suggests not.

I'd also like to highlight two other important points mentioned in WP:V: "If the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." If a blog is the only source for an assertion of fact, that should raise warning signs. We should never rely on a blog as a sole source. Second, "Questionable sources ... include websites and publications that ... rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Most blogs are heavily reliant on personal opinions; they're effectively web-based op-ed columns, and we've always been wary about using op-eds as reliable sources (see e.g. Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 21#Op-Ed pieces - verifiable sources?).

Given all of these issues, I think it would be advisable to avoid using PM and similar blogs as sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Avoid, yes. Eliminate all possibility, no. Dhaluza (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so. We shouldn't shut the door on blogs - after all, it's possible that some might meet the criteria - but if we're faced with a choice between a blog and a non-blog RS, we should prefer the non-blog; and if the blog is the only source for a fact, we shouldn't use it. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, but this is not a mere blog. To quote:

"PJM now provides exclusive news and opinion 24/7 in text, video and podcast from correspondents in over forty countries. Pajamas Media also has its own weekly show on XM satellite radio – PJM Political – and syndicates its original material like a news agency." [62].

They have a "Supervising Executive Editor", "Supervising Editor" and regional editors with Nidra Poller, the writer of the article in question as the Paris Editor. They even have a 'Director of Business Development' a 'Technical Advisor – Advertising' and an 'Attorney'.

It is my belief that there should be no problem with mentioning a report made by one of their regional editors and reporters as: "pajamas media reported that...." [63]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that input, Jaakobou. However, it actually highlights several of the issues that I raised above. There often seems to be a misconception that the status of a publication (newspaper, blog, broadcast or whatever), its output (commentary, original reporting, etc) or its organisation are what counts. Your comments address all three aspects - the fact that PM does original reporting and distributes its material via a number of outlets, and has a number of individuals described as "editors". But these aren't determinative factors. Go back to the nutshell criteria in WP:V: "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The criteria are about editorial process and the publication's reputation for applying that process. In the case of PM, it's completely unclear that they have any kind of process for fact-checking and accuracy (what do those "editors" actually do?), and from the lack of reliable third-party use of their reporting it seems unlikely that they have a mainstream reputation as a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a policy based explanation on what makes for "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" for the requested phrasing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If "reputation for accuracy" depends on the organization and not the writers and editors, then what you're saying is that no new news organization can be considered a reliable source, no matter who stands behind it.

I would then suggest that we not say "PajamasMedia reported" but say instead the author's name, and see if that name can stand on its own. As I said above, the article we're talking about is by Nidra Poller, who's written for several publications most of us would call reliable.

It seems to me that right-wing sources tend to be challenged here more often than left-wing ones.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a blog is a blog is a blog, with inherently uncertain fact-checking and accuracy standards, so therefore it should be treated as just a collection of opinions regardless of who's writing what. It's one thing for a reporter to write something for his/her newspaper, where that paper's editorial policies are in force, and a completely different thing if that same reporter is opining on a blog site, where that blog's policies, or lack thereof, are in place. The exception would be if the blog is only being referenced because it has a reprint of a newspaper piece, or news broadcast video that can't be otherwise easily referenced. Another possible exception could be newspaper blogs that have the same editorial policies as the news section in their main newspaper. An example would be the Washington Post, which has this as its editorial policy. The Post also maintains a number of blogs, like this one called The Fix. According to this Washington Post blogging guide, the Post's blogs are suppose to be "All blogs should draw on our principles for Washington Post journalism on the web, including meeting our standards of accuracy and fairness and rules for expressing personal opinions."

Yes, and this appetite for a blanket ban on blogs would also eliminate blogs by journalists, where they report the story behind the story, or include additional details on stories that were cut due to time and space limitations. These are an excellent source to bring additional detail and context into articles. Dhaluza (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dhaluza: The problem is that WP editors will never really know the reason why certain "facts" are deleted from a published newspaper or magazine article. Either the legal department or the editor-in-chief could have conceivably objected to these "facts" for a variety of possible reasons. As WP editors, we'll never know what happened and taking the journalist's word for why these certain "facts" were left out of the article sets a dangerous precedent. My opinion? Any information presented on blogs, unless they represent the opinions of a notable blogger and used in the subject's own WP article, should be taken with a grain of salt and not used to source facts in other WP articles. J Readings (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It perhaps might be worthwhile for Wikipedia to start a "Reliable & Unreliable Sources" project to mark at least the most popular alternative news media outlets like the Washington Post blogs, Common Dreams, Pajamas Media, and so on as being acceptible, unacceptible, acceptible under this circumstances, unacceptible under these circumstances, and such as a guide to Wiki editors unsure about which news outlets can be considered reliable. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDB

I'm sure this has come up before but i can't find it. Are bio's on Imdb considered unreliable or self-published? Do they have enough editorial oversight to be included in an article about a living person. --neonwhite user page talk 15:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been much debate on the reliability of IMDB. There has been no consensus that it is considered a reliable source, although some assert that it should be. IMDB republish information from anonymous users that is often wrong, and they don't name their sources. According to some editors in previous discussions on Wikipedia, it is difficult, if not impossible, to get such errors corrected. There is a discussion here on user ratings but it branches off into the topic of generally reliability of IMDB for everything else. Also note that the use of IMDB references in biographies has been criticised before eg. here. I have not seen any evidence that IMDB is considered a reliable source by other reliable source and by film industry experts, so in my judgement it isn't one, but if anyone wants to present such evidence and argue that it is, then they're welcome to try. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically some items of trivia appeared recently on a imdb profile in the exact wording that unsourced info appears on the wikipedia article which suggests to me that the imdb bios might be using wikipedia articles as a source making it unreliable itself. --neonwhite user page talk 18:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Amusing isn't it? The issue of the Wikipedia/IMDB feedback loop has come up before, and was one of the reasons IMDB was discounted as a reliable source. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Islam and domestic violence, Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari, Aisha and Mohammad, Robert Spencer

Please comment/rule upon the reliability of these sources:

• Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 2127 - see Sahih Muslim
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715 - see Sahih al-Bukhari
• Robert Spencer Quran commentary (Sura 4) see Robert Spencer
  
  

For the material removed through this action.

My personal view is that the first two compel the conclusions underlying the inclusion of the content. An additional and secondary source was requested so I provided the Quran commentary of Robert Spencer, who's a published writer on the subject of Islam and also occasionally engaged as a commentator on that subject by the BBC, CNN, the New York Times and numerous other publications and news sources.66.29.115.69 (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that Robert Spencer is not a scolar in the subject his views are basicly no more reliable than any other random person. If notable enough (and avoiding WP:UNDUE) you could use it as a source to his own views. // Liftarn (talk)

The first two are strong reliable sources. And using Spencer as an additional secondary source here seems to be exactly how he should be used, regardless of the POV issues some editors have with him. (And saying he's not a scholar when he's got multiple degrees in the study of religion is awfully silly.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

He has one masters degree in religious studies with a thesis about the conversion of an Anglican (John Henry Newman) to Catholicism. So in other words he has no academic credentials as a scholar of Islam, and he certainly has no academic credentials as an expert on Islam and domestic violence. If any reliable authority considers him a "scholar" in this area it would have nothing to do with his degrees. In the realm of silliness Kyaa's suggestion reigns supreme.PelleSmith (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're under the mistaken belief that a masters of religious studies only focuses on one religion, it does not. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not mistaken at all. I have years of first hand experience in the field of religious studies and ample knowledge of the nature of degrees in the field, at least here in the United States. Even if Spencer's thesis related directly to Islam and domestic violence he would not have academic credentials as an "expert" since he holds only a masters degree. However, the truth is even more bleak since he may have taken a course or two on Islam at most given that his thesis belongs in the History of Christianity or some related field. From his academic credentials it would be correct to claim that he is a scholar of John Henry Newman, and possibly whatever framework within which he undertook his thesis work (although the latter would be a weak claim since masters work is very superficial, and only the thesis work even remotely suggests intensive study of a subject matter). Your suggestion still remains silly and I suggest you stop making it unless you want to keep on pointing to Spencer's lack of academic credentials as an expert on Islam. Also, could you please explain what other degrees he holds in the study of religion as you claimed there were multiple such degrees above? Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Being needlessly picky much? Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So its picky to point out that you're suggestion about his academic qualifications simply doesn't hold water? Or is it picky to ask that you produce evidence of the multiple degrees you claimed he has? I don't find it picky to insist on the truth, particularly when something untrue is being flung around to support a particular perspective over another. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The first two sources are primary sources not secondary sources. Spencer was discussed before. Spencer is not an scholar on Islam. He does not publish his works in presses that practice blind peer-reviewing. Having said that spencer is notable as a critic, so his views may be used in criticism of islam article but not in the main space--Be happy!! (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the first two sources were removed. It was only after the Spencer secondary source was added that it was removed. Removing the spencer source would have made sense and discussing that would make sense, removing it all is somewhat less sensible. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That content dispute position should be addressed at the talk page. --Be happy!! (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, there are three ways to think about the word "source": It can refer to the Author (in this case Spencer), it can refer to the specific work by the author (in this case his opinion piece entitled: "Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 4, “Women,” verses 17-34") and it can refer to the medium (a book, a TV show, a website, a blog, etc.). Reliability can be affected by any of the three... Spencer the author is a reliable source for his views... "Blogging the Qur'an" is a reliable source for Spencer's views... but blogs are generally not considered reliable except in specific situations... and the Hot Air blog site is not a reliable source. If he had written the same thing in say the New York Times, or published it in a book, there would be no problem... but a blog posting changes things. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed Spencer in the past for numerous times. He writes for public not for academic circles. He does not publish his works through academic presses that practice blind peer-reviewing. His essence of scholarship and his agenda has been questioned by several academics. Of course he is a reliable for his own article but not for other articles. If he says something that no respected academic says he should not be used, otherwise that scholar should be used instead of him. --Be happy!! (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:V does not require that an expert be published for academic eyes only to be an expert. If it does, please quote exactly where it does so so I may become enlightened. And simply because his viewpoint is challenged by others does not negate the fact that it is reliable and verifiable. IDONTLIKEIT doesn't hold much water, Aminz. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In contentious issues, we should stick to peer-reviewed product, not just the product of a person who has also published peer-reviewed work. Relata refero (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As Aminz has said, we've discussed this issue of Spencer numerous times already. It's not simply his viewpoint which is challenged by others. It is his very competence in the subject which is challenged. The precise nature of his qualification, as well as the publisher, have all been examined in previous discussions. ITAQALLAH 18:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

His competence has been challenged by one scholar whose objectivity is open to doubt. Daniel Pipes has a PhD in medieval Islamic history from Harvard, and has strongly endorsed Spencer's approach. Arrow740 (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And Daniel Pipes' objectivity is not open to doubt? Don't make me laugh. Relata refero (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes now grants credentials too and takes the responsibility of Spencer's works?!! Do you think Pipes has much time reading Spencer's books? According to the Nation, he seems to be pretty busy: "Based in Philadelphia and headed by anti-Arab propagandist Daniel Pipes, Campus Watch unleashed an Internet firestorm in late September, when it posted "dossiers" on eight scholars who have had the audacity to criticize US foreign policy and the Israeli occupation"[64] --Be happy!! (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed in spirit. I think that Spencer's views could be considered an expert in the case, but this topic should be easily found elsewhere so we should avoid using his self-published blogging of the material and make an effort to find similar content published by a third party. I can't imagine that Islam is different enough that there aren't "Muslim Book Stores" out there with tomes of experts picking over every stroke of the pen of the Koran. I've suggested that the editors of that page find one of these on the talk page of the article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a third party publishing Robert Spencer where he raises on of the first two reports (re domestic violence and Aisha) in his analysis.66.29.115.69 (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

FPM has already been discussed on this page and is considered unacceptable. Relata refero (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All three sources are unreliable. The first two, because they are primary sources. The third one, because up to date, no rationale has been given for his reliability.Bless sins (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls

Please comment/rule upon the reliability of these sources:

• http://www.awn.com/mag/issue5.07/5.07pages/demottppg.php3
• http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,667918,00.html

For the material removed through this action.

It seems to me, as well as Marcus2, that these sources are unreliable. They display factual errors and seem to be highly promotional. Animation World Magazine does not have a final say as to whether a show was the network's highest-rated premiere. In fact, if it was, the network would have said so on television, etc. From my knowledge, this show was moderately popular with children only, especially the younger ones, and was never the number one highest-rated show on the network. Take Scooby-Doo shows, for instance. And Cartoon Network never made it that big on prime-time cable television, as Time Warner suggests. Nickelodeon seems to be the predominant network with contemporary Nielsen ratings. Cartoon Network doesn't even appear in the top 20. I remember it vaguely, but I am 100% certain that Cartoon Network shows weren't in there. And as Marcus said, there's no need to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Let all of us be satisfied and move on. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Being the highest rated première in the history of one network is not that important anyway. This gets an official "who cares?" from me. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree 100% with you. That's one reason why it shouldn't stay. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It is shown just to show that it is the highest rated premiere. To me, it is also "Who cares?" but someone just had to delete them immediately. Why not just leave it alone if you don't like it? What I mean is like do you think other people care if they saw that source? They would just see it and leave it alone. It's like whether it's there or not, eventually people will look into it and not look into it again because they already know. And it just had to be deleted. Remember that we don't control those people especially American kids. If they like the Powerpuff Girls, let them. If they don't like or don't give a damn at all, let them. Why do you even bother? I have a feeling that now I know why Marcus2 is getting on Rattis1 and Night Leon's nerves. He doesn't care what others think. He would just delete them whether the American kids chose to love the Powerpuff Girls or hate them and I have a strong point that Marcus2 has this problem. He doesn't care about any other people's feelings. And no offense but, he seems to be only thinking about himself. And I hope you are not that kind of person because that kind of person never think out of the box. Adam Heart03 (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong with these sources or there presentation. There is a problem with a kid and/or his mom edit warring, ranting, and forum shopping to find new rant locations. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Youtube

IMO there should be a definite guideline for links to Youtube. There are multiple problems with them. Many of them are self-published of unknown or dubious authorship. Some of them are copyright violations. Any of them may be removed at any time, and many of them linked in wikipedia are already dead. Currently there are several thousand links to youtube in the main namespace.

Any opinions? `'Míkka>t 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We can not have a general opinion about everything which is on youtube. Each case should be judged separately. Sometimes youtube is usefull. Regarding copyright problems it was a long discussion which ended in no consensus.--MariusM (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To make this clear, that was not a discussion as to youtube's reliability as a source but a proposal for automatic removal of youtube in external links, obviously not everything on youtube is a copyright violation so there was bound to be objections to automatically removing them all. --neonwhite user page talk 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a link to the discussion? `'Míkka>t 22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

With pleasure. Check Wikipedia:External links/YouTube.--MariusM (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally youtube would follow the same rules as any source that has no editorial oversight. In most cases it's unreliable, unless it's a channel by a reliable source and there is no doubt to the authorship. --neonwhite user page talk 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. http://www.youtube.com/BBC would be reliable (BBC is the publisher, YouTube is just the delivery mechanism). This is the exception though; when YouTube is in effect used as a self-publishing mechanism/video blog, then the usual reliable source rules apply. But also consider that YouTube is often a primary source of new data; in this case, Wikipedia articles should preferably cite secondary sources discussing these primary sources. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Question About Extremist Sources

Does "themselves" in the guideline below mean that an extremist source can be used only in an article about itself, or does the plural infer that extremist sources can used in articles about each other? For example, could a Christian apologist scholar be used as a source regarding the notoriety of an organization promoting atheism?

Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution. Patrick Harrigan (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question, actually. There is a tendency on WP to use extremist X to talk about extremist Y, when X and Y are on opposite sides of the spectrum. This is possibly because both X and Y are so marginal only the people who really, really hate them or really, really agree notice that they exist.

However, extremist X is not really a reliable source for extremist Y unless they happen to be part of the same broad movement. Relata refero (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the anti-extremist clause is to stop the propagation of unreliable information through Wikipedia. For that purpose, allowing extremists to be used as reliable sources for other extremists makes no sense. Why would one set of extremists be considered experts on another set of extremists? And note: "and even then with caution"; extremists are not always reliable, even when commenting on themselves, and if other sources are available then they should be preferably used. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure what the 'purpose' of that clause is, frankly; I see no reason why it needs exist when WP:NPOV insulates us from extremist viewpoints by definition. If it exists as a reminder, then it is patently obvious that Stormfront is a reliable source for information on Neo-nazis, whether or not there is any direct affiliation. Which is why I said "broad movement" above.

I agree, however, that if other sources are available, they should be used. Relata refero (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Relata and Chris. I'd appreciate any guidance you could provide regarding this discussion page about a pro-atheist organization. It's a difficult situation, because the non-profit corporation operates mostly as an online publisher in a niche little covered by printed sources. The organization's officers have ponderously removed important self-published information from (and about) their online publishing assets that would provide balance to the Wiki page (WP?), but continue to rely on primarily self-published material for the article. A former corporate officer (Lippard) of the organization is adding material (self-published by the organization) without prior discussion, and appears to be claiming NPOV. Patrick Harrigan (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, even two sources part of the same movement are not necessarily reliable about each other--factions always exists, and may not be obvious to those unfamiliar--and the names are often chosen so as to disguise any disagreements. It would probably be a mistake to assume that all neoNazis like each other, or will give a reliable account of what another member of the movement believes. I would not trust a Christian apologist to represent all Christians--many of the greatest have slanted their expositions to a particular denomination. DGG (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Kinyobi (magazine)

Could someone please make a judgement about whether this is a viable source for use on Wikipedia or not?

It's a Japanese magazine called "Shukan Kinyobi" literally "Weekly Friday". I tried to use it on the Ikuhiko Hata page, but was told it is part of a North Korean propaganda machine that created the "comfort women problem" or something like that.

Thanks for any input, and any peer reviews on the comfort women or Ikuhiko Hata pages are quite welcome.

Here is the magazine's website http://www.kinyobi.co.jp

Yaki-gaijin (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can newspaper Op-Ed's ever be considered reliable sources?

From what I can see, newpaper op-ed's are generally unvetted opinion pieces, very much like letters to the editor [65] [66]. Obviously, the content can run from malicious political rants to thoughtful ruminations, but in either case, it is still just opinion. Obviously, as with opinions in general, you have a far, if not extreme range of credibility in op-ed writers.

So my basic, hopefully simple question is: can a Wikipedia article ever use an op-ed as a reliable source for content, especially if it involves a politically-tinged story or anecdote where the op-ed is the sole source? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing published in a newspaper is unvetted. It all has to have editorial approval and, if necessary, pass the newspaper's lawyers. The newspaper is publishing it and therefore legally liable for its content. An op-ed piece is no different to someone writing a book with their opinions in and having it published. It still counts as a published source, and at the very least legitimately represents a particular viewpoint. However, like all sources it has to be used judiciously. If it states a remarkable point, which no other source has repeated, then that needs to be made clear and not treated as a widely accepted fact. Tyrenius (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Much published in newspapers goes unvetted, as you would know if you havd ever worked in the industry, and is so demonstrated by the continuous levels of complaints to the Press Complaints Commission and to the High Court in the form of [libel]] actions. To me, newspapers are one of the least trustworthy sources I could possibly think of. Literally one-day wonders. Until quite recently journalism was universally regarded as the lowest 'profession'. Newspapers publish endless lies and utterly twisted stories. Surely Wikipedia can do better than that. Next you'll be citing the notorious BBC. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers are accepted as sources on wikipedia, as is the BBC. Tyrenius (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on what you are citing it for... An Op-ed piece is a reliable source for statements about what the author said in the piece... for statements about the opinion of the author... but it would not be reliable for statement of facts. So, if Al Gore writes an Op-ed piece in which he says: "The sky is falling"... you can say things like "Al Gore has stated that the sky is falling<cite to op-ed piece>", or "According to Al Gore, the sky is falling<cite to op-ed>"... but you can not say: "The sky is falling<cite to op-ed piece>. In other words, information taken from an Op-ed pieces should be phrased as being the opinion of the author and directly attributed. Do you see the difference? Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking in terms of an Op-Ed piece written by a non-notable or partisan author stating something like, say, "Al Gore believes the sky is really falling" and then having a Wikipedia editor sourcing that to add "Al Gore believes the sky is falling" in the Al Gore wiki as a statement of fact because the Op-Ed was published in, say, the New York Post. Would this be kosher? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See this essay on fact laundering for an argument for "no" Slp1 (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Short -- too short -- but very applicable, especially in the way factoids get created and endlessly circulated among political media sites these days. You have an unproven assertion (perhaps even one easily disprovable with little research) appearing in an Op-Ed column in a less than journalistically stellar newspaper, which then gets picked up on by some bloggers who take it as a fact and spread it around some more, and which eventually makes it into a Wikipedia article with a ref back to the newspaper as a reliable source.

But WP:LAUNDER is only an essay -- can this really be used in an argument to remove a highly dubious factoid, especially one that has some hard nosed defenders, from a Wikipedia article? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Blueboar - published op-eds acquire a certain visibility, and an opinion expressed on the op-ed page of the New York Times may be more notable than one expressed on a blog. However, op-eds are a dime a dozen, and efforts to include a specific op-ed are sometimes efforts to prominently display a particular POV. In any case, op-eds are not news, and need to be cited and attributed as opinion rather than fact. What's the specific source you have a question about in reference to this? MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. Tyrenius (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with MastCell that some details about what fact, what newspaper, etc etc would be helpful at this point. Slp1 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to be really cautious here -- my, um, "spirited debates" on the matter has gotten me into some trouble in the past, as well as caused some sort of OTRS (I don't know any of the details, though.) But in any case... this is a cache of the Op-Ed (it's no longer on the newspaper site). It's the "Mother's Day" anecdote that's the issue. If you Google "Mother's Day" with the author's name, you'll see that the anecdote got some circulation among conservative/right wing blog/media sites, but that Op-Ed is the sole source of the anecdote. Even though the Op-Ed was from a few years ago, the Mother's Day bit was added to a Wikipedia article just this past September. I first tried to remove it on the basis of certain content issues, and then tried to at least get it modified, but it has been a battle, to say the least. I belatedly discovered that it was only an Op-Ed opinion piece, which struck me as being perhaps in violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sources; however, WP:RS doesn't discuss at all Op-Eds or even editorials in general, and WP:V doesn't seem to clarify things either. I've cited WP:PROVEIT and such in the past to no avail. WP:REDFLAG seems to be the closest applicable guideline I could find. It just seems logical that opinion pieces should not be considered reliable sources, with the only exception being as described above -- if it's written by a notable person, like Al Gore, and used only in the context of showing what his opinion is. A penny for your thoughts.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A difficult point. If it is the case that this particular op-ed is frequently quoted, it counts as a notable opinion from that point of view. However, as a source of facts - "A former member of the Home Guard has pointed out that Bush's physical was on Mothers Day, when he seems to recall everything was shut" - I think it sounds faintly ridiculous. The man's credentials alone don't really qualify him as a notable opinion, but if the piece is widely quoted it might be notable. I'd lean towards is not being notable enough for inclusion in a piece on the controversy if uncorroborated in other reliable sources, especially in those reporting facts. Relata refero (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the Campenni "Mother's Day" report was published as a guest column, not a blind letter to the editor. The newspaper did check what Campenni was stating, they did not publish it as a random letter. Campenni also mentions records which support his explanation, and that he is speaking as someone who was there so has some authority about the situation. (details of the previous discussion are in the article Talk page and archives) From a glance at the Washington Times archives, the paper apparently knows him well enough to have published several items from him. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've already cited, [67] [68], Op-Eds appear to be opinion pieces generally treated much more like Letters to the Editor than news pieces that are fact checked. That Media Center guide lists the Washington Times, where the Op-Ed appeared (and which has, shall we say, an "odd" reputation) down at 100th place in national circulation, and the Washington Post at 4th. The Post, like most newspapers, copyedits opinion pieces, but does not vet them for accuracy. From that Post link, there is this exchange between the Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, and a reader:

Washington, D.C.: "Hi, My question is regarding the opinion/editorial sections of the newspaper. I think that these columns should be fact-checked before being published. I don't think that they should get a free pass on facts just because they are opinion pieces. Recently, The Post has been carrying articles that have been outright lies."

Deborah Howell: "Fact checking is done by the columnists. Copy editors do a lot of checking, but it is not like fact checkers in the magazine world. If columnists make a mistake, those are usually corrected in their columns or on Page 2 if the columnists are in the news pages."

If the Post doesn't fact check opinion pieces for accuracy, as apparently is the case generally with newspapers, why should we expect a much less reputable publication like the Washington Times to do so? And in regards to Campenni, some if not most of his contributions to the Washington Times have indeed just been letters to the editor: [69], [70]. And considering that his letters and op-eds only circulate among conservative/right wing media sites, especially blogs, that doesn't appear to make him a notable enough authority to give his opinions a "Reliable Source" source to justify adding content based on them. But that's just my opinion, which is why I'm bringing up the matter on this noticeboard. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't expect them to check facts on the Op-Ed page. But in this case they didn't just print the words, they did check what he was saying. You'll have to challenge this specific article on a different basis than the general policy about opinion pieces because the newspaper did treat it differently than a "too many potholes in the city" random op-ed. He's being used for the Mother's Day information, he has records supporting what he says, he has the experience to interpret the records, he has actually done scheduling for that squadron (and removed holidays from that schedule). -- SEWilco (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with these points you raise is that you're commenting as though you were told these things or heard them from someone else -- they are not in evidence anywhere. And according to this NPOV guideline: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." We've gone in endless circles over this, which is why I'm posting the situation here to get more neutral and authoritative opinions about whether an Op-Ed piece, which it certainly was, that was printed in a conservative/right wing newspaper, which the Washington Times certainly is, that only circulated in the greater conservative/right wing mediasphere, which was certainly the case, meets Wikipedia criteria as being enough of a reliable source to allow inclusion of content based on it. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The "highest" level where the anecdote was quoted was in the Weekly Standard here (down towards the bottom). And even the Wikipedia article on the Weekly Standard calls it "an example of advocacy journalism, a genre of journalism based around the expression of ideological opinion," which makes that publication rather dubious as a reliable source as well. With the election season getting into gear, we can expect a great many factoids being created and spread, and with little help, as was the case in 2004, from traditionally reliable mainstream news sources in sorting out what's real, what's not, and even what's utter nonsense. Aside from this particular issue, it might be good for Wikipedia to better clarify its guidelines for acceptible sources and refs, and under what circumstances exceptions, if any, can be made. You have the situation now with the mainsteam media running their own blog sites of uncertain reliability, and with politically progessive web sites like Common Dreams seemingly now being more reliable than many mainstream sources.

As a secondary issue to the use of Op-Ed pieces, suppose the only source for a particular story that becomes widely circulated is an Op-Ed or blog piece. Let's also suppose that the story gets ignored or mentioned/passed along uncritically by one or more mainstream news sources. And finally suppose that the veracity of the story can be easily challenged by looking up primary sources, i.e., calendar dates, FOIA documents, government records, or such -- at what point does sourcing cross over into WP:OR if there is no other way to judge something, widely circulated or not, likely true or false, especially in terms of providing the best available info for a hopefully accurate Wikipedia article? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could say that "A former Texas Air National Guard pilot has claimed that the base would have been closed on Mothers' Day, when Bush's physical was allegedly scheduled." I don't think you can say anything more definite than that with the sources you've pointed to. MastCell ^Talk 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But does something like "A former Texas Air National Guard pilot has claimed that the base would have been closed on Mothers' Day, when Bush's physical was allegedly scheduled." belong in an encyclopedia/Wikipedia article? <personal attack removed following previous complaints SEWilco (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC) >

?? How was that a "personal attack" exactly? I was referring to the Washington Times, which is undoubtedly a highly conservative news source, and the story in question indeed only got circulated among other conservative/right media outlets and blogs. The political aspects are central to the whole topic matter, and I do believe it's not exactly appropriate to redact references to this, especially under the label of "personal attack". Your reasoning here would be most appreciated. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

An individual complained earlier about your personal attacks. Your phrasing was interpreted as a non-factual observation about that person. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain what you did in this context - I was referring to the Washington Times and conservative/right wing media. Again, how does "personal attack" fit in here? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And while we're on that particular Wiki article, another source (so to speak) of contention involves this section: if you take a look, you will note a certain lack of refs regarding a "Air Force style manual" that gets mentioned. Until it was reverted a month ago, there had been a reference to the definitive Air Force style manual I had put in a little while back. One of the arguments against my including that ref was that it constituted WP:OR, and that was the reason given for removing it.

The reason given for removing the "Air Force style manual you kept including in the article was that it was a version from 20 years later and couldn't be shown as relevant. It seems you are using this noticeboard as a way to fish for justifications to go back and make your changes to various articles which you feel strongly about. It might be better to avoid these highly contentious subjects for a while. Jmcnamera (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As has been discussed prior, the Wiki article refers very vaguely, with no refs whatsoever, to an unnamed "Air Force style manual" that supposedly shows the Killian documents having the incorrect format. However, as had been pointed out, the authoritative Air Force writing guide The Tongue and Quill, as well as document samples based on it, shows this not to be the case. So on one hand you have an utterly unsupported assertion; on the other, you have readily available refs -- in the Wikipedia world, what is suppose to have more weight? As far as your argument that the referenced "The Tongue and Quill" version was from 20 years later and hence not relevant -- again it had been pointed out with this reference that the "The Tongue and Quill" originated in the mid-70's, only a couple of years after the time of the Killian documents, and that the revisions since only "include improved organization of the information, a rearranged layout, updated quotes, art and word lists, and new information on writing and speaking such as persuasive communications, meetings, briefings and electronic communications."

And further, the validity of the "The Tongue and Quill" as "the" pertinent ref was buttressed by sample government memos contemporaneous to and even dated earlier than the Killian documents. These sample documents also match up with the format recommendations and samples from AF writing guides like the "The Tongue and Quill". It could be that the real question here is why you and some others have been so adamant about keeping assertions that are not only unreferenced, but are also contradicted by whatever references that can be located. It might perhaps be helpful for others on this noticeboard not familiar with the overall situation if you could explain that reasoning here for them. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Another "source" of contention was my inclusion of a selection of military memos from before and contemporaneous to the documents in question. For all the intense debates regarding formats, nobody had thought to locate other military memos from that era for comparison. In this case, there had been a lack of refs because the news media, for whatever reason, chose not to look this stuff up. What do you then do when you have a Wikipedia article discussing "Topic F" without any cites because there are no applicable reliable (or unreliable) sources to cite for "Topic F" aside using primary sources? Do you include those primary sources and risk charges of WP:OR, do you simply remove the Wiki section despite it being something that had been publicly discussed, or you just leave it in with a whole bunch of "citation needed" tags? Tricky business, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As you guys can see from above, this is not only tricky territory, but it's highly contentious, to put it mildly, as well. And there is more to it than the Op-Ed thing, so I'm really hoping for is some good, well-reasoned, authoritative guidance here that I can take to the appropriate Talk pages and get some long disputed issues finally put to rest. Thanks in advance for any assistance. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Op-eds are hardly unvetted--newspapers select (and pay for!) the ones they want to publish. Even individual items are sometimes--though rarely--not published in a particular newspaper. The relationship of the newspaper to the op-ed author resembles that of the publisher: they do not certify the accuracy as they do of news, but they do lend a degree of responsibility. and, as with a publisher, the authority beyond that is the authority of the particular writer and his reputation. Thinking of them as a "publisher" I think is the appropriate guideline for ther intermediate position.DGG (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The central point, though, is that Op-Eds are still only opinion pieces when all is said and done. And if the newspapers publishing them do not certify their accuracy as they do news pieces, doesn't that by definition make them all fail Wikipedia's stated standard for Reliable sources? From this:

• Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

So, for example, in the case of the Washington Post, their news pieces go through a full fact-check vetting process to ensure accuracy, but by their own admission, their Op-Eds do not, meaning that Op-Eds from even one of the best US newspapers apparently do not meet Wikipedia's stated criteria for reliable sources. Me thinks. You thinks? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Op-Ed Example

Today, Sunday, January 20, 2007, the NY Times published this Op-Ed by Frank Rich. In the Op-Ed, Rich writes, "Never mind that the G.O.P. is running on empty, with no ideas beyond the incessant repetition of Reagan’s name." as though this is an indisputable fact. Now would this allow me to make an edit in the Wikipedia article on the GOP that goes something like "The G.O.P. has no ideas beyond the incessant repetition of Reagan’s name" using the Op-Ed as a ref? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes

Daniel Pipes is a prominent political commentator, so presumably his opinions may be cited (with proper attribution) when they appear in newspapers, books, and other similar sources. However, should opinions published on his blog be permitted in Wikipedia articles? In particular, on the Prophet of Doom article, this blog post was used as a source for the statement that "Muslim agitators have circulated a petition to have the book banned and censored" (stated without qualification) as well as Pipes' own opinion on the subject. The group allegedly circulating this petition, Islamic Educational and Cultural Research Center, doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia and there is no evidence that the group or petition was notable. Anyone can start an online petition. Under WP:V, blogs are generally considered to be unreliable sources, but someone insists on putting this back in again and again, arguing that Pipes' "opinion on the subject is inherently notable." *** Crotalus *** 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say his blog shouldn't be cited for such things. The lack of third-party fact-checking on blogs gives us a standing presumption against citing them, and that's particularly the case if the blog is the only source for the cited information. To quote WP:V, articles relating to questionable sources "should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." And as WP:V goes on to say, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." If the information has been reported by a mainstream source, it's potentially usable, but not if it comes solely from a personal blog. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Criterion

There has been a pronouncement here and extended in reverts to mean that certain peer reviewed journals are not to be considered as RS. Now some are obvious but much seems to be POV like item 6. In particular though I would like to establish the RS bonafides of

1 |journal=Neuro Endocrinol. Lett.

2. journal=Med. Hypotheses

3. Medical science conference papers such as ( McGregor, N.R. (1998). "Alterations in Plasma Lipid Composition in Patients with CFS". Conference Proceedings, The Clinical and Scientific Basis of CFS, Sydney 1998. P38. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) ) The abstract of which is here note that the conference paper is cited not the website. Given that Wlki has a Cite Conference Template citing conferences with examples similar to the one above I would assume that it is thus acceptable. The qualification given as to limit this seems to be POV also. AS this supposed criterion is still being used to revert edits an opinion as requested is sought. Jagra (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This diff, [71] may be useful to establish the context in which the sources were added (discussing the efficacy of a treatment) and wikipedia has a stub on Medical Hypotheses which states, "The papers do not have to go through the peer review process". This is supported by this page [72] by the founder of the journal. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Med hypotheses is easy: it did not publish research, but biomedical hyoptheses, generally extremely speculative. I regret its demise, for I always found at least one or two of the articles i each issue fascinating. But it never pretendedto be a peer reviewed journal in the usual sense. It can support nothing except that "X proposed as an hypothesis that...."

Neuroendocrinology letters claims to be peer reviewed, and a number of libraries have it. I personally have a rather low opinion--I cancelled my university library's subscription back in 1990. Its editorial board is not reassuring. But it's in Web of Science, so one can look to see if any articles have cited the one of interest. Since recent years are online, one could try Google Scholar. If nobody --or only a few people--have cited an article, it is not authoritative.

Conferences vary. Some of them are as authoritative as the best journals. some accept anything that is submitted. There is no general rule. What is a good general rule is to look for articles by the same author that are in peer reviewed journals--in this case using PubMed. if none can be found, s/he is obviously not an established authority in the subject. DGG (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems if you look at the instructions that Med Hypotheses is subject to peer review [ http://ees.elsevier.com/ymehy/ thus] and in accordance with the Elsevier review System. here The difference being it seems that the review determines whether or not it is published rather than the changes to be made by an editor, and I think this is what the founder was infering. Jagra (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A question about bibliographical data

I am sorry to disturb you with my question, but, after a mini edit-war, as a last solution I decided to ask your experienced opinion. In the New World Translation article it is stated:

Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages.[ref]University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz. Franz failed to earn either a postgraduate or graduate degree. He took 15 hours of Latin, 21 hours of classical Greek, and a single 2-hour credit class in a course titled “The New Testament—A course in grammar and translation.” The Greek studied by Franz is a different system of grammar than biblical Greek.[ref]

I repeatedly asked bibliographical data for this file, and I was answered that the reference itself (as you see it above) is adequate bibliographical data. Is it really? Can this reference stand alone as bibliographical data?

Thank you in advance for your time.

Best regards,

--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

the entire paragraph can not stand. It is an excellent example of the harm done by using undigested primary sources and interpreting them with OR. From the facts of his courses, one cannot conclude whether his formal training is adequate. One can say he has as aBS degree, but no higher degree, if that can be documented. But even in terms of proper use of primary sources, I dont see how a transcript from one college would prove it, because he might have taken graduate work at another. DGG (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

DGG: What is the paragraph are you talking about? Vassilis78 cites a single sentence followed by a reference. The sentence in question reads, “Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages.” Though Vassilis78 provides the reference given of Mr. Franz’s transcript from the University of Cincinnati, the same editor, Vassilis78, failed to provide the additional two references cited for the same sentence. Those two sources are provided as “The Watchtower, May 1, 1987 pp. 23-24” and “Rhodes R ThD, The Challenge of Cults and New Religions, The Essential Guide to Their History, 2001, p. 84”.

1) Franz’s university transcript shows he did not complete his university education at U of C, and his course load demonstrates little if any formal training in biblical languages.

2) The Watchtower of May 1, 1987 pp. 23-24 publishes Franz’s account of his life story. In that account Franz states, “With my father’s permission, I had left the University of Cincinnati in May 1914, just a couple of weeks before the end of my third term there as a junior classman.” In his life story, though Franz spends considerable time speaking about his university education, he never asserts that he completed his university education, either at U of C or any other institution.

3) In his book The Challenge of Cults and New Religions, The Essential Guide to Their History, author Ron Rhodes Thd writes, “[Frederick Franz] was not professionally trained in biblical studies, but he is regarded now as having been more knowledgeable than previous Watchtower presidents.”

Combined, are you of the opinion that these sources do not verify the assertion that “Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages”? The only formal training of record is the transcript from U of C, and that transcript shows little if any training in biblical languages.

Since you have seen fit to comment as you have, your further response would be appreciated.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We actually have two problems conserning the transcript from the University of Cincinnati. The first, about which I asked help, has to do with the citation data of the "transcript." There is no such data at all and we are expected to trust the personal testimony of Marvin Shilmer.
The second case is that the personal testimony of Marvin Shilmer has no value because it is original research added with personal conclusions as regards F. Franz's credentials to translate. So the reference is questionable in every aspect and I propose its deletion. The only opinions acceptable about F. Franz's credentials are those that have bibliographical support.

P.S. Not to forget, F. Franz's participation in the specific tranlation project is a speculation by itself. The whole critisism about Franz's credentials has to do with the speculation of his participation in the project. (Hence, the whole story is POV).

--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Your further assertions here are shocking!

The data provided is 1) the name of the university of record (University of Cincinnati) and 2) the full name of the student (Frederick W. Franz). This is all the information necessary to request the transcript of record. Indeed, this is all the information at my disposal when I requested and received the transcript. So why is this information insufficient for any other editor to request and receive the same document?

Because the edit is based on information found in the public record (a university transcript, a published life story, and a statement in a published book) then on what basis are you asserting the information is “the personal testimony of Marvin Shilmer”? I have not asked anyone to take my word for anything. I have provided sources for purposes of verification!

As for Franz’s participation with the New World Translation, I have also cited court testimony by Fred Franz himself where under oath he testifies that he was the Editor and that, specifically, he was charged to review the New World Translation for accuracy and correctness. I see that, again, you provide less than full information. Why do you keep doing this?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of the definition of a 'reliable source' in Wikipedia is "published". Being part of a public record is not enough. A university transcript does not meet the definition of a 'reliable source'. -- Donald Albury 17:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Donald Albury: With due respect, university transcripts are publish-on-demand documents. Because a document is not published for general distribution does not mean it is not published. To my knowledge, Wikipedia does not discriminate against publish-on-demand documents so long as the source of the document is reliable. I have no reason to question the reliability of the University of Cincinnati. Do you?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Donald Albury: Researching the issue of whether university transcripts can be used for verification I found the following:

On this very page I find the statement: “However, in the specific case of interviews with notable people conducted by accredited reporters on Wikinews who provide a complete transcript or recording of the interview, I think we can use the interview as a reliable source. I have read the Wikinews Accreditation Policy, and find it provides the key ingredient of assuring that the source is a real identifiable person with a known track record, and a reputation to protect. Because reporters must reveal their real legal name to be accredited, it is not possible to create throw-away accounts for doing mischief. As to the editorial supervision, there is a process for revoking credentials in that process. I think we can also safely assume that material will be removed if it is substantially questioned to protect the reputation of Wikinews, so this meets the needs of Wikipedia for editorial supervision. The material should not be considered self-published, because although reporters initiates the process, they do not have ultimate control of the publication process, as they would on a blog.”

If a complete transcript provided by an accredited reporter is considered a reliable source then why would we not also accept a complete transcript from an accredited university as a reliable source?

In Wikipedia’s No Original Research policy, we see that "administrative documents" are considered as primary source material. If administrative documents are considered primary source material then why should we consider the administrative document of an educational transcript as anything less than secondary source material when it is issued by a third-party accredited institution? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The verifiability policy states (in the section reliable sources), "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I have never heard of this "publish-on-demand" concept. Can you point to a policy in Wikipedia that allows such to be used as sources? I would also note that the Wikinews case is a special exception, and is irrelevant to whether we allow citations to unpublished material (after all, the interviews discussed have been published by Wikinews). -- Donald Albury 20:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Donald Albury: First of all, your response is appreciated.

Wikipedia does not make any distinction between documents issued/published for general distribution compared to documents issued/published on demand when both documents are provided by a source “with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. If Wikipedia does not make this distinction then how can you? Educational transcripts are issued/provided upon request just like court transcripts are issued/provided on request.

Court/trial transcripts are only rarely published for general distribution, but court transcripts are routinely used as secondary source material because they are available for copying/issuing on demand and they come from a source “with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” (or course not all judicial sources are reliable just as not all universities are reliable, which is why I asked you if you took issue with the U of C’s reliability). If we apply your expressed criteria we would have to deny court transcripts as a verifiable source. Is this your position?

Additionally, do you consider a primary source (e.g., an “administrative document”) of information as unreliable when that information addresses a third-party, such as a university transcript addresses educational credentials of an individual?

Finally, if we accept as reliable articles published by university presses for general distribution based on the reputation of the institution, it is then absurd to deny educational transcripts from the same institution as reliable. Conversely, if an institution's educational transcripts are unreliable there is no way in the world that articles publish by the same source can be deemed reliable simply because they is published for general distribution. Your further review is requested.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

University presses are not universities. Universities publish press releases, and all sorts of things with no intrinsically greater reliability than other press releases. A university's publication about how high its reputation is, for example, is not to be taken as authoritative! University presses publish on the basis of extensive peer-review of the submitted manuscripts. second, the proper use of primary sources is a matter for research unless they are self explanatory or used--appropriately--as a quotation. In this case, proving someone's receipt of a degree by a link to a published version of the transcript is acceptable. Proving there never was one from a particular university is a little trickier--there might have been one subsequently. This is a job for the investigative journalist or biographer, not Wikipedia. (And I note that even the best journalists and biographers have sometimes failed or disagreed in interpreting primary documents.) Even more clearly, concluding the quality of someone's education from his transcript, is an matter of interpretation. How much biblical Greek one learns in a certain course is not something to be assumed by bare statement here--this is exactly the sort or OR interpretation which is not permitted--an excellent illustration of why we need such a policy. But there is a more general rule: unpublished archives may not be cited on wikipedia, since they are not generally accessible. If the transcript were to be published in a RS, perhaps you could cite it but still not interpret it. Of the material mentioned above, you could probably best use Ron Rhode's opinion--quoting such a secondary source in adequate fullness & context is the way to do it. You asked on my talk page for my further opinion--now you have it. DGG (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

DGG: Your further comments are appreciated.

I have not said that university presses are universities. Neither have I suggested that a university’s statement of its own reputation is authoritative, and I have no idea why you suggest this. But taking the time to express this is appreciated.

Regarding Franz’s university transcript of record, my remarks state no more an no less than what the transcript presents in terms of courses and credits earned. The rest is verified by sources that Vassilis78 conveniently left out.

What do you mean by “generally accessible” in relation to a university transcript? These are published on demand, particularly for deceased individuals who attended nearly 100 years ago. These records are as accessible as the nearest web browser, postal box or telephone. All an editor has to do is ask for the information and pay the administrative cost of having it processed and delivered. This is no more expensive or complicated than having your library deliver reference material at your request. So, again, what do you mean by “generally accessible”?

As for “published,” if the document in question had never been published I would not have a copy. So what do you mean by “publish,” and where is this expressed in Wikipedia policy?

It is difficult to contemplate how a university transcript of record could in any way be considered less than a reliable source. Universities stake their reputations on maintaining the viability of this information, and accurately providing it. As for peer review, the students themselves even get a voice in the matter if they disagree with what is on their transcript.

Any further assistance you can present is appreciated.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: Since you have ignored my request on my talk page and continue to pester me to respond to you here, I will make myself clear here. I am not at your beck and call, and you do not tell me when or where to post. I find your arguments to be invalid under Wikipedia policy, and I find your argumentation annoying and tedious. -- Donald Albury 01:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Donald Albury: I said I would abide by your request, and I will. I do not consider you at my beck and call, and I do not tell you when or where to post. As you have done, I too have shared an opinion. Unfortunately your opinions have degenerated now to the personal and have left unanswered questions to the subject needing considered discussion. It is one thing to state an argument is invalid. It is another to demonstrate this is the case.

If you choose to actually address the questions posed above, your contribution will be appreciated and responded to based on whatever merit you offer. So far all you’ve done is assert an opinion without substantiating it. You have suggested a distinction as Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia policy does not make. When questions are asked of this distinction, you end up feeling pestered. I am not the one who brought this issue here, but I intend to see the end of it because it involves my work! I see you have post-graduate degrees. Perhaps you would find it amusing were I to deny an official university transcript as a reliable source evidencing those degrees? This is precisely what you have argued!--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Marvin Shilmer. This question is currently appertaining to a MedCabal case and although outside views are welcome i would like to suggest that discussion is kept limited to the talk page or the case page/talk page. As the mediator it is difficult at best to deal with the various discussions that are occurring and chasing discussions across wiki is not something i particularly wish to be doing. I feel the idea of MedCabal is to provide a medium for this discussion to take place rather than for it too be spilling all over wikipedia. Seddon69 (talk)

Seddon69: For reasons you express, earlier I initiated questions of the academic aspect of this issue (the important part) below to University Issued Transcripts. Besides that, the question as presented here is poorly designed with a result that input is all over the place. The academic aspect of the issue raised is more precise and deserves a thorough fleshing out. But, again, this should be done aside and away from the wrangling you are involved with. I have no problem participating on several fronts. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

To end this funny story, Marvin Shilmer, it is enough to cite Don Rhodes opinion or other published opinions about Franz's credentials as a translator. If you want to do a reporter's or biographer's job and to draw your own conclusions, nothing prevents you from making your personal web-page. I think the case is closed.--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: I am unaware that I drew conclusions of the Franz transcript. What I assert of Franz's education is based on his U of C transcript, his published life-story, and the book by Ron (not Don) Rhodes. Administrators above have still not answered, or even addressed, your specific question of bibliograpic data, which says something. The academic issue I have taken up below with a new question. Feel free to share.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Narrowing the Issue

This discussion is narrowed for comment in the subject heading University Issued Transcripts, and narrowed again in the subject heading What is “published”?. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you trust this source?

For this section of the article Steamroller (pipe):

A steamroller is used by filling the bowl with cannabis, putting one's hand over the end of the pipe nearest the bowl, putting the other end in one's mouth, lighting and inhaling until the chamber is filled with smoke, and then removing one's hand from the end and quickly inhaling the collected smoke.

I provided this source. The source was deleted as unreliable. I understand that a site such as that isn't going to be a reliable source on things like the Wankel rotary engine or neurosurgery, but you're not going to find Harvard-published sources on the correct technique of how to use a cannabis pipe. (Besides, who would you trust, a 75-year-old Sociology professor, or some guy who was probably baked while he was writing the instructions?) Torc2 (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If no reliable source can be found for the statement then it should not be included in the article. As WP:V states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." To more directly answer your question, that source is not reliable and its reliability does not change because it is hard to find more reliable sources on the subject JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this source not reliable? Clearly the author has experience with the subject, and the claim being sourced is an issue of basic usage. Torc2 (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Swing Videos

Was added to the Swing (dance) article. I reviewed the site and there's no requirement to join, no advertisements other than header of the creator of the how-to video. Is that enough to disqualify the link under WP:EL? Dances are inherently live-action and descriptions of each style or step is very hard without a video so this is a good idea just have they satisfied the WP requirements. Alatari (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

British National Party

There are a large number of sources used throughout the article relating to faschism. These sources are proberbly unreliable due to their age. The party has had a change in leadership and moved more mainstream since the artiles were written. The sources listed below related directly to the info box.

• Fascism theory & practice (London, 1999}
• "Contemporary Fascism in the Local Arena: the British National Party and Rights for Whites" in Cronin, M (ed)
• The Failure of British Fascism (Basingstoke, 1996)

--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any newer research that contradicts their findings? // Liftarn (talk)

I am not sure, but I think that due to the significant shift since the change in leadership. No research has been caried out in to the current party and these sources are mainly historic based on old leadership and party policy.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This has come up before in rfcs, there is little contradictory findings and a number of reliable sources dismiss the 'move to mainstream' as purely a facade and no significant shift in policy has been proven. Most significanlty, Dr Nigel Copsey, a noted expert in right wing extremism in his paper Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006 --neonwhite user page talk 01:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

TV Guides

Are interviews and reports in TV guides reliable?--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Interviews with Directors, Writers and Actors about their lives or works are reliable. Alatari (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking how reliable are some of the interviews say regarding speculation over future shows etc.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You just won't give up will you, Lucy? Even when you have your question answered, you won't believe it. I'm getting ready to launch a request for third-party intervention where you and your ridiculous antics are concerned. Angelriver (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am here to try and fathom out what constitutes a reliable source on wikipedia. This is to enable the enhancement of the quality of the encyclopedia. Without working out the boundries of what a relaible source is, arguments can be bought and drag on for days. Working out what constitutes a reliable source prior to the arguments occuring, prevents the arguments occuring at all.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, shouldn't you have done this BEFORE you asked me to provide the reference? What you are asking for now is, not only references to prove notability, but references for the references. And just so you know, TV Guide issued its first publication on April 3, 1953. I think that a publication that has been in existence for nearly 53 years, a publication specifically about TV entertainment no less, is a reliable resource. Angelriver (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you ask if a source is reliable without the source?, The age of a publication does not make it a reliable source. The Hittler diaries have been around for 25 years and are completly unreliable hoaxes. I am not say TV guide is a hoax or fake, just that the age of something does not increase its reliability.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You could have provided examples of what you thought were reliable resources before asking me to provide the reference. And there is a difference between someone's diary and an ONGOING publication. Angelriver (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, there is a big difference in a hoax work and a publication that has been continually produced for over half a century. TV Guide is a respected publication and I doubt you can find one person here who does not consider it to be reliable. You asked for a source on a specific subject and when it was provided, you came in and tried to get it discredited. --MiB-24 (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

TV Guide is certainly RS under our rules and guidelines. However, given that you are talking about speculation... I would attribute the statement directly to TV Guide: (something like "TV Guide has speculated that blah blah blah<cite to TV Guide article>"). Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The speculation that was being discussed is whether or not a specific character would return for the new season of “24.” When Lucy asked for proof, Angel provided a TV Guide interview which clearly stated the character would return. It wasn’t TV Guide that was speculating. Instead, they confirmed what had been speculated about here on Wikipedia. --MiB-24 (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Then per Blueboar, something like "X (name of interviewee) has stated that blah blah blah". Tyrenius (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If TV Guide has an interview with a producer, writer, or director (maybe not another actor) on 24 stating that a character would return then I would consider it RS. If TV Guide had an article predicting which brand of computer would win out next year then I would consider it not RS. Alatari (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wot's all this then?

It appears that after this change was made, a whole bunch of active discussions on this board disappeared. I'm assuming that I'm not the only who noticed, but FYI. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It was accidentally deleted. I've restored it below. --Haemo (talk)

now back above, I believe. --Slp1 (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (again). I also reported it on WP:AN/I. And just after I did that, this thing was posted just below it, which made me wonder for a little bit if something bigger was happening.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary

I've long seen citations to Urban Dictionary characterized as a non-reliable source because the site can be freely edited by anyone. I thought there used to be specific wording to the effect that sites that allowed open editing of their contents were not reliable sources, but I can't find it now. I am now dealing with an established editor who states that Urban Dictionary is a reliable source because many entries have been in it for years. It is still an open-editing site, so I still regard it as unreliable, but I don't see anything specific to support that position? So, is or is not Urban Dictionary a reliable source? -- Donald Albury 21:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. As you mentioned, it is a freely edited site that anyone can use to push a personal agenda or add incorrect information. Like blogs, this site cannot be used to source facts. GlassCobra 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought I should get a sanity check before proceeding with this. -- Donald Albury 14:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are all blogs even those of respected journalists or scientists about topics in their profession unreliable? Alatari (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

no, some are reliable--it depends though on their individual reputation which must be demonstrated. In science, there is a collection, Scienceblogs, which is considered of at least some degree of quality. But in any such publication, one most pay regard to the particular individual reputation of the blogger. I tend to be tolerant here, but that's because i work professionally in a field where some lists and blogs are the major reliable sources of information. It's only fair to say that some people here disagree with my position on this very distinctly--I doubt there is really a firm consensus. DGG (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation is a bit tighter; you can cite a blog of a recognized expert for what the blogger has to say about his area of expertise, given that it is firmly established that the cited material was posted by the recognized expert (and not a response for a reader), and that the citation makes it clear it is the blogger's commentary/interpretation/opinion that is being cited, rather than a statement of fact. -- Donald Albury 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't use it as the sole source for anything likely to be disputed, but it might be OK for background information, i.e. for examples on how a slang term is used, after notability has already been established by published sources. I'd consider that usage more as a footnoted "external link" than as a source per se. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Google Cache

My assumption is that the original webpage is more reliable than a cache of the page from a search engine such as Google; however, an editor in this article has been using Google cache of otherwise reliable sources (Assuming U.S. Government sites are consider reliable for U.S. Monetary Policy). So, are caches of websites from a search engine considered reliable sources? --EGeek (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been using the Internet Archive to recover dead links. Why do you think that cached/archived web pages are less reliable than the original? Personally, I don't think that cached/archived pages are any more of a problem than any other web pages. All citations to web pages suffer the problem that web pages, in general, are much less likely to be authoritative than printed paper sources, and all web pages are ephemeral and may disappear at any time, whereas it is highly unlikely that all copies of a printed source would suddenly disappear. -- Donald Albury 14:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree on that, Google cache or archive.org are about as reliable as the webpage that was archived. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One concern is that when a given URL stops working, it could have been taken down for a reason. This is less of a concern with a newspaper website, but the one case I remember was a commercial claim, made by the maker of a product. If the link to the claim becomes dead, it's possible that the maker is no longer asserting the claim. For example reference 4 in this version of the Juice Plus article. This provided hours of debate on Talk:Juice Plus as to whether the claim had been withdrawn by the manufacturer. I don't think there is a general answer as to whether cache links are reliable sources. If the cached link is to a document that is still available published on paper (for instance, in libraries) there should be no problem. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sealand News

There is a question regarding an difference of terms between the "Sealand News", which according to their site is the "Official newspaper of Sealand" as per here, and the official website of Sealand as per [73]. The disagreement is about the term "micronation". The Sealand News describes Sealand as a "micronation", the Sealand site itself does not use that word. It has been argued that the Sealand News, while officially recognized as Sealand's official newsservice, is independent of the government, although that statement has yet to be verified. It can and should be pointed out that Sealand has sent representatives to several recent micronations conventions however. Would the Sealand News, in this instance, be a sufficiently reliable source to indicate that Sealand considers itself a micronation or not? John Carter (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say neither is verifiable. --neonwhite user page talk 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that both of those sources are reliable only in a very limited way, in that they state what the residents of the platform have said about themselves. I'm not sure I see the distinction with the definition of "micronation", but the two sources both state that Sealand considers itself a sovereign principality. So it would appear OK to mention that's what they consider themselves, as shown by those sources, but those sources would not stand as a way to indicate how the place is defined by anyone else. That's my view after reading the links... though I was not able to find the word "micronation" in either of them. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Sophroniscus

I just wanted to post here a notice that I am concerned about User:Sophroniscus' talk page and edits. Via another article I came upon the article Alphonsa Muttathupadathu, created by this user. I tried to clean up the WP:POV ([74]), but the problem is the article in question relies exlusively on non-neutral, religious apologeticist external links, making claims such as "miraculously" which are inherently unencyclopaedic, in my opinion. I made both of the last two clean-up edits, but the most recent time, having somehow logged myself out w/o realizing it, only reflects an anonymous IP.

The language on this user's talk page ([75]) is almost wholly confessional and disturbingly fundamentalist in nature (i.e. "It is better to let the nations rage than to be dragged down into their errors. For God has abandoned the world to its darkness.") I have not contacted him directly because his/her talk page contains a section called "Garbage In, Garbage Out", which is what I suspect he would regard anything I had to say.

I am not a religious bigot and I know that any user is entitled to hold any/all religious beliefs. But, given that this user has created scores of articles and edited scores of articles (at least some reviewed by User:Essjay), and given the presence of other religious apologists and propagandists on Wikipedia in the past I felt compelled to bring this to the attention of WP:AN/I for fear that this user may be attempting to use Wikipedia to engage in religious propaganda. I hope an objective administrator can review and decide. Thanks.216.194.56.204 (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (I did the same thing again). Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn - already answered at WP:AN/I Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

'respected publishing houses', how to tell?

Resolved

I am looking for some guidance and advice please.

I see in the WP:Sources section "...books published by respected publishing houses;" and "reputation for fact checking". How is an editor to quantify 'well respected' or 'reputation for fact checking'? For instance, I might guess that Duke University Press is well respected with good reputation, though some editors would disagree. Or, for instance, I could also guess whether Paladin Press is well respected, but some editors would also disagree. Or, what about Praeger Press?

Is there any way to objectively measure a publishing house's 'respect' and 'reputation' as defined by WP:V? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

depends on the subject. There is no objective ranking, and all publishers publish a range of books of varying quality. The way one evaluates them as a librarian has been to look at the reputation of the other books they have published in the subject. Factors to look for are number of titles in an area, where they have been reviewed and what the reviews say, how many and which libraries hold them, and the individual reputations of their authors. In the academic world, but that's just the academic world, university publishers often (that's "often", not "always") have a higher reputation for quality than commercial, but within each group it varies widely. To take your examples, and giving my personal general impression, which I could not prove to withstand cross-examination without a very extended discussion, Duke is one of the most respected publishers in the humanities, Paladin Press is one of the top non-academic publishers within their specific field on specialization, and Praeger is a good specialized publisher for the applied social sciences. But there is the additional factor in each case that the overall quality of the scholarly humanities literature is very high, of the literature in the self-defense field, very variable, and in the applied social sciences, somewhere in the middle.

there is only one firm rule--self-publishing & vanity-publishers are not reputatble, but even here there are exceptions. DGG (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

University Issued Transcripts

Resolved

1) Are transcripts issued by an accredited university considered under Wikipedia standards as a reliable source to evidence a person’s earned academic credits and/or degrees from the issuing institution?

2) If university issued transcripts are considered a reliable source for the purpose of evidencing a person’s earned academic credits and/or degrees from the issuing institution, then what bibliographic information is sufficient to reference this under Wikipedia standards? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

These are interesting questions. On the first one, I have to ask: why would it be necessary to go through all of this trouble to cite academic transcripts? Surely, if the subject is notable, a third-party (or preferably multiple third-party sources) has/have already published something on the subject's academic degrees and credentials. Why not simply cite those third-party sources (e.g., newspapers, journal articles, or books) and be done with it? If there aren't any such sources, I would start to question the notability of the WP subject--but perhaps that's a separate matter. I suspect that the answer is that transcripts are primary sources that risk selection bias in interpretation and extrapolation. In short, original synthesis.

On the second question, admittedly, this would be the first time I would see them being used on Wikipedia. Also, my EndNote citation software does not have a reference type entitled "academic transcripts." I mention it because, in my experience, I've never read an academic paper where the author cites academic transcripts. This is not to suggest that (say) a historian has not attempted this type of citation somewhere. It just strikes me as a little unusual. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

J Readings: I appreciate your considered response. It is no trouble to cite an academic transcript when the student was born in the late 19th Century, which happens to be true in the instance leading to my questions. It is no trouble because retrieving a transcript in this circumstance is easier and less expensive than the process of having my library locate, retrieve and deliver an obscure journal article that was printed for general distribution.

The scenario I run across is this: 1) I stumble upon a source that speaks to the individual’s university achievement at issue, but 2) the source does not cite from where this information comes from. Because the information appears relevant if it is true, I do the legwork to confirm the information by asking my library to retrieve and deliver the transcript of record for me. 3) I receive the transcript and it confirms the source’s presentation of information.

From a purely academic perspective the proper way to verify this information is to cite the source where information was first discovered and also cite the actual transcript of record by indicating the full name of the student and the name of the issuing institution.

When I took this approach editors initially 1) complained that the bibliographic information was insufficient (i.e., name of student and issuing institution). Then editors began 2) arguing that a university transcript is “unpublished” and for that reason it could not be cited. Finally, editors began 3) complaining that citing the transcript amounted to original research. I do not comprehend how any of these complaints could possibly be valid because 1) publicity of the individual’s academic training at issue was not my doing (i.e., I am not the origin of the publicity), 2) citing the issued transcript is no more than verifiable corroboration of the original publicity, and 3) a transcript issued by an accredited institution is every bit as reliable as journal articles published by a press of which the same institution is the parent organization. The reliability of a transcript as old as the one in question increases with time because the student has had ample opportunity to remedy any inaccuracies (not to mention that the person’s life story is consistent with the transcript of record).

So, the use in question does not present anything new. It is not an original synthesis. The use in question is purely corroborative. In fact, the incident in question cites three sources. 1) The person’s life story published with their permission and cooperation wherein is confirmed the university attended and dates, and an overview of course work, 2) a research publication (book) publicizing the individual’s formal academic training and 3) the individual’s university transcript. Essentially the only thing the transcript does that the other sources do not do is to detail actual classes taken and credit hours earned. The latter details are expressed within online articles written by questionable sources, but it seems nonsensical that citing a dubious online source is necessary given the verifiability of the three sources already cited.

Any additional comments you want to add will be appreciated.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is a continuation of the debate that started above, at #A_question_about_bibliographical_data. Wikipedia expects that only published sources will be used to substantiate articles. This is clear from a reading of WP:PSTS, which explains primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Even the sources called 'primary' in that policy are *published* primary sources. A school transcript can't be viewed as a publication. You mention above that you sought out the transcript instead of the 'obscure journal article' that might have made the same point. The obscure article would indeed be citable as a published source (subject only to concerns about undue weight), and as a secondary source, it avoids the difficulties that can arise in interpreting primary sources. EdJohnston (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston: I separated this discussion from the one above because the question asked above is poorly expressed and the resulting responses have lost sight of the academic issue at stake.

You state, “A school transcript can't be viewed as a publication.” Who says this? Does Wikipedia policy say this? Or does the statement manifest a limited and/or selective perspective of what it means to “publish”?

To illustrate the problem created by your statement:

Were I to obtain a university transcript by having the institution “issue” (copy and distribute) a copy to me and then I immediately sent it to Lulu.com for it to “publish” (copy and distribute) on demand through the Lulu system (which it would then do on demand), would you then view the transcript as “published”? If so, then please explain the material difference between the institution providing a copy of the transcript on demand and Lulu providing a copy of the transcript on demand. The only difference I see is that end users can have more confidence in the institution as a source compared to Lulu as a source. Do you see any other difference between these organization’s publishing/issuing (copying and distributing) the same document on demand? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the policy says published. No matter how you twist and turn, you cannot convince me that a transcript of which you have ordered a copy has been published. And stop trying to shop around until you find someone to agree with you. That behavior is not helping your case. -- Donald Albury 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Donald Albury: So glad to see you respond. Once again, you have offered a non-answer reply. Now if you would actually engage the discussion rather than parroting terms we can all read in Widipedia policy, it would be nice.

Wikipedia policy speaks of published and unpublished documents. I have consulted the usage throughout Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and find none that would contradict the term applied to copies sought and received from a third-party, such as a university. I have also consulted Oxford on these terms, and find no contradiction or inconsistency with using the term "published" in respect to an on demand printing and distribution. Earlier you admitted ignorance of such a thing! Do you think ignorance improves opinions? You have made an assertion of one of these terms. You have asserted that a particular document is not published. Yet the only thing you offer in response is an opinion that it is not published. Do you have anything else to contribute, other than your opinion? Perhaps you could explain why publish on demand (alternately, print on demand) documents are not published when they come from a university but are published when coming from an organization like Lulu.com?

If you want me to stop asking the question then perhaps you should try offering an answer. Asserting an opinion is something you have already done. Opinions are often helpful, but opinions are not always answers. Next it would be nice to see an answer from you. This is why the question is asked.

Earlier you said to me, “you do not tell me when or where to post.” Do you presume to do tell me when and where to post? At least I have shown the decency to explain my actions. You have yet to answer for yourself! --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Donald Albury: Oh, and one other thing. I am not trying to help any case, mine or anyone else’s. For sure I am not shopping anything. If you want to know why my separate entry under this heading then I suggest you read what I have written, and ask questions of me about my intent.

I am asking a question that, so far as I can tell, has never been raised on Wikipedia. I am not seeking to have any preferential rendering from administrators, or anyone else. I am looking for productive feedback. In the future, I would ask that you refrain from presumptive language directed at my person. I am not the issue. The issue is the question(s) asked. I am not trying to convince you of anything. You are the one who has asserted that transcripts are not published. Okay. I know you say this. Now please show me where Wikipedia policy says this. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Narrowing the Issue

This discussion is narrowed for comment in the subject heading What is “published”?. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed O'Loughlin

Ed O'Loughlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is a fresh re-creation of a previously deleted, controversial article. Previous discussions of the earlier version of the article:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive337#Block of User:124.191.92.25
2. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive34#Ed O'Loughlin (closed)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed O'Loughlin
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed O'Loughlin/Anonymous user comments
5. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 29
6. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive30#124.191.92.25
7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive61#User:124.191.92.25 reported by User:Eleland (Result: Admin reviewed - comments left at article talk page)
8. User talk:124.191.92.25
9. Talk:Ed O'Loughlin/Archive1

This new article's references are largely opinion pieces in reliable media and analyses by "think tanks", some a bit biased.

Since these references fall into grey areas with regards to the Reliable Sources Guideline and the Verifiability Policy, others opinions would be helpful. Please leave them at Talk:Ed O'Loughlin.

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 18:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed O'Loughlin 2nd attempt‎. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Cuban Americans

I have been trying to calmly explain to a rogue editor with multiple accounts that entry of non-valid names on this list from non-reliable sources is not valid. The key points of my argument are as follows:

• Fantasia Barrino - In her biography, she claimed "that family rumor" says she might have Cuban ancestry. She uses the word rumor and I have explain to user that rumors are not valid source of information.
• Sammy Davis Jr.- While he was alive, Sammy Davis Jr. always described himself as Puerto Rican. yet in an authorized biography released after his death an author claims he was Cuban. My argument here is that aunauthorized bios (think Kitty Kelly) are not valid and Davois's claims nixes entry on this list.
• Bacardi family - I have pointed out that the founder of the company was born in Sitges, Spain. His descendants have relocate dto many countries including Puerto Rico, where the produce "Puerto Rican rum" and not "Cuban rum". How can a family claim that they are one nationality when there are members living in the US, Bahamas and Puerto Rico. Again there is a counterclaim for entry on this list.
• Eamon de Valera; Eamon's father was born in Spain. Baptismal certificates in Cuba show that someone with a same name was baptized in Cuba. This could be a coincidence but de Valera stated that his father was Spanish in his memoirs. If I was baptized in New York, but lived in New Jersey does that make me a New Yorker? That report has never been confirmed and remains speculation and therefore it is not valid for entry.

This is an ongoing dispute and any help with be greatly appreciated.--XLR8TION (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Unfortunately User:XLR8TION chooses to misrepresent the truth about me yet again. I have never used multiple accounts. I have consistently used either my user name or an IP address assigned to my computer since I forgot my account name's password. Ruthermore I have provided references to support my claims (discussion can be found at Talk:List of Cuban Americans) while User:XLR8TION have offered no sourced material just consistent arguing.
  • It's an issue of semantics. You'd be right to say that a rumor wouldn't be a valid source of info if it came from a secondary source, but this is a "family rumor" that she herself believes and even included in her autobiography. In that case it is a reputable source because it's coming from Barrino herself. If it was a rumor, from say a gossip blog then it wouldn't considered a reputable source? Do you understand the difference?
  • Sammy Davis, Jr. First chapter of Wil Haygood's book published on The New York Times website reads: "My mother was born in San Juan," Sammy Davis, Jr., proclaimed. But it was a lie, and he knew it. She was born in New York City, of Cuban heritage. The Cuban ancestry, in the wake of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, which saw President John F. Kennedy and Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev battle to a standoff over nuclear arsenals, made Sammy nervous. Anti-Cuban sentiment had swept the land. The Cuban-haters might begin to dislike him, and Sammy was not in the business of losing admirers and fans. So he flipped the Cuban history-telling relatives to keep quiet about it-with made-up Puerto Rican history." XLR8TION claims this book is based on rumor, but Haygood conducted over 250 interviews with family and friends of Davis, including with Davis' own mother before she passed away. This book has been positively reviewed by The Washington Post, The New York Times and Publisher's Weekly among others.[76]
  • The Bacardi family is composed of Americans of Cuban descent. Hence, List of Cuban Americans. Here are two articles, in addition to the one already referenced by their name on the article page: from The Independent[77]]and the BBC[78]. Where the rum is produced is a non-issue, we're taling about the family not the corporation.
  • de Valera's father was born in Cuba. At the time, Cuba was still Spanish territory. Hence the confusion. It's no different then someone from Guam or Puerto Rico referring to themselves as Guamanian or Puerto Rican, even if they're nationality is American.

72.144.39.229 (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice of proposal

As most of you know, there has been a lot of discussion at WP:RS and at WP:V about merging. This is due to the fact that WP:RS keeps getting edited, rewritten, revised, and tweeked to the point where it contradicts things that are said in WP:V (I have seen this occur at least three times in the last two years). The idea is not to get rid of WP:RS, but to move it and make it a sub-section of WP:V.

It is my understanding that this idea has gained a solid consensus on both pages, and the time has come to more formally propose it to the broader community for approval. Since this page is tied to WP:RS, I thought some preliminary notice should be given here. Actually, I don't see a merger having a great impact on this page. There will still be a need for a notice board where editors can enquire about whether a given source is reliable, or complain about articles that need reliable sources.

I encourage those who regularly help out on this page to get involved in the discussions about this merger. At the moment most of the discussions are going on at the WP:RS talk page. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a reliable source?

In other words, say I wanted to claim on article X that film Y had won a bunch of Academy Awards? Would it be acceptable to put a ref as the List of films receiving six or more Academy Awards page, for example, or would I need to ref to the Academy Awards website? I am using this as an example - obviously the outside ref is easy to do in this case, but I hope you get the idea. Thanks. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe we aren't to cite Wikipedia for Wikipedia articles. Marlith ^T/C 05:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, per Marlith. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Since anyone can edit it, it cannot be considered a reliable source for its own purposes.Ngchen (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to copy and paste the sources that article uses. Torc2 (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be unwise to do so without verifying that the cited sources support the 'facts' you want to use. Even in WP articles with lots of citations, there may be statements that cannot be verified from any of the cited sources. -- Donald Albury 03:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Snopes

Two parts to this question: Is Snopes a reliable source? And is inclusion of a rumor on Snopes sufficient to say the rumor is "widespread" or "common"? Torc2 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say the site is a reliable source by our rules. However, I am less sure about the second part of your question. Unless snopes states that the rumor is widespread or common we can not make that assumption. Blueboar (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I consider Snopes to be a reliable source on issues related to urban legends. *** Crotalus *** 00:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. And extend. It would be argumentative to say that a rumour is "widespread" or "common" in any case. Although our sources may *state* that it is, since this is necessarily going to be contentious, their statement should be *quoted* rather than left unquoted to show exactly *who* is saying it, and with a full ref to the source. That method makes it clear in the mind of the reader that a certain skepticism should be effected. Wjhonson (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Great power

Resolved

A very slow moving edit war has just started between myself and another editor Chanakyathegreat over the inclusion or exclusion of India as a current great power. It started here Talk:Great power#Encarta is wrong because Encarta states that India is an upcoming super power not a current one, he (?) stated many reasons why he believes that India is a current Global Power and how Encarta is wrong and/or outdated for stating otherwise. I tried to answer some of those statements but concluded stating that it doesn't matter what either one of us say because we aren't published or accredited experts in Geo-politics and all our conversations come down was WP:OR. I even gave him some academic papers that state that India though likely to be one sometime in the future is not one now & unless he could find some that say otherwise the page should stay the same. Now one of those papers predicted that in so many years India would most likely be a Great Power and by adding those years to the date it was published he used it as proof that India is indeed a current Great Power. I reverted the edits saying that while an accredited source is the best source you can find, using one that predicts the future to prove facts about the current world is not considered reliable (i.e. Predictions of the British Empire in 1913 had no relations to the reality of what actually happened). Once I did that I got threatened that he'd report me to an admin (The article is a reliable as you have admitted and making any changes will be a violation of Wikipedia rules and I will have to report you to the Administrator.) Which kinda bummed me out since up till that point I was enjoying our conversation. So I was hoping that I could get some other opinions involved in this since I think that no matter what I say at this point it will fall on deaf ears. Heck if you can find an accredited source that can prove his point please let us know! Thanks! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

UKPhoenix79 you did the right thing by coming here. Content disputes over the reliability of a source belong on this page. Here is how I personally would approach the issue. Quote and cite both sources using footnotes to show exactly what each one is saying. I find that is the best method to solve contentious content-paraphrasing contests. I can assist you in how to do this if you're not sure. I'll also watch the article for a few days to see if you've been able to work it out to your mutual satisfaction. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it looks like the other editor is willing to listen. Thanks to those that helped with this & replied here and the talk page. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What is “published”?

Resolved

This question is a further narrowing of a question/issue initially stirred under the subject header A question about bibliographical data and narrowed under the subject header University Issued Transcripts. I will tag those articles to reference this narrower discussion for sake of readers/administrators.

Wikipedia:Published is an article represented as “not a guideline” but as presenting a “definition of ‘published’ for wikipedians.” This article offers several examples deemed “published”. One example is stated as,

“A transcript or recording of a live event, including: plays, television programs, documentaries, court trials, speeches or lectures, demonstrations, panel discussions, or meetings, a song sheet;”

According to this stated example a transcript would be "published" if 1) it presents “a live event” and 2) it is a “documentary”. According to usage expressed in Oxford English Dictionary, a university transcript represents “a live event” because it “corresponds to actual facts”. According to usage expressed in the same source, a university transcript is a “documentary” because it is “of the nature of documents” and it is “factual”.

A recurring objection to the use of a university transcript as a reliable source is that a university transcript is “not published”. Hence this question deals with the essential issue: What is “published”?

Review and comment on this specific information and question is appreciated.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin thank you for a long and excellent question. When we originally worked, or slaved over the definition of Published for Wikipedians, we found there was a lot of confusion over the issue. In general published only means "made available to the public". So for example, books are published, your rough draft is not. Photographs which you can buy in a store are published, your family album is not. YouTube Videos are published, but your home movies are not. And yes Marvin, University transcripts, provided any member of the public, perhaps even paying a nominal fee can view them, or even better view them freely by *going* to said University, are published. I.E. they are made available to the "public", the public at large, or even possibly at small (although this last phrase "at small" is contentious). What type of source they are of course, is a different question.Wjhonson (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson:: I appreciate your response. Other than the cited Wikipedia:Published article, is this question given serious treatment anywhere else within Wikipedia? Previous editors/administrators have, essentially, asserted these transcripts are unpublished because ‘Transcripts are unpublished’. Opinions are fine, but to use an opinion to assert the same opinion is circular. When asked to demonstrate their opinion is valid in the face of challenge, suddenly responses end. I would like to examine more closely how Wikipedia treats this subject, if it does at all beyond what is already presented/cited --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is at least one university that will not release transcripts except at the request of the student whose records they are. See [79], which provides, "Student records are confidential records. Transcripts will be released only upon written request of the student." Evidently the transcripts of the University of Michigan at Dearborn are not published; the public has no right of access to them, even by paying a fee. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston: It is not unusual for a university to refrain from issuing official transcripts without the student’s permission. I can comprehend why unreleased transcripts could be, arguably, treated as unpublished. A parallel in judicial archives would be the difference between sealed transcripts and unsealed transcripts. Sealed transcripts are not made available except for privileged communications whereas unsealed court transcripts are available to anyone who wants to bother to look then up for review. Even sealed transcripts are accessible if these surface and the possessor is not a court official (lawyer, judge, reporter, court employee in general, etc) and wants to share them. (I am not suggesting this particular publishing would be ethical or moral, but rather that it would not be illegal) Getting back to college transcripts, if a student has released the transcript without a request for confidentiality, or if the university makes the transcript accessible without express permission from a former student, then do you see any reason to assert such a transcript is unpublished? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point Ed, and I agree. If records are generally held to be private, or effectively private (by making them almost inaccessible) they would not be considered published. Fine lines can be drawn and in fact it's been argued back-and-forth here for years exactly where the line gets drawn. It's best to deal on a case-by-case basis as your example points out. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson: The particular instance seeding this discussion was my use of a university transcript recorded in the years 1911 through 1913. The document is of a notable historical religious figure (though not what I would call famous) deceased for about twenty years. The institution makes this transcript available basically to anyone making the request. This is precisely how I got a copy. Getting this transcript was easier than retrieving the typical court transcript. Release of relatively old information, even of a personal nature, is not unusual. Today we have nearly unfettered access personal passport applications received by the US State Department up to year 1925. Like these applicatoins, in general, the older the college transcript the easier is the access in terms on information release. In the instance of my use of a college transcript, do you view the document as "unpublished" or "published"? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant to ask in this case for the document to become secondary so it can then be used for some purpose other than the most direct one. The transcript can be quoted from. Full stop. That's how we should *start* and see if we can go from there. Wjhonson (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson: Okay. For sake of discussion let’s say transcript X records that in 1910 the University of Nowhere records that student Andy C. Wallace earned 2 credit hours for what it itemizes as Esperanto.

If writing an article about the University of Nowhere I write, “The University of Nowhere issued credits for Esperanto in 1910” then citing this transcript would be using it as primary source material. Since the University of Nowhere is the originator of the document and actually responsible for issuing the transcript, then citing this source to state information about the university would be a primary use.

If writing an article about Andy C. Wallace I write, “Andy C. Wallace earned 2 credit hours for Esperanto at the University of Nowhere in year 1910” then citing the transcript would be using it as a secondary source. This is because the subject is Andy C. Wallace and Andy C. Wallace was not the originator of the document or responsible for issuing the transcript. In this case citing the transcript would be utilizing a third party document to verify something about Andy C. Wallace.

Do you see this differently? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See below. There is zero difference in who you make the subject/object of any particular sentence with regard to whether it is a primary or a secondary source. In your example both are primary. See WP:PSTS for information about what a primary and secondary source is Slp1 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: A college transcript is not the primary source you assert when it is used to verify educational achievement of a student. The transcript is removed from the primary source of the professor’s records that originally awarded grades and credits for coursework/academic achievement. If we were talking about a professor’s ledger of grade/credit awards then we would be talking about a primary source. Universities construct transcripts after reviewing these ledgers and achievements of record. There is also a vetting process where school administrators (and even the student) review the transcript for accuracy. The resulting document is the transcript.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To take up Wjhonson's early point here, the issue becomes in part "what type of source they are". Primary, I would suggest, and to be avoided for any interpretational citation. I think there is a grave danger of original research conclusions being drawn in this matter. --Slp1 (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: As an administrative document referencing actions of a university to show something of the university itself I can understand why a college transcript would be considered as a primary source. But it seems to me whether a college transcript is considered a secondary source depends on why and how it is cited. If, for instance, it is cited to verify statements of particular credit hours earned for a particular student then it would serve effectively as a third party verification. In short, if transcript X is used to represent something by the issuing institution about the institution, then it would be used as a primary source. But if transcript X is used to representing something of a student as verified by the institution then the statement of the institution is used as a secondary source. Do you agree or disagree with this assessment, or have an alternate perspective? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Slp1. Marvin (may I call you Marvin?), please keep in mind that this entire discussion originally stemmed from the following problematic sentence: "Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages." As other editors rightly pointed out, whoever wrote that sentence was making an interpretation (read: original synthesis) of the primary materials by (1) implying that all credentials have been viewed when, in fact, as editors we'll never know that for sure (it's imprecise language), and (2) assuming that transcripts (and only transcripts) can be viewed as "credentials of record" when, again, the assumption is debatable (degrees, for example, can constitute "credentials of record"). Your rejoinder was that the transcripts simply served as "corroboration" of other published secondary sources, and then added that the secondary sources themselves were somehow "questionable." I didn't understand what you meant by that statement (was another editor challenging the secondary sources?), but regardless, if they were cross-referenced by another reliable secondary source (and I take it you had two sources), that should have sufficed. The bottom-line is that had the original problematic sentence not claimed to have been representative of something more than it was, I suspect you wouldn't have encountered such resistance from other editors. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

J Readings: Feel free to call me Marvin. The sentence you cite was not based on Franz’s transcript. The statement that ‘Franz had very little if any training in biblical languages’ was not based on the transcript, but I can understand why the original presenter of this issue felt that way. What should have occurred is the edit was improved to remove ambiguity and enhance the information accordingly.

Also, the original presenter was not questioning the use of the transcript, but rather he was questioning whether there was sufficient bibliographic data for the transcript. The original presenter only jumped on the “It’s not an appropriate source” bandwagon after reading hasty opinions to that end. It was the original mangled presentation on this issue that stirred frustrating responses, or at least that is what I chalk it up to.

I have no problem with a view that an unverified statement should be removed. But to categorically assert that a college transcript is unpublished seems to go beyond the pale. It is certainly unsound to state something as circular as ‘Transcripts are published because I say so.’ --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict but the point remains) Actually no, I do not agree with Marvin Shilmer. It is entirely the same whether you are trying to show something about the institution or about the student. The document is being used "to show something" about <fill in the blank>". Where is the verification? How do you know that this is the end of the studying that the guy did? Where is the editorial oversight about any conclusions you draw about his qualifications? Published or not this is a primary source and using it to try to prove anything is original research especially synthesis and not allowed here. You have mentioned another secondary source for your point: if that it is a reliable source, and no matter how difficult to access, I suggest that as your best option. --Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: There is a relevant and dramatic distinction between using a transcript to speak to the issuing institution compared with using a transcript to speak to a student of that institution. The distinction lies in who is responsible for recording and issuing the transcript.

A student is not responsible for recording and issuing his or her own educational achievements. From the perspective of, and for the benefit of the student college transcripts serve as a third party declaration of educational achievement. Hence, to use a transcript to state something of the student the transcript serves as a secondary source, whereas to use the transcript to state something of the issuing institution it serves as a primary source.

A similar thing occurs with, for example, peer reviewed journal articles depending on whether an article is used to express something about the journal or the article’s author compared to using the article to express something stated by the article about a third interest (whether of a person, place or thing). --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that you still aren't clear on the different between primary and secondary sources from Wikipedia's perspective. Student transcripts are still primary sources whoever they are talking about and whoever is the subject of the sentence --Slp1 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you think a college transcript is not one step removed from its achievement of record, and this is why you think it a primary source. College transcripts are at least one step removed from the primary documents showing earned grades and credits. The primary documents are produced by the students professor. The university’s administration produces transcripts through a fairly rigorous vetting protocol where the information is checked for accuracy. Also, the student gets to take a look at the transcript as part of this protocol. Hence the official college transcript is removed from the primary source material. If you think college transcripts are primary for some other reason, please specify this. The link you provided above explains all this nicely. The university does not award credits and grades; the student’s professor does this. The university is an institution that provides a methodical and vetted process to verify this educational award. The university issues a transcript, not grades and credits. Hence the transcript is a vetted secondary soure rather than a non-vetted primary source.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot agree with your argument. A university transcript is an historical document equivalent to the "diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews" mentioned in WP:PSTS. Trials, public hearings, census results etc all have checks for accuracy as you are claiming from the university, but that does not make them secondary sources.--Slp1 (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: Being a historical document does not make a document a primary or secondary source. Also, disagreement is not refutation.

Diaries are primary because these are not removed from the person who created them. Census records are primary because, again, these are not removed from the source. Transcripts are at least one step removed from the information’s source. This is already expressed above, and you have not even taken time to respond to it. Not only this, college transcripts are rigorously vetted for accuracy. In the case of court transcripts, these are secondary sources based on how they are used. If you feel differently then please express the precise reason or reasons for this other than repeating you opinion. I know your opinion. I want to know precisely why this is your opinion. I am not interested in agreement or disagreement. I am intrested in specific reasons for agreement or disagreement.

By the way, court transcripts and census reports have nowhere near the vetting brought to bear on college transcripts. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, while we're on the topic of primary versus secondary sources, I checked Lexis-Nexis for articles (secondary sources) relating to Frederick Franz's credentials in biblical languages. There were over twenty articles on Franz, but I did come across a couple of articles by journalists that might be of interest. The first was an obituary of Franz by Canada Newswire (23 December 1992) and the second was by PR Newswire (23 December 1992). Both articles state "A noted Bible scholar and public speaker, Mr. Franz was versed in the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek." I would have thought that these two cross-referenced articles could have been added to the article with little problem. J Readings (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

J Readings: If either Franz or the organization he devoted his life to is responsible for wording in those obituaries then they have little value as a resource other than either his own view of himself (which it is probably not) or the view his organization of choice wants to project of him as its former president. Fluff is everywhere. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. It wouldn't have occurred to me that these obituaries were propaganda pieces, but I suppose it could be true. What objective criteria would one use to identify newswires as being neutral and non-partisan? J Readings (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

J Readings: The short answer is: research, research and more research. Some newswire articles are more likely than others to be propaganda. Obituaries are notoriously full of fluff. Hence these should always be used with care. Important pieces of information include who authored a given article and that author’s history on or with the subject (member, ex-member, conservative, liberal, name your poison). There is also the question of how testable the information is. Vague assertions are notoriously unreliable, for example, whereas precise assertions tend to be more reliable. But, at the end of the day, a presentation of information is as reliable as is the depth of research and aources that accompanies it, along with whatever reputation those sources have.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) While taking your points, may I ask how these opinions fit into Wikipedia's core policies of no original research and verifiability? In the latter it states specifically that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Slp1 (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I agree with the idea that no matter what the article is about, the source is still a primary source. Secondly we should not make a presumption of POV about a source that then leads to a novel idea. To say the obit should be discarded, because we want to show that he was not versed in x would be original research in my opinion. Thirdly, the proper approach, in my humble opinion, is to allow the article to include both direct and indirect quotes showing the details, allowing the *reader* the intelligence, or crediting them with the intelligence to understand that some sources might be biased a bit. If this person is that well-known it would appear that a full standard biographies would have them listed and they could be consulted to see how they phrase particular issues. It would help in these discussions to give details of the specific real-world situation we're addressing here, without hypotheticals. Wjhonson (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson: Sources should not be 1) accepted, 2) discounted or 3) rejected base on a bias. Sources should be evaluated and assigned weight based on veracity of the source itself, which can stand heated test of challange. Editors of encyclopedic content have a duty to express reasons for source weight assignment in the face of challenge. The extent this weight is tested by other editors and the resulting wherewithal of the source is the veracity of the material.

Regarding college transcripts and primary and secondary sources, in precise terms can you state why you believe these transcripts are primary sources and cannot be secondary sources? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: Use of a transcript would amount t original research just like any other vetted source would serve as original research. I fail to see what needs explaining about this. If you use any material to draw conclusions aside from what those sources express, then you are presenting original research. This is straightforward and relatively easy to evaluate. In terms of original research, either what is stated is a conclusion of the referenced material, or what is stated is a conclusion built on the referenced material. If it is constructed from the referenced material but not stated by the referenced material, then it is original research.

As for verifiability, vetted secondary sources are typically accepted by Wikipedia as sources useful for purposes of verification. College transcripts are vetted secondary documents.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr Shilmer, with all due respect, I believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP policies here. Several people have tried to explain the issues. Several people have disagreed with your interpretations. Continually asking for further explanations is unlikely to be fruitful I fear. Slp1 (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: Fine. Now show me. I am not looking for agreement or disagreement. I am looking for precise reasons for agreement or disagreement.

You keep repeating the same opinion but without expressing precise reasons for this opinion. An opinion is only as testable as it is precise. If you want your opinion to have merit you need to allow it to be tested by expressing precise reasons for it. So, please express precisely why you opine that a college transcript cannot be used as a secondary source. I will respond, as always, with precision. I want my responses tested. I am not interested in being correct. I am interested in correctness. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have given multiple reasons why this is a primary source, pointing out WP policies. You apparently do not agree with them, and similarly keep repeating your contention that it is a secondary source, as is your prerogative. Like I said, further discussion appears unlikely to be fruitful at this point. --Slp1 (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: I am disappointed in this response from you. The difference between your presentations and mine on this issue is that you state an opinion buttressed by saying Wikipedia policy agrees with it, whereas I took what Wikipedia policy actually states and demonstrated how and why my position meets those precise criteria. It is one thing to state Wikipedia policy agrees with a position. It is something else altogether to demonstrate how and why an opinion agrees with a Wikipedia policy. I invite you to reconsider and offer your precise reasons for why a college transcript cannot be used as a secondary source. Basic reasons for my position are: these transcripts 1) are at least one step removed from the subject addressed, 2) they are prepared by a third party (the university does not issue the grades and credits, the university issues transcripts) and 3) transcripts are rigorously vetted. Now, again, I invite you to express your precise reasons for your opinion.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the above quote "use of a transcript would amount to original research". In my humble opinion, use a of source is research, but it is not original, it's more mechanical. You are not creating new facts in quoting any source, primary or secondary. You are regurgitating existing facts. Wjhonson (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson: Yes. When we share established information verified by sources then it is patently absurd to characterize this as original research.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I however agree with Martin when he says "if you use any material to draw conclusions..." (etc.) which is why we should not do that. We can state, paraphrase, join, edit and otherwise our sources, but if we draw original conclusions we whatever sources we are using than we are presenting original research. Trivial conclusions, holding community consensus, like "this picture shows a cat" are bland and acceptable. Contentious conclusions like "this picture obviously shows a ferocious man-eating cat" are not allowed. Wjhonson (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would totally agree that primary sources can be used judiciously in just the manner you have been describing, Wjhonson. What has been in dispute above has been whether the transcript is a primary or a secondary source, though it is unclear to me why this is so important. As Wjhonson (I believe) suggested early, it would be very helpful to know exactly what sentence the transcript is supposed to be supporting.Slp1 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: Please consult the example given above of transcript X issued in 1910 by the University of Nowhere for student Andy C. Wallace. This example provides the essentials without getting bogged down in the weeds. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already read and responded to your example above. Now perhaps you can respond to my question about what sentence you would like the transcript to source.--Slp1 (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: I fail to see where you addressed the example with more than a dismissive opinion. You offered not one iota of substance. You offered just opinion. You asked that I consult WP:PSTS. I did and responded in precise terms. In reply, you offered nothing more than a restating of the same opinion.

Now you ask “what sentence you would like the transcript to source.” Of the example of transcript X issued in 1910 by the University of Nowhere for student Andy C. Wallace that he earned 2 credit hours for Esperanto, as I already expressed, as a secondary source of verification I would cite it for a sentence stating, “Andy C. Wallace earned 2 credit hours for Esperanto at the University of Nowhere in year 1910”. It is frustrating that this needs repeating.

Now I ask of you that you express in precise terms why you believe a college transcript cannot be used as a secondary source. Please respond. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) This thread is very long, it's hard now to grasp the whole thing. You wish to consider the transcript as a secondary source, could you explain what advantage this would convey to you? I.E. *Why* do you care if it's considered primary or secondary now? Evidently you see some advantage is making it be called secondary. If so, what is it? Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson: I have not continued this discussion for a single edit/use. Hence stating why in this instance there is an importance to attach to a single use/edit is immaterial. The academic issue is more important, and is at the center of my question. This is one reason for using an example above rather than the actual incident that seeded this discussion. If we get into the weeds of an actual edit issue then we get bogged down and taken away from the academic concern.

The academic issue is first: Under Wikipedia standards (an intentional usage) can a college transcript be considered “published”, or as has been opined previously, is it categorically an “unpublished” source? I believe I have your answer to this question.

Secondly, the academic issue is: Assuming it achieves “published” status, when if ever can a college transcript be considered a secondary source?

On this second academic issue, Slp1 advised that I consult WP:PSTS to see why college transcripts do not meet Wikipedia criteria as a secondary source. I have read this Wikipedia policy many times, but I read it again at Slp1’s request, and I responded in precise terms. Based on specifics in that standard, I see no reason why a college transcript should not be considered a secondary source based on appropriate usage, and I see every reason it should be considered a secondary source based on appropriate usage. I spelled this out above to the point of numbering the items.

If you have any additional observations I would appreciate hearing them, but I request that you be specific enough that your views can be tested for veracity. It has been an extremely frustrating experience trying to get administrators to avoid general statements of opinion and offer sufficiently precise assertions for testing veracity. So I am not misunderstood, again I am not interested in being correct. I am interested in correctness. As I challenge opinions offered to me, I invite my statements to likewise meet with the heat of challenge.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is some language in WP:PSTS that wants secondary sources to be 'interpretive.' It is not clear how a transcript can be viewed as interpretive. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims. Where are the 'analytic or synthetic claims' in a transcript? A transcript seems even more primary than a court decision, where if you're lucky, the judge will give some reasoning and explanation. A written evaluation of a student's work, or a prize citation might be considered interpretive, but neither of these was said to occur in the transcript that led to this entire discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston: It is false to express that “some language in WP:PSTS wants secondary sources to be interpretive” as though this substantiates a conclusion that college transcripts should not be viewed as a secondary source. Offering an interpretation (an analysis or synthetic claim) is one of two alternate achievements indicated for secondary sources under Wikipedia policy. The other achievement is stated as “to create a general overview”. Well, this is precisely what a college transcript expresses of a student's academic achievement. My question for you is why do you wear out one of the achievements expressed of secondary sources and ignore the other stated achievement of “general overview” This omission is surely intentional; so why? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Shilmer, you came here, I presume, to get the opinions of non-involved editors. Many editors have responded in the various threads you have started or participated in. It appears that you disagree with the many of opinions expressed, but accusing comments such as "This omission is surely intentional; so why?", are singularly unhelpful.Slp1 (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: I did not bring this discussion here. Another editor did that, one by the name of Vassilis78. But I will see the end of this issue. I appreciate the thoughtful replies I have read. What I am tired of reading is general opinions backed up with the same opinions. What I am tire of is the near refusal of other participants to offer their opinions with enough precision to make them testable. I am not interested in personal opinions. I am interested in what can be proved as Wikipedia policy. If responders only want to express personal opinion, then I wonder why they engaged the discussion at all.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia and it operates by consensus: people's personal opinions about what WP policy means/implies in this particular situation are pretty much all you are going to get. It is the aggregate of those opinions and comments that becomes the deciding factor when reaching a decision, for there is no single final arbiter of this kind of content dispute. Slp1 (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: Wikipedia is not a world that spins outside the known forms of valid logical construction and deconstruction. Opinions are no more authoritative than how well they are substantiated. 100 editors can offer the same opinion and that opinion has no more merit than mob rule compared to 1 opinion that is substantiated by means of proven premises and valid argument form. If you instruct at a university as you claim then you should already know this, and participate accordingly. It is a waste of everyone’s time to repeat over and over again the same general opinion without demonstrating the veracity of that opinion (conclusion) by means of offering valid premises formed into a valid argument form. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What is primary (continuing from above)

Resolved

You said : "College transcripts are at least one step removed from the primary documents showing earned grades and credits. The primary documents are produced by the students professor. The university’s administration produces transcripts through a fairly rigorous vetting protocol where the information is checked for accuracy. Also, the student gets to take a look at the transcript as part of this protocol. Hence the official college transcript is removed from the primary source material. ... The university is an institution that provides a methodical and vetted process to verify this educational award. The university issues a transcript, not grades and credits. Hence the transcript is a vetted secondary soure rather than a non-vetted primary source"

It would appear than you believe: a document produced first by person Q and then transcripted and vetted by person R (checking for accuracy) and thus creating a "remove" in the process can make a primary document into a secondary document. Would that be an accurate interpretation of your belief? Wjhonson (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson: No. What you express is far simpler than the issuing of a transcript. First, it is not as simple as ‘transcribing a document produced by person Q and vetted by person R’. Universities have individual colleges/departments within their system. A professor determines grades, credits earned and other achievements, which in turn are provided to his or her department for review. This reviewed information is then provided to the University administration where it is methodically reviewed to see if it complies with mandated review processes and vetting protocol unique the institution. (Note: in larger institutions there is at least one additional set review and analysis from a professor to the department to the college to the university system)

The way this information is used and vetted is similar to how diverse information is brought together and given an overview in an article written for a peer reviewed journal. A university gets information from diverse sources within (and from outside) its system and then issues a transcript. In effect, a transcript is a vetted article presenting an overview of a student’s academic achievement. If a student had transferred to that school from another institution the production of the transcript would also include a thorough review of credits earned from other institutions and what form of accreditation held by those institutions. There is some degree of this for all students because all students attended secondary schools before attending university. This information, too, is consulted as part of issuing a transcript. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to distract from the question, you have several times made the claim that transcripts are "rigorously vetted for accuracy" (and rather surprisingly suggested that court transcripts and census reports are not). As one who teaches at a university, I cannot confirm your premise. There is no vetting after I enter my students' grades and the numbers appearing on the student's transcript.--Slp1 (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: Whether you realize it or not, the accreditation held by a university depends on, among other things, an academic integrity that includes methods and means of establishing the veracity of grades and other achievements issued by a professor to a student. This is part of a university’s administration. If this integrity lacks or fails to be maintained according to the accreting authority, then the university loses its accreditation. If you are professor in a university system, then apparently you are unaware that you cannot issue grades willy-nilly without, eventually, getting caught and disciplined. Vetting protocols required by accrediting authorities are there to protect the integrity of the larger educational establishment. These authorities do not take it lightly to learn an institution has failed to comply with appropriate reviews and methods to ensure an accurate record of educational achievement has been produced.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin this is really quite simple. Transcripts of events like plays are qualitatively different to academic results transcripts. Put very simply academic transcripts are not available to everyone. Particularly in Europe it is illegal for an institution to give a third party somebody else's transcripts (due to confidentiality, data protection and all associated laws) - this is a document held by an institution rather than published by them. Transcripts of lectures, play texts, printed versions of speeches etc, are different - primarily as they are not private (as long as they have been released by the author). To address the point above, accrediting authorities do set protocols and parameters but they do not "peer review" results - they test by sampling. They sample the highest, lowest and mean grades randomly - this is grade vetting procedure. Peer review is a different animal.

The points being made to you Marvin are that it would be original research to use what you are talking about--Cailil ^talk 20:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cailil: If you would read what I have written, you would see that I am not addressing university transcripts that are unavailable. I am addressing those that are available.

There are vetting protocols for production of university transcripts. Among other things, this consists of peers reviewing the accuracy of recording by fellows. This is peer review in its most basic form.

You opine that to use a person’s university transcript would be original research, yet you offer not one iota of reason why this is the case, despite contrary views expressed above by other editors, and these with actual reasons associated with the opinion given! Please explain how would be original research to use a transcript to do no more than state credits earned for course work specified on the transcript. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict and responding to Marvin) Indeed, just as the accreditation and/or reputation of census takers (census results), court reporters and the wider justice system (public hearings, trials, or interviews), scientists and researchers (written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research), and administrators (administrative documents) are at risk should the data/document/transcript/results/whatever turn out to be inaccurate/fraudulent/badly done. I do not see that checking and vetting you are claiming for universities/college is any different from these unquestionably primary sources.

I also note that the notes and references used to support the WP:PSTS section, here here, here, here, and here state that primary sources are written close in time to the event (excepting memoirs) and include official records, and that a secondary source analyzes and interprets primary sources. Neither PSTS nor the references given in that article actually mention college transcripts per se, though based on similarities and differences to the examples given, all strongly suggest that school transcripts are a primary source. So specifically does Hoover Presidential Library (using the term school records), the Library of Congress (using the term school report cards), the University of Washington, this Tennessee education document, and this definition. Can you find any counter examples? Slp1 (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I find myself losing patience with this discussion. Some of us are racking our brains to come up with responses to Marvin Shilmer's line of questions, but we have now wandered far afield from the original topic, which is an article where a person's transcript (showing courses in classical Greek) was being used to discredit his abilities as a translator of Biblical Greek. (The paragraph we looked into originally was a prime example of original research, and the issue of this transcript was far from being the worst problem). Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and I no longer see how this conversation is relevant to the improvement of articles, or the revision of policies. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston: What a lopsided presentation you make! I am not the one who seeded this issue. The one who did that is responsible for leaving a misimpression that the source information was used in way to be original research.

The discussion I have pursued relates to academic consistency of source usage. If you find this a frustrating endeavor then why do you participate? If you find this a fulfilling endeavor then why not offer response to precise questions asked with a corresponding level of precision?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: The selectivity of information in your presentation is astounding.

In your reply you cite “recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research”. When the results of experiments are published in a peer reviewed journal article published to give a general overview of diverse but related experiments and results of those experiments, are you of the opinion such an article is a primary or secondary source if it is used to verify that a particular experiment was performed and its result? When you respond to this with reasons for your answer, then we have something to discuss. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't follow you. I cited the sentence directly from the NOR policy, from the primary sources section. All the passages in italics are direct quotes from there. But to be clear scientific data, (the actual results of the experiment whether published or unpublished) are a primary, unanalyzed source. The analysis and interpretation of those results in a peer reviewed journal is the secondary source part. I dealt with this exact issue on an article recently: an editor took an article from a peer-reviewed journal and used the experimental data contained in the article to make a claim that the researchers had not. He use the results as a primary source to do his own original research.--Slp1 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: I am tired of you skirting the questions asked. I do not know if you are doing this intentionally or unintentionally. But it is frustrating nevertheless.

Please note that I did not inquire about an article that provided “analysis and interpretation” of experiments of record. Rather, I inquired about an article “published to give a general overview of diverse but related experiments and results of those experiments”.

Now, if you please, would you respond to the actual question asked rather than to a question you would, apparently, prefer was asked! --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am in agreement with EdJohnston: this conversation is going nowhere. The entire purpose is unclear, questions that would clarify have gone unanswered, the discussion is unproductive and verges on the uncivil. I tried to leave it earlier but stupidly got sucked back in! Enough.--Slp1 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: It is telling when a person extracts themselves from a discussion when their opinion is pressed by challenge. You have done this repeatedly in this discussion. How valuable is an opinion that a person is unwilling or unable to defend under the heat of challenge?

Here is the precise purpose of my question to you: To evaluate whether a university transcript can ever serve as a secondary source.

You have not asked me a single question that has been left unanswered, except for your last rambling request, and that was for reasons stated and left without objection.

Here is a relevant quotation from WP:PSTS: “Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; OR to make analytic or synthetic claims. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.” (Emphasis added)

Now, if this does not communicate the relevancy of the question I presented you with just above, then you are not equipped to offer an answer to it. If you have something substantive to present, I am all ears. This is why I am here and asking the question(s)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For your convenience, the question asked is: When the results of experiments are published in a peer reviewed journal article published to give a general overview of diverse but related experiments and results of those experiments, are you of the opinion such an article is a primary or secondary source if it is used to verify that a particular experiment was performed and its result? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Marvin: if you'll permit me to make an observation, it seems fairly obvious to me (and perhaps most others) that you are engaging us in a political campaign to have the original research policy (generally) and the Reliable Source guidelines (specifically) revised so that university transcripts clearly constitute acceptable secondary sources that can be used when editing this encyclopedia. Otherwise, your argumentative style, line of questioning, and refusal to accept most (any?) of the replies to you makes no sense. For what it's worth, personally, I don't have a problem with editors wanting to build a consensus for policy and guideline revisions. The problem is that you've chosen the wrong venue. The purpose of this noticeboard is for "Editors who want to post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer." A quick read of the archives here will reinforce that point. A specific article is identified and a specific source is then presented within a specific context that cites guidelines. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but that's the pattern. The relevant editors that you should address can be found at the Reliable Sources talk page and the original research talk page. That's where academic issues of general policy and guideline concern are formulated and revised. Good luck and best wishes, J Readings (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

J Readings: My response to your observation of what is obvious to you is that your observation is completely wrong.

I am not engaging a campaign (political or otherwise) to have any policy changed or modified. I am asking a question about current policy. Though lots of opinions have flowed, when these opinions are challenged the source extracts from the conversation. Such behavior is rude and unproductive. We are here to edit encyclopedic content, not coddle personalities. Your response here leads me to believe that though you have taken time to share your disparaging opinion of my intent you have not taken time to make that opinion fit what I have actually written here. Which makes me wonder, why are you writing what you write?

Diverting back to the topic at hand, I have read current Wikipedia policy for what constitutes a secondary source. I have also read each and every opinion shared in this discussion. Repeatedly what occurs when I challenge an opinion based on black-letter Wikipedia policy I am met with silence if not refusal. I appreciate that editors have opinions. But opinions are worthless if they cannot withstand the heat of challenge.

I am not here for luck or well-wishes. I am not here to garner support. I am not here to make editors like me. I am not here to be told I am correct or incorrect. I am here to get learned opinions, and learned opinions do not take challenging questions as insult, trivial or not worth the time. If you have something substantive to add to this discussion I would appreciate the opportunity to read it.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what, Marvin? You're absolutely right. I was wrong to take the time to make (what I thought was) a constructive suggestion. I apologize. "Disparaging opinion of [your] intent"? OK. That wasn't my intention, either, but I'm not going to engage you further about mistaken intentions. If you say that you're not interested in changing the policy to clearly include "academic transcripts" or "university transcripts" or "school transcripts" among the list of acceptable sources on Wikipedia, I believe you. Again, I'm sorry that I misinterpreted these lengthy discussions. And, if others want to engage with you in a Socratic dialogue on whether these transcripts (generally speaking) can/should be interpreted as reliable sources, that's also a good thing for whoever is interested. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

J Readings: Please do not misunderstand my frankness. I am just so tired of the fluffy, preferential and unread responses given to a rather straightforward issue. I apologize if my language is stronger than necessary.

The straightforwardness of this is basic, to me. Wikipedia policy depicts what it accepts as secondary source material; hence if a source fits that depiction then, viola, it is useful as a secondary source.

Responders who have bothered to even reference Wikipedia policy have worn out one depiction of what constitutes a secondary source at the expense of answering for an alternate depiction of what constitutes a secondary source under Wikipedia policy. When this mis-treatment of the subject is pointed out the responders have, apparently, taken umbrage that their opinions were challenged, and they extracted themselves from the discussion. This is not only rude, is it extremely poor academic response, and it is insulting! This is, I must admit, a response that is repugnant to me and tends to get under my skin as an academic.

To me, if the shoe fits we wear it. That is, if a given university transcript is accessible and it fits what current Wikipedia policy depicts for a secondary source then we should accept that transcript as a secondary source, appropriately used of course. I have offered precise reasons for why a given university transcript meets Wikipedia policy as a secondary source, but the precision is avoided by responders. It is frustrating. I have no idea why responders waste their time keyboarding a reply in the first place if they are not going to offer a considered and thorough response, which hopefully is an answer. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What is primary part 2 (continued)

Resolved

When a section becomes very long, as the above, it's hard to edit for some people. So I'd recommend after 15 to 20 posts we start a new section. So I have. Please respond further from this point forward.

Regarding some of the above, we need to be clear that when an author publishes their experimental data, research, observations, biography, or whatever, the entire publication is a primary source. Vetting the results does not change that it's a primary source, and publishing the results does not change it either. It's primary on their note cards, primary in their rough draft, primary while being vetted/peer-reviewed, and primary in it's final published form. The primary form includes the entire book, film, article, audiotape, cd, series, including all the authors comments, analysis, interpretation, and the copyediting of others including their corrections.

Secondary sources are formed when one or more primary sources (see my paragraph above) are used as a backdrop from which to create a brand new artistic expression. Vetting, transcribing (or other purely mechanical form-alteration), collecting, reviewing, copyediting, are not relevant to the type of source. The acts of editing in all their forms, re-forming in all its forms, and fixing in media in all its forms, do not change the type of source. These are considered either purely mechanical functions, or purely editorial functions. They are not relevant to the type of artistic expression the work contains.

Therefore, it is my own humble conclusion after slogging through the reams of arguments above, that a college transcript is merely the mechanically reproduced, edited, vetted, inputted, published form of the original underlying report-mark notes. This is merely the final published form of a process that runs through several "rough drafts" if you will. A college transcript does not convey a new *type* of artistic expression, a new sort of work, a new previously unexpected or unknown situation. It's merely the end-result of a known process that was already known to end in this particular final product, while the intermediate products become irrelevant to analyze.Wjhonson (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This purely theoretical conversation made me create a rough-draft of the difference between a primary and a secondary source here. I'd appreciate comments left on that article's Talk page, in case anyone has anything to add to my brief overview. I might consider writing an essay on the topic. Wjhonson (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson: I very much appreciate this well considered response. One thing I see missing from your analysis relates to a secondary source drawing from multiple primary or secondary sources to provide a general overview. What is your view of how this speaks to the primary or secondary disposition of a university transcript?

I ask the question because though a university transcript is of an information genre of academic achievement, it is false to suggest it is not distinguished as a source that draws from multiple primary sources to provide a overview, and this profile also fits Wikipedia’s policy statement of secondary sources.

Transcripts are a work unto themselves whereby diverse academic achievements from a variety of sources (professors, colleges within the university’s system, etc.) are drawn together by an institution and issued under the system’s reputation. Achievements of record from any one of the sources within the system are primary sources in their own right. So when these primary sources are drawn together for the larger overview of a person’s academic achievement, why would this not be a secondary source on this basis? When answering this question please keep in mind that individual professors and colleges within a university system exercise a high degree of autonomy.-Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin, thank you for your response. On my whiteboard (not quote an essay yet)[ here, I have addressed the question of university transcripts with some reasoning. I would encourage you to post to the Talk page for that article. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources on Theistic rationalism

Please check the unreliable sources used on Theistic rationalism. Specifically:

1. [80] This source acknowledges "Deist" is the more common term and that "Theistic rationalism" is speculatory.

Similarly, while Franklin and Jefferson are regularly listed as deists, they did not believe in the fundamental tenets of deism. The key founders shared a common belief which might be called theistic rationalism.

2. A theology textbook written in the 1950's, republished in the 70's. Despite its use, it isn't accurate because it contains the following speculatory claim:

During the course of history there have appeared three types of rationalism: atheistic, pantheistic, and theistic. Atheistic rationalism appeared first in the early Greek philosophers: Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Leucippus, and Democritus." Pantheistic rationalism is represented in Anaxagoras and the Stoics, and theistic rationalism ... (can't get anymore of the text than that)

3. A biography of George W. Bush (political biographies are frequently bad) which again acknowledges that the term "theistic rationalism" is speculatory.

Perhaps a better for label for what Washington and other like-minded founders believed is theistic rationalism.

4. [81] A political column on an advocacy website. No need to say anything more about this one.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The question of the *meaning* of the underlying content is not relevant to whether it's a reliable source. If your issue is with the meaning, you should take that to the talk page of the article to discuss it with other editors there for consensus. Wjhonson (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I rethought this and possibly what you mean is that the sources themselves speculate in their own text and therefore, in your opinion aren't reliable sources. Our prohibitions here on-Wiki against speculation do not apply *to* our sources, they only apply to us ourselves. We, as editors, cannot include our own personal speculation. Our sources can speculate however. We quote them. We don't add our own.Wjhonson (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, WP:NOR does not apply just to users putting forth their own original research, but also users who put forth the original research of others. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, and nowhere in that policy does it say anything of the sort. Please read the page. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Inapplicable. You have not demonstrated an opposing majority. This isn't like global warming, where there is a side. This is a concept, one which you have not provided any evidence of being disputed. You're just grasping at straws to undermine auburnpilot's work. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Penguin above. Sources which do original research (including their analysis) would be considered primary, and sources which using one or more primary sources (in a non-mechanical and non-trivial way) comment, analyze, or interpret substantially enough to be a new artistic expression, would be secondary. However the prohibition on original research only applies to ourselves as editors, not to our sources. The keyword in your above quote is "may". Further discussion on the particular issues, should be taken to the Talk page of the particular article for consensus re that source. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Asking me to prove something isn't mainstream through finding evidence -- when fringe theories aren't likely to even be discussed by reliable sources if they're fringe -- is an appeal to negative proof. Furthermore, 3 of the 4 sources above acknowledge that they are speculatory. The personal opinions of 3 people + a horrible 1950's theology textbook != reliable.

Sources which do original research are primary, but they should be treated as such. The existence of particular primary sources cannot be used to push fringe views. Thus, the article should read, "According to Gregg Frazer, Clarence Thiessen, and Gary Smith, there is Theistic rationalism, which is apart from Deism."

Anything beyond that hasn't been established.

The fourth source, in particular, is a political column. Political columns are not reliable sources, because they are essays on opinion.

I mean, if we're going to consider Thiesssen a reliable source, would you guys suggest we should have an article on Atheistic rationalism? Furthermore, AuburnPilot hasn't demonstrated that he's actually read the text. I've asked him to complete Thiessen's sentence or at least summarize it. If he has the text or read it in the library, this should not be an unreasonable request. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong, accept it. You're wasting time by trying to misinterpret the policies. You have proven no alternate view, so it is not fringe, nor is it a theory. It is not original research because they are not Wikipedia editors. They are experts. Your attempt to discredit the "political column" is just as foolish because it was written by the guy who wrote the book, something a single look should have told you. It is not unreliable, it is an alternate source to reinforce the previous one. Lastly, as to your attacks on AuburnPilot's book research, try going to the library and doing it yourself. Even if you don't have a car, bus fare won't kill you. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't possible for the general contributors here to know the intimate details of a particular author to determine that authors specific reliability on a particular topic. So whether Thiesssen is a reliable source is too dependent on details about this author which a general reader would not know. And which we, as policy and guideline interpreters do not know. The specific issue of this specific author's reliability, should instead go to an article about that specific author, or an article where they appear prominently, showing sources which discredit that author. So for example, there are many quotes which one could find that might discredit say Ann Coulter as being neutral. If a consensus can be gained that a particular author or work is unreliable, then it would be appropriate to discount it's weight.Wjhonson (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Physicians for Human Rights report

Is this report [82] Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality by Physicians for Human Rights and Human Rights First a Reliable source for information on waterboarding. Here is an example of the sourcing this report uses for water boarding.

Dorte Reff Olsen et al., Prevalent pain and pain level among torture survivors, 53 Danish Med Bull. 210-14 (2006), For details on the study,see note 92.

147 C. Bouwer & D. J. Stein, Association of panic disorder with a historyof traumatic suffocation, 154 Am. J. Psychiatry 1566 (1997), Recent research suggests that panic disorder results from a false suffocation alarm. Bouwer and Stein found that there was a significantly higher incidence of traumatic suffocation experiences (e.g., near-drowning and near-choking) in panic disorder patients (N = 176) than in psychiatric controls (N = 60), and that panic disorder patients with a history of traumatic suffocation were significantly more likely to have predominantly respiratory symptoms than those without such a history. In the majority of patients who had experienced traumatic suffocation this had been during accidental near drowning (N = 25). However, a smaller number of patients had experienced traumatic suffocation during deliberate torture (N = 8) or during rape (N = 1). In a case reported by the authors a 31 year old man with panic attacks characterized by predominantly respiratory symptoms reported that he had been tortured at the age of 18. A wet bag had been placed over his head repeatedly, leading to choking feelings, hyperventilation, and panic. At about age 20 the patient began to experience spontaneous panic attacks.

148 C. Bouwer & D. J. Stein, Panic disorder following torture by suffocationis associated with predominantly respiratory symptoms, 29 Psychological Med. 233 (1999), The authors examined whether a near-suffocation experienced in certain kinds of torture is associated with the development of predominantly respiratory panic attacks. A sample of 14 South African patients who had experienced torture, were questioned about symptoms of panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder and depression. Patients with a history of torture by suffocation (N=8) were more likely than other patients to complain of predominantly respiratory symptoms during panic attacks (N=6). These patients also demonstrated higher levels of depressive symptoms. The authors noted that torture by suffocation is possibly associated with a specific symptomatic profile.

149 H. P. Kapfhammer et al., Posttraumatic stress disorder and healthrelated quality of life in long-term survivors of acute respiratory distress

I do believe this is a good enough source especially when what is said is uncontested by any other source. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a lot of detail. I glanced at the copy, it would appear to be fine so far. It certainly passes most tests. If there is some issue you're having with someone contesting that, I'd need to see their counter-argument. If you're just trying to vet it here, it seems acceptable to use. Wjhonson (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, the article is contencious at the moment and i want outside opinion on this source that i want to add. One user questioned it, but to save heated discussion i thought i'd bring it to where the buck stops. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The counter arguments that I have seen is that Physicians for Human Rights is an advocacy group and that the report is not peer-reviewed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement in our policy for a reliable source to be peer-reviewed. Some articles adhere to a stricter level of sourcing, by editor consensus, but in general we do not have such strictness in the policy. There is no reliable source prohibition against sources created by advocacy groups unless the group is some sort of *fringe* group. A strident tone, a self-righteousness, in the material would indicate a red flag. Wjhonson (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

When you say "advocacy" you may be thinking of "extremist" which is a lot further away. Even extremist publications may be used, but only in articles about themselves and only in reference to their beliefs, etc. Not about other people. I.E. Extremist publications aren't reliable sources about what they say about others. A bit more on the other peer-review bit. Peer-reviewed articles, are considered *more* reliable, but we certainly source things to articles, books, etc that are not peer-reviewed. For example the vast majority of biographies receive no peer-review, just editorial review by the publisher. Wjhonson (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The other option would be to get hold of the articles (which are from peer-reviewed journals as far as I can tell) and cite the studies directly without using Physicians for Human Rights as the intermediary source. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange might be helpful in getting the articles if that is a problem.Slp1 (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly a possibility. But there are severval disadvantages. First, we loose the synthesis of the authors of the report. Secondly, while the report is available online for free, the original sources require access to a very well-stocked medical (and possibly law library. Resource exchange may help, but is unlikely to be able to get full access to the papers even for just the contributors, let alone for all readers. And finally, the report seems written for a well-informed lay audience, while the original papers are highly specialized and much harder to read and understand. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not withstanding the other issues mentioned above, I was able to easily access all the articles listed above via my university library, and can send copies to anybody who sends me an email. --Slp1 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Position Papers are reliable sources for the opinion of advocacy groups

As a formal statement by an advocacy group, the statement is a reliable source on the position of the advocacy group. However, it is not a peer-reviewed scientific statement. It does not have that kind of value. The position paper writers are using research in areas not really focused on their topic to buttress their point of view. This alone might not pass peer review/ But moreover, this emphasizes the fact that this is an opinion piece by an advocacy group. So, if the question is "Is this a reliable Source?" the answer is "Depends upon what you are trying to source. If you want to source the opinion of this group, it is entirely reliable. If you are trying to establish scientific source, it is not a good source." --Blue Tie (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of a statement (copied out of the report) that would be useful discribing the mental effects of near-suffocation.

The experience of near-suffocation is also associated with the development of predominantly respiratory panic attacks, high levels of depressive symptoms, and prolonged posttraumatic stress disorder.

This statement is backed up with two medical peer reviewed papers; C. Bouwer & D. J. Stein, Association of panic disorder with a history of traumatic suffocation, 154 Am. J. Psychiatry 1566 (1997), and C. Bouwer & D. J. Stein, Panic disorder following torture by suffocation is associated with predominantly respiratory symptoms, 29 Psychological Med. 233 (1999), noteing both sources are writen before 9/11 so not anti-american bias. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems acceptable. Since you are citing from this secondary source, you might be on firmer ground with a full citation to the underlying primary source and including a statement such as :"as cited by source xxx" to indicate that you yourself did not consult the primary, but consulted a secondary source citing the primary. That's a nice fat run-on sentence. At least the editors at the article can now discuss this potential way of citing, and perhaps accept this milder method without edit-warring over it. I believe we have an article at something like Citing Sources which may have an example of how to properly cite to an underlying source. Wjhonson (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. In an article on Near-suffocation, this would be an excellent reference. It would not be a good reference however on articles that do not deal with Near suffociation. In particular, an article which, for example, might be called "Waterboarding" could not use this as a cite without a violation of WP:OR. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OR is something wikipedians do not our sources. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Waterboarding is one way of inducing near-suffocation through "simulated drowning". As a parallel, information from a research article about burns in general would be certainly be useful and appropriate in an article about scalding burns.--Slp1 (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While the Physicians for Human Rights report seems patient and scholarly, it has no named authors, and is presumably not peer-reviewed. If we have a real, published secondary source then it is reasonable to quote their evaluations when putting together our articles. Unfortunately I don't see that this particular report counts as a reliable source under our rules. There is no guarantee that it received even as much editorial scrutiny as a newspaper article, and its origin from an activist group should make us watchful (Unless you can find some other reliable source commenting on the quality of PHR's reports). EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the acknowledgments section. Named authors are "Scott Allen, MD, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), Columbia Medicine as a Profession Fellow; Devon Chaffee, JD, Human Rights First (HRF), Kroll Family Human Rights Fellow; and Farnoosh Hashemian, MPH, Research Associate (PHR), i.e. an MD, a JD, and a Master of Public Health. It also acknowledges a large number of other reviewers and contributors, including several more MDs and JDs, a retired Justice of the South African Constitutional Court, and a retired US army brigadier general. This is not quite the same as independent peer review, but it is rather impressive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable?

I would like to include the following statement in the article Banu Qurayza:

The Banu Qurayza also agreed with the appointment of Sa'ad ibn Mua'dh [as an arbiter].

Note: The Banu Qurayza were one of the tribes that came into conflict with the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and they are the subject of various verses of the Qur'an, Islam's holy scriptures. The above quote is in the context of a dilemma after (or near the end of) the Battle of the Trench.

I am backing this up with the following sources:

• Khadduri, Majid (1955). War And Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

• Khadduri was a professor at Indiana University, the University of Chicago, and at Johns Hopkins University. He founded the Middle East studies program at the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.[83]
• Johns Hopkins Press, the publisher of the book, is an academic university press.

• Hashmi, Sohail H.; Buchanan, Allen E; Moore, Margaret (2003). States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries. Cambridge University Press.

• Sohail Hashmi is an associate professor at . He specializes in the role of Islam in domestic and international relations.[84] In 2005, he was named a Carnegie scholar. Hashmi's research includes "Islamic state’s relations with Muslims and non-Muslims."[85]
• Allen Buchanan is a professor at Duke university. His research concerns political philosophy, and philosophy of international law.
• Cambridge University Press, the publisher of the book is one of the most respected academic publishers.

• Mohammed Abu-Nimer (2000-2001). "A Framework for Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam". Journal of Law and Religion 15 (1-2): 247

• Mohammed Abu-Nimer is a professor at the American University's School of International Service. His research includes "Islam, nonviolence and peace", "Religion and peace", "Culture and peace and conflict resolution".
• "The Journal of Law and Religion is an interfaith, interdisciplinary peer-reviewed English language academic and professional journal devoted to issues that engage both theology and law."[86]

The above fact can also be found in a medieval source: Al-Sira Al-Nabawiyya (Ibn Kathir). This can be found page 166 of the 2000 version as translated from Arabic to English by Trevor Le Gassick (professor of Arabic Literature[87]).

The question is whether the above sources are reliable enough by the standards of WP:RS and WP:SOURCES.Bless sins (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins, those sources are reliable, but some of the wording in your version is contentious. I commented on the talkpage. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources do appear to be reliable upon first glance... especially Khadduri, whose book I see referenced frequently in academic bibliographies. ITAQALLAH 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Japan Times

A third opinion please. Recently, my edit see diff has been challenged[88]. I am curious of the opinion of other editors. Is my use of that article from The Japan Times consistent with 'reliable source' standards at Wikipedia? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr a good question. There are two issues here. One is whether the Japan Times article is an opinion piece or not. If it is not, then you should, in my humble opinion, instead of replacing one source with another, rather, create a paragraph which combines the two sources various statements, and there should be no problem. Even if the article is an opinion piece, it can still be used, although this situation is not as clear with some editors. We may, illuminate a situation from primary sources if a secondary source has reflected on the same issue. In general primary sources, which would include opinion columns, can be used to fill-in an issue brought forth by a secondary source, although primary source should not pre-dominate in any article. I hope that's more clear. Wjhonson (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither source appears to be reliable. The article from the Japan Times reads like an opinion piece. Meanwhile, the original source is a self-published copy of a piece by David Kopel (a fellow of CATO, an extreme group) on an anti-gun control advocacy site. I've removed both sources and added a citation needed tag. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Which WP:Policy are you reading that prohibits opinion pieces? Also, how does an editor define 'opinion piece'? That article, after all, is about politics. It seems that neutral opinion pieces about politics are typical the type of sourcing an editor would use in an article about politics. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

zenwhat, you're interjecting your own opinion about CATO here which is inappropriate. saltyboatr, opinion pieces are not prohibited, but this is a question of context. the various sections in the article about gun laws in different countries generally rely upon fairly 'dry' recitations of what the gun regulations are. an opinion piece detailing what appears the author's opinions about how well the gun laws are enforced is not at all reliable compared to a source that provides statistics on such matters. of course, i have a far more important question pending on the gun politics talk page regarding your use of guncite as a reliable source in one article, and your refusal to allow its use in the gun politics article, but as yet no response has been tendered.... Anastrophe (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

CATO is Libertarian. They've never pulled more than a few percentage of the vote and they have almost no candidates in office, so they're just slightly a step above Communists and Neonazis. Opinion pieces are prohibited, except in cases where the opinion is particularly relevant (i.e., "George Bush wrote X on his blog" -- link to Bush's blog). In other cases, they are prohibited because they are assertions of opinion, not necessarily assertions of fact. It is true that you will find many Wikipedians who think it's perfectly alright to use blogs, opinion pieces, and self-published sources by stoners and this to some degree has even made its way into policy pages. Per WP:IAR, such claims should be ignored. The fact that I have to make this point, however, is ridiculous.

And I oppose gun control, btw. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

your opinion of CATO/Libertarians is noted. i think few would consider libertarians to be extremists in the common vernacular. i don't recall ever reading about people being lynched by libertarians, or nail-bombs in malls that were planted by libertarians. but we digress. your example is weak, because unless george bush's opinion on X were directly relevant to a particular article, and he were a noted, publish authority on the matter, his opinion would not be valid as a reliable source. opinion pieces are frequently used on wikipedia, particularly where the article is about matters that are open to interpretation. you're unlikely to find an opinion used as a reliable source in the article for Carbon Dioxide, for example, while you will find opinions used as reliable sources in the article Abortion debate. it's a question of context.Anastrophe (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'm sorry I have to agree in principle but redirect. The issue that takes center-stage with the CATO/David Kopel piece is undue weight and only secondarily reliable sources. In a general article about gun control laws, solely citing the self-published work of an author with a minority view who is known to have a particular point-of-view would be undue weight. However that same exact work, cited in an article about say the views of libertarians, or the views of Kopel or CATO would be much more appropriate. General articles should focus on majority viewpoints and sources generally, with perhaps a smaller mention of minority views. So your issue here isn't really RS, its UNDUE. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Anastrophe, it is not merely my opinion that CATO is extreme. Whether or not a group has engaged in violence says nothing about their extremity. Opinion pieces are frequently used on Wikipedia. So are blogs, self-published sources, and a lot of unreliable sources. That's the reason this noticeboard exists. Also, Wjhonson is right: I wouldn't have any particular objection to having David Kopel's views be out there if David Kopel was given the weight of "a few percent" and not used as the sole source. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, both references are good. The last sentence of the first diff mentioned reads like an opinion though. I would try to combine the two references.Ngchen (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask again: Where do I look in WP:Policy to read about why 'opinion pieces' are prohibited. Zenwhat, where do you read this policy? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that I see that 'mainstream newspapers' are considered to be most reliable per WP:V. I see nothing about (except with mainstream newspaper opinion pieces) in WP:V. Perhaps your prohibition of mainstream newspaper opinion pieces should be added to WP:V. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's in there somewhere. And if it isn't, WP:IAR. You've got to be joking if you think it's OK to use opinion pieces to establish facts. They're tertiary sources and they regularly contain false or misleading material. Their mainstream status is irrelevant. If Wikipedia relies on tertiary sources, that makes Britannica better in quality, because Britannica is itself a tertiary source. If Wikipedia relies on tertiary sources, Wikipedia becomes what could be called a "tertiary tertiary source." It's a jumble of poor articles backed by blogs, opinion pieces, self-published websites, political websites, and gossip. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, you are arguing WP:POLICY now. You asserted that journalistic 'opinion' in mainstream newspapers is somehow prohibited. Make that policy change in WP:V and see if it sticks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Salty you already got your answer, at least in regard to this noticeboard a while ago. Opinion pieces are not "prohibited", they can be used in certain situations. Both of you have a great day.Wjhonson (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're objecting to the way I worded it. When I said, "prohibited, I didn't mean they can never be used. I said they are "prohibited...except..." There are exceptions. This doesn't appear to be one of them, because it's an article on gun control, not an article on:

• Dave Kopel
• What Dave Kopel thinks on gun control
• Libertarians
• What Libertarians think about gun control
• CATO
• What CATO thinks about gun control

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Zen you are correct, we are in full agreement. Wjhonson (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

lambiek comiclopedia

What are people's opinions about this site? This is in reference to Talk:David Beauchard.P4k (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually after doing a little research I can see I'm probably just wrong about this. Forget about it.P4k (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Must a source be faultless to be reliable?

One of the sources for Duchy of Pless is the memoirs of Daisy, Princess of Pless, who is one of the reasons for the notability of this obsolete territorial title. (It goes back to the twelfth century, and became a principality in the nineteenth.)

These books have primarily been used to document the Princess's immediate family; and (unlike many autobiographies) they have an editor's introduction and notes. One of these has been used to impugn the reliability of the book as a whole. The text asserts that "The wicked Polish Expropriation Act¹ was passed in spite of all Hans [the then Prince] and his friends could do;" the editor adds that "On September 27, 1908; this law, however, was never actually put into execution."

An editor has found that this is a slight exaggeration; a book directly on the subject (Imanuel Geiss: Der polnische Grenzstreifen; p.20) notes a single occasion in April 1911 - three years later - when a different Prussian administration did take four Polish properties. (Geiss does not actually assert that this law was used; but it is a reasonable inference.)

The editor now claims that this discrepancy not only requires an alteration of the article on this point, which has been done; but also means that the entire book is unreliable. Is this reasonable? All books make slips, and this may even be a well-intended generalization. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No; I'd just cite the fact that the Duchess' claim is disputed or contradicted by the other book, assuming that this contradiction is actually somehow relevant to the article subject and not just a means of impugning the autobiography. If I had a nickel for every time someone tried to reject a New York Times article as a source by mentioning Jayson Blair... I'd have at least 25¢. MastCell ^Talk 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; since Geiss in fact agrees that the anti-Polish movement came to a standstill after the "stormy" opposition to the bill, I just toned down to "hardly ever enforced" per HMS Pinafore. (Germany and Austria attempted to take over Russian Poland during the First World War; but this was the same movement, not the same legislation.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct, that slight or sometimes even gross errors do not necessarily impugn the reliability of a source to the point of totally discrediting it (cf. The Bible). OK that was just a bit of a joke there. Editors should always be willing to discuss the issue sensibly, striving for a consensus view, and not take extreme positions, see WP:POINT. Wjhonson (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A blog associated with a reliable source

Resolved

I know blogs are generally considered not to be reliable sources but I was wondering if there are exceptions. In particular I am interested in using elements from here to improve the Wikipedia article Anthology of Interest II. In this case the blog is associated with what I would normally consider a reliable source, Wired, and is written by the author of another article which actually appeared in the magazine. The author of the blog seems to regard the additional entries [89] as extended coverage from the article. In this case can the blog be used? I think even a semi-reliable source would be an improvement for the currently unsourced Wikipedia page but I'm not sure. Advice would be greatly appreciated. Stardust8212 02:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a good question. See our policy statement here on the use of a Self-Published Source if the person is an acknowledged expert on the topic of the article, and was previously published by a reliable third-party source.Wjhonson (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It really is a good question. Take a famous political blog like that written by Oliver Kamm. Should his blog be considered an exception to policy and be allowable as a critical reference in a biographical article about a living person?BernardL (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Our policy already is stated to allow experts in the topic of the article to be cited if they have been previously published by a third-party source. If this expert is either not an expert in the topic, or has not been previously published by a third-party source, then he would currently fail our policy statements. You might consider whether you'd like to bring that to the talk page of verifiability. Wjhonson (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply, my read of the policy seems like in this instance this can be considered acceptable. I'll leave this open a couple days to give anyone else a chance to offer an opinion and then mark it as resolved. Thanks again for your help! Stardust8212 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is really whether editorials/blogs are subject to editorial control which really can only be decided case by case. --neonwhite user page talk 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a good way that you know of to determine when there is editorial control? In this case I suspect Wired does have some editorial control though I don't know how much. Stardust8212 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not the technology of the "blog" that makes it an unreliable source. What makes it an unreliable source is the nature of the editorial process.

Good blog:

• Closed registration
• A handful of editors
• All editors are experts
• They're journalists who do original stories

Bad blog:

• Open registrations
• Hundreds of editors
• Editors are average people
• They copy and paste stuff from CNN and Fox News

In general, blogs should be avoided, but in some cases (i.e., experts who run their own blogs), a "good blog," is not really a blog at all, but simply a news source. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case the blog could be considered a "Good Blog", I can't be sure of all editors of the blog but the specific entries I want to use are written by an author who previously published at least one article on the same topic. Thanks for your input. Stardust8212 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider Associated Press (thousands of editors) and Reuters (financial firm) within those definitions. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, SEWilco, which is why it occurred to me that several more criteria would apply, one of which is how often they get their facts right and whether they're advocates or just neutral reporters. Still, though, does the AP or Reuters actually run a blog? I don't think, but I could be wrong.

To clarify this and since I had the same problem with User:Sceptre on Gamespot, I made a policy proposal to clarify the reliability of blogs here. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In general I agree, and we discussed here last year or so, that specific case, towit, if a journalist, who has already published on a report, then gives continuing coverage in their own "blog" can that be used? IIRC the consensus was that it was fine. But I'll take a look at your proposal. Wjhonson (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we accept forums that are likely _the_ source for a statement - not just _a_ source?

Initially I've asked a similar question at the policy village pump. After a quite fruitful discussion an editor suggested to ask here for expert answers on the reliability aspect of that particular question. For reference there's also a discussion about verifiability going on here on the WP:V Talk page.
Here goes. In the EVE Online article an editor recently posted a link to a forum topic in the EVE Aurora forums. Aurora is an organization that helps the developers and game masters of EVE Online organize in-game events. The question is whether we accept this source. Here is what the discussion over at the village pump brought.
We are talking about forums here. They are self-published content and therefore "largely not acceptable" as WP:V puts it. The only exception could be content that has been also published by "reliable third-party publications". However, as a fellow editor pointed out, "There aren't going to be much if any paper sources." Or other forms of third-party publications for that matter. I would think that even if there are no other sources this forum is not a reliable source. What do you think about this? Do we accpet this source with regards to its reliability?
-- Aexus (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You ask an interesting question, Aexus. Here's a few quick thoughts:

• First, chat fora have no editorial oversight or emphasis on fact-checking, so you'll never really know what you're getting in terms of facts (the person could be talking nonsense). I also think it's a bad idea to start citing e-mails for "notable opinions," too, but there seems to be some disagreement among editors on that score.

• Second, I use something called the "acid test." If a news search engine (e.g., Factiva, Lexis-Nexis, Google News), academic journal article search engine (e.g., JSTOR) or book search engine (e.g., Worldcat) fails to produce any sources linked to that subject or forum conversation, then we can safely infer that virtually no one thought the subject or fact was worth discussing. Hence, on notability grounds, it really shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Resorting to an e-mail forum post --- where there are sadly few legal implications to worry about --- in order to verify facts seems pretty dangerous to me on several levels.

• Finally, we went through a similar issue when editing the Essjay Controversy page. Some editors wanted to cite private Essjay e-mails and chat fora and other miscellany in the article. Purists rejected this idea, and edit wars sometimes ensued. The only way that we were ever able to include "unpublished" Essjay e-mail and chat forum comments without a fight was when they were (ironically) cited by third-party journalists and academics. Go figure. (^_^) J Readings (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

When the fact being sourced is that Poster X said Y, then I have to agree the post proves it reliably. The difficulty is that this fact, by itself, is rarely of encyclopedic interest. Our article is usually implying that poster X said it first, which requires an independent source; or that poster X is actually notable person Z, which can be clear for a single-person blog, but is much harder for a forum post, although if the poster can be shown to be, say, an EVEonline developer, that would count. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they aren't verifiable and they only represent the opinion of one person. Take a look. Like Wikis, forum posts can also be changed relatively quickly.

Just ask yourself, "WWBD?" (What would Britannica do?)

Can you really imagine a group of credible encyclopedia editors, sitting around a desk, with one of them using random results on Google or forum posts as reliable sources? Of course not.

If anybody else tells you otherwise, you should first attempt to change their minds through rational discussion invoking the assertions above. If they make vague appeals to relativism, subjectivism, absurdism and other sophistry, then you should ignore them. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:PSTS and WP:SPS we can use self-published anything as a primary source for to support the fact that the source exists or says what it says it says, as long as we take care to make sure that anyone without any specialist knowledge would agree if they looked at it. MilesAgain (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic.com message board posts as RS

Are forum posts a reliable source for Wikipedia, such as on http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39a525043cb8.htm ? Various users are adding forum posts as RS here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Republic&action=history and claiming they are RS-compliant. Lawrence Cohen 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a more specific example? Going back a few from the current version is this with some FR links. The text is mostly discussing things on FR; are the links to the discussion being mentioned, or which of them is a problem? -- SEWilco (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Typical: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Republic&oldid=186162142#_ref-20 SELFPUP prohibits such sources when discussing other parties. In this case, they're discussing Tony Snow. In this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Republic&oldid=186162142#_note-25 they're linking to a copyvio of another news source that discusses Free Republic. The problem is that I don't think a message board's post, as they have no editorial oversight or control, and as an extremist site similar to http://www.stormfront.org, should not be used as sources for anything but exclusively material to themselves from non-forum posts by random, anonymous individuals. Lawrence Cohen 19:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree. But you're deleting whole sections of the article that are "Exclusively material to themselves," such as the frequent disruption of their forum by varuious trolls and "agents provocateurs," also they could not reasonably be described as "extremist," certainly not like Stormfront. Unless you consider the US Republican Party to be "extremist like Stormfront." I've been reading a lot of FR threads since becoming interested in this article, and they seem very mainstream. The "extremists luike Stormfront" get banned for making racist remarks. You're not familiar enough with the subject matter, or you wouldn't make claims like that. Samurai Commuter (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that the leftist/agents bit is 1) sourced to message boards, which are useless for an encyclopedia and inherently unreliable; 2) discuss other individuals besides the article subject; 3) are unverifiable, and have no editorial oversight; 4) are the same edits routinely pushed by a banned editor; 5) editing on the behalf or to advance the desired edits of a banned user is not allowed, and is grounds for banning. Thats a lot of reasons this material is inappropriate for Wikipedia. And yes, the "Freepers" are extremists, as sources say. Lawrence § talk/edits 21:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See last post of previous section by Septentrionalis: "When the fact being sourced is that Poster X said Y, then I have to agree the post proves it reliably. The difficulty is that this fact, by itself, is rarely of encyclopedic interest." "Rarely" is not "never." In an article about that forum, such facts may frequently be of encyclopedic interest. Also, WP:SELFPUB is policy and trumps WP:RS, which is only a guideline. Samurai Commuter (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, they're obviously self-published sources. Anybody here could sign up and make comments there and what one person says is just a personal opinion -- which is the tiniest "minority opinion" there could be. Editors adding FreeRepublic posts as "reliable sources," should be told they're wrong and if they edit war, they should be blocked. It's a good thing you came here, Lawrence, but it's unfortunate that you'd actually have to come here for such an obvious violation of policy and it's pretty sad to see several editors here actually defend this vandalism. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The neatest trick would be to sign up and post something anonymously on such a bulletin board, then come to wiki and cite yourself for the source of an assertion. I suspect that was going on in the WyldCard business. Eschoir (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the existence of FreeRepublic is notable. What goes on there, however, is not. The "forum controversies" posted there belong on Encyclopedia Dramatica -- not here. I took a quick glance at the Daily Kos article (since it's a similar topic) and that article also seems to suffer from similar problems. A lot of that stuff isn't notable and needs to be cut down. Fortunately, the Kos article hasn't started being sourced with user comments. Any admin needs to just carry a big stick and beat all of the political pundit trolls down. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I've read through most of this and I have to point out a few things. The article linked is in-fact an article about the internet forum itself. Self-published statements by a subject, presented as the views of that subject, are acceptable, provided they are not presented as facts or reveal certain personal information about living people. Imagine this scenario: We have an article on Anne Coulter and she has a blog where she says "Edwards is a faggot". We can certainly quote her, from her blog, on her article to show what her beliefs are. I see this case as similar. To present a "biography" of FreeRepublic it would be acceptable to quote posts from the board, presenting them as quotes of the board, not as facts. I'm open to having my mind changed on that. I'm not fully sure I'm interpreting policy correctly here, but this is my first stab at this new type of situation.Wjhonson (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Wjhonson, but here's what we can't do:

• "FreeRepublic is a racist and fascist organization" (a string of sources to user comments)
• "Daily Kos is an anti-semitic, anti-american organization that hates the troops" (a string of sources to user comments)

Those are extreme hypothetical examples, though that's what somewhat seems to be going on. They're referencing "forum controversies," but who's to say that any of these controversies are notable and how can they be independently verified?

Political pundits on the left, such as the folks at Democratic Underground have been guilty of the former and political pundits on the right, such as Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin have been guilty of the latter.

Also, looking at the article on Democratic Underground, again, I see the same nonsense. Any rouge admin just needs to carry a big stick and clean out the troll mobs. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I point out that the selection of those user comments would be OR, would it not? And, insofar as the anonymous user comments were primary sources, it would be impermissible to synthesize them to advance an argument. Eschoir (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with both your statements. We cannot analyze or synthecize the comments. We can quote them however. We can select, selection is an editorial process much like paraphrasing, joining, copyediting. We do not quote entire works, we select quotes. Now how do we reconcile that with the question of OR in the selection process? Here is how. Primary material can illustrate an issue brought forward by a secondary source. It cannot be used to introduce a brand-new issue. So if a verifiable, secondary source states that Free Republic is fascist, we could then point to certain posts to illustrate examples of that. If no secondary source states it, then we cannot. That's the basic approach. There's always fine-tuning on a case-by-case basis and with consensus. As far as commentary from both sides, imho I would quote both sides with attribution. This provides the basis of the situation, with a neutral point of view. As above, we must ensure that the *basic* issue has been mentioned in a secondary source. Wjhonson (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources used in Cannabis

Specifically, the stuff at Cannabis#Various strains of cannabis. [90] User:Pundit seemed to have agreed a while back, I thought, that the sources there were bad, which was the main basis for why Chocolate Thai was merged into Cannabis. After it was merged, though, he\she put the sources back in. I tried to remove them and was told not to violate consensus.

See Talk:Chocolate Thai and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolate Thai (2nd nomination). Based on the comments there, it appears to me that there was more consensus to remove the nonsense than keep it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may comment on this: as I posted an RfC about the sources and the results were unanimously in favor of keeping the references, I believe there are no grounds to delete them (although definitely a wider consensus would be great to have and if then the majority is for deletion, so be it). I agree that the topic is unusual and I totally understand everybody, who after all decides, that in the field of marijuana strains, a specialized cannabis fans' magazine, even if established and international, is not good enough as a source (which I would probably incline to as well, but I believe in this specific area there are no other credible sources). However, the AfD is irrelevant here - the decision was about DELETION/MERGING of an article, and not about the sources used. It would make no sense to assume that deleting one article automatically bans the references it contained. Therefore, although I know barely anything about the topic of Chocolate Thai, and although only through discussing it I vastly expanded my limited knowledge of cannabis, I believe that at current stage the repeated cuts by Zenwhat are ungrounded and against the decision from an RfC. Pundit|utter 21:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unanimous, yes, because you only had two people that responded. If we include them in the opinions of all the other editors, there's still no consensus for Pundit's sources to stay up and she's tried to keep them up through reverting my edits and making threats. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zenwhat, I already wrote above that a wider consensus would be welcome - I totally agree that more than 2 people expressing their view would be better. Still, many RfC end up with a couple of comments, which nevertheless should be at least appreciated and respected (until a wider consensus emerges). I honestly don't know what you mean by "threats" - if by these you mean my pleads to you to respect Wikipedia rules, my hope was not to threaten you in any way, but rather convince to observe the policies. take care, don't feel threatened and cheer up :) Pundit|utter 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Blog interviews

I hope this is the right place for this, I was told to come here. If a blog interviews an actor and that actor has a page here. What would the blog owner have to do to get his blog as a reliable source?Megagents (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please add ~~~~ to the end of your comments in order to user-timestamp them. As to your question see self published sources noting that the blogger must be an "...established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has been previously published by third-party sources". Wjhonson (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you.Megagents (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can a memoir of a husband/wife be presented without explanation.

Can a memoir of a husband/wife be presented without explanation of the nature of claims made in the memoir ? I am dealing with situation in which a memoir of a wife is given as source for several authorative historic claims about her husband. That memoir is given as source of information presented as simple fact. It has been proven that one of the "facts" was in fact completely false and contradicting historic knowledge. Should sentences based on the memoir be changed in way to inform the reader that this information comes from memoirs of said ruler's wife ?--Molobo (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

More generally, and imho, primary sources should *always* be quoted and never paraphrased or presented as bold facts. Quoting makes clear exactly who is talking and exactly what they said without comment. Conclusions and analysis of what is said must only be cited from secondary sources, although primary sources may be used to more fully illustrate what a secondary source has brought forward.Wjhonson (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The memoir, however, is not entirely a primary source; it's an autobiography, but contains extensive notes by a third-party editor; what is being cited is the notes. The alleged contradiction is the discrepancy discussed in #Must a source be faultless to be reliable?, above: the editor said that a law was unenforced; it was enforced once, three years after passage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect , the author writes that it was never enforced. It was enforced four times.--Molobo (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What Molobo's source says is that the Government made no use of the law, but in 1911, three years, under different circumstances and a new Chancellor, the Greater Ostmark movement did succeed with four Polish properties. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• This biography also has the same version. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What would be the problem in saying "Source X states the law was never enforced, but Source Y states it was enforced four times". Wjhonson (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

None; that's what the article does say, and did when Molobo posted. What Molobo appears to want is to have the book expunged from the article because of this discrepancy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Right I don't find that approach entirely consistent with how I understand policy. In fact, without a source, stating that the law had been enforced four times would be original research. At the least, both sides should be presented. Wjhonson (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Evidence-Based Complimentary and Alternative Medicine"

This journal is occassionally claimed as a source for Alternative medicine claims, but it is a very, very strange one.

For instance, in the first issue of the latest volume, we have an article claiming pyramid power reduces stress in rats [91], one claiming that quantum mechanics means that you cannot test homeopathy, because the blinding ruins the resonance between practitioner, "remedy", and patient [92]... And as far as I can tell, they either very rarely, or outright refuse to publish articles negative to CAM. Can we have it officially declared unreliable, as it's often claimed to be a valid medical/scientific source. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam would you like to rephrase your question? You start by saying its claimed as a source "for Alternative medicine claims". If the magazine is making a claim, it's making a claim. Why does your link cite to the NIH? Is the NIH suggesting that the magazine is actually one utilized with frequency within the Alternative medicine community? If it's one of the primary sources for that community, then it's claims can be cited on articles related to that community can't it? Or am I misunderstanding your question? Wjhonson (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it used as a citation for scientific claim, and it is this that I believe Adam is referring to. I believe I've removed all it's uses in that context though, so it may not be an issue. Jefffire (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide specific examples of citations you have removed recently please? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually allow me to provide one which you removed with the edit summary stating "...published in the journal of zero-respect": [93]. Perhaps we should have RSN look at these specific instances and have them evaluate them individually? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously contending that this journal is a reliable and authoritative source of scientific information?! Jefffire (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Whether or not you or I agree with the conclusions of the research published by this journal is irrelevant to it being a reliable source. As far as I know, EBCAM has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Read more here. It is exhaustively peer reviewed and depends on basic and clinical research, methodology, and history and philosophy of medicine in relevant areas. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Right then, so you'll be adding a section to stress on how pyramids can reduce it? Seriously, you've picked a lame horse to champion. Jefffire (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam, I checked it out and it appears to be legitimate. Take a look. [94] If you dig through studies, you'll find all kinds of quacks making absurd claims. What editors appear to be doing is cherrypicking obscure studies that have been utterly ridiculed in peer-review and using the fallacy, "A scientific study said it! So it must be true!" The quacks are notable. It should be noted, however, that their conclusions are not widely accepted. It's OK to use the citation, but peer-reviews of it should be investigated. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is published by Oxford University in England. Now why would they do that? Anthon01 (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Because Oxford Press is a publishing company, making it their job? Jefffire (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

They also have a reputation. Anthon01 (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For good ink and paper. I smell put-upon knowledge. Jefffire (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I would us all to review the Statement page and Editorial board for this journal. Perhaps there can be some discussion at the Talk page of Alternative Medicine on where it would be appropriate to cite this journal and where it would not. Wjhonson (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's usable to cite for the various wacky claims of pseudoscientists, but it's not usable to cite for factual scientific information. I can't believe we're even having this conversation, its a piece of crap. When was the last time anyone saw it cited in reputable journal? Jefffire (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That depends. What do you consider a reputable journal? Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing? Integrative Cancer Therapy? Anesthesia & Analgesia? Cancer Research? Journal of Clinical Oncology? Physical Therapy? Journal of Immunology? Journal of Nutrition? Molecular Cancer Therapeutics? CMAJ? Journal of General Virology? Infection & Immunity? Journal of Leukocyte Biology? Yes, all of these have cited research from EBCAM. Considering that EBCAM started only 4 years ago, I'd say that this is rather outstanding. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then what's the impact factor, and do you stand by their pyramid power article? Jefffire (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Yes and that's why we would not cite it for factual scientific information. Rather we would cite it for their claim, quoting and citing them as the source, as a minority viewpoint. Keeping always in mind undue weight. We would not cite 95 theories of pyramid power even within the Pyramid Power article, but we can certainly cite one claim of it, outside it's own article. Remember this is a claim, not a fact. If the claim represents a significant minority viewpoint, then it should be included. If it represents just one of 50 competing minority viewpoints, you should discuss and decide on a case-by-case basis which claims are most significant, on the associated article talk page. Wjhonson (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Deadly nightshade

Hello. I would like to add a sentence to this article which in effect states: Deadly nightshade is used in homeopathic remedies commonly. Source which I have to support this claim include: Discovering Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century By Dana Ullman, The Oxford Book of Health Foods By John Griffith Vaughan & Patricia Ann Judd, and Family Homeopath by Robin Hayfield. I do have other sources, but let's go with any/all of these three for now.

One proponent of leaving this information out of the article cites that a book about plants or specifically about "Deadly Nightshade" which mentions its homeopathic uses would have to be presented in order to include the sentence.

My questions: Are any/all of the sources I mention above sufficient sources of verifiability for the the sentence which I would like to insert? If not, is the only way to include this information is by citing it from a plant specific book?

Thanks for your time. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I've contended that we require a mention on a source which is authoritative on deadly nightshade, rather than on homeopathy, as a base line for inclusion (I suggested a plant text book as an example, but Levine seems to have run away on that). The really big trouble is that there are literally tens of thousands of substances used in homeopathic remedies, and setting an inclusion criterion so low would create an obviously ridiculous situation. Also, there has been precious little time for other contributors to make their views known on the talkpage, giving no chance for consensus. Jefffire (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not fact tag instead of deleting? Anthon01 (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The bar that you are setting is unnecessarily high. If a Lancet article mentions that nightshades as a starting material for a remedy, you find it unacceptable. This is about uses not plant nomenclature. Not even the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia is acceptable to you and your assistants. Anthon01 (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for a third-party opinion from RSN before we debate it out. That way it is clear what we are asking them to look at. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(ed conflict) Maybe we should add a section to the Berlin Wall article describing the use of diluted Wall crumbs in homeopathy.[95] I can see this getting absurd very quickly. Skinwalker (talk)(~

Sure, do you have a reliable source for that though? I'm sure you can agree that the top one, two or three homeopathy books are reliable for their topic.Wjhonson (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent). Here is the way I would approach this claim. Instead of including a bald fact, rather cite and quote your source statements from the books above. I reviewed the links and all three books appear to be a type of comprehensive study across a range of either homeopathy or health food topics. In particular I find it too restrictive to assume that the Oxford Book of Health Foods would give horribly inaccurate views. For example 'The Oxford Book of Health states "Deadly Nightshade might heal cold sores". There have been no scientific studies of this however." For any contentious claim, I always advise quoting the source. This allows our readers to judge for themselves whether the source is credible. We give higher respect to peer-reviewed articles, that doesn't mean that we use them to the exclusion of all other material.Wjhonson (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good, but it doesn't address the core issue of this dispute (and Deadly Nightshade is just one of many articles where the same dispute is taking place), which is the contention by those who are deleting these references, that sources about homeopathy are unreliable if they are written by people with expertise in homeopathy. See here: "Unfortunately, most of the sources asserting how these plants are used in homeopathy are not independent, neither are they mainstream. However, if you find such a source that asserts that the homeopathic use of the plant is prominent, then inclusion is justified. Simply citing it to a book on homeopathic remedies written by a homeopath is not an independent source and according to the guideline I linked to should not be used." Dlabtot (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That link however is to a Talk page which has no effective power here. Any editor can post *almost* anything they like on Talk pages. Once they are accepted as policy or even in guidelines, that is when they would exert an advisorial role. Wjhonson (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out the nature of the dispute, which is completely unrelated to the question of whether items are "included as bald fact" or "cited and quoted". I'm certainly in no way suggesting that the rant I linked to should "exert an advisorial role" - quite the opposite. Dlabtot (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, there is no reason why you could not simply fork the discussion by creating a page called something like Homeopathic uses of Nightshade, or Nightshade as a Health Food, or whatever you choose. You might face a Merge discussion or an AfD but you could certainly create the page. That might effectively end the conflict without blood loss. Wjhonson (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, totally unrelated to the issue at hand, which is, whether or not homeopathic sources are considered reliable when discussing homeopathic claims. Dlabtot (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, but my fear is that there may only be enough information about Homeopathic uses of Nightshade or even Medicinal uses of Nightshade to create merely a stub. And rather than MERGE, I could potentially see an AFD and then we're right back here. I know it is tough to speak in generalities, but I guess I came here looking for a solid answer to one of the questions at the center of this multi-page homeopathic debate. Specifically: Reliable Sources - Can a source which is an authoritative and comprehensive study of homeopathy be used as a source in article foo to include the claim, "foo is used in homeopathic remedies which is claimed to treat some ailment," if in that authoritative homeopathic source, this statement is clearly verifiable?

I understand that The Oxford Book of Health goes beyond being a homeopathic source and is more of an overview of all kinds of health sciences and treatments, and that in this case it would be a better source than the two homeopathic sources I posted here originally. And perhaps there will be mentions of homeopathic uses of all kinds of plants in the Oxford Book of Health or other sources of a similar caliber. But I guess I still would like clear answer on whether or not a source which is an authoritative and comprehensive study of homeopathy passes the WP:RS threshold on its own to include claims such as "foo is used in homeopathic remedies". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Contrary to the assertion from the Talk page, we do not require that a view be "mainstream". In fact we specifically note that minority views should be included as well. Homeopathy would certainly seem to fit the bill as being a minority view on the use of Nightshade for medicinal purposes. Furthermore, since we do not require peer-review it's merely advisory for certain types of articles, it seems fairly innocuous to include this work. Contrary to an above critique however, I would continue to suggest fully quoting and citing the source inline. Minority views should not be given implicit presentation as majority views. The effort being to reduce contention in the process not foster more. Wjhonson (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that I completely understand you. To confirm that I do, I will restate your thoughts in my own words and let me know if you agree: You support authoritative homeopathic sources as "good enough" to use in article foo to include text such as "foo is used in a homeopathic remedy." You especially support this if the actual text is quoted exactly from the source and attributed to that source so that readers know exactly where this claim is coming from. Yes? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Levine you understand me completely. Wjhonson (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind people that the issue of contention is a source to establish the notability of the subject to deadly nightshade, not the fact that it simply exists. Jefffire (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Jefffire you don't mean notability but rather undue weight. I'd just like to remind everyone we're not writing a scientific encyclopedia, but a general one. Per undue, minority views should be given minority space. If the nightshade article is full of minority views crowding out the majority view, that would be undue weight. If we can have minority views like what Muslims think of Jesus on the Jesus article, than we can support minority views like what homeopathic practicioners think of Nightshade on its article. I repeat that this published source, appearing to be a standard high-quality source *on this topic* is acceptable. We don't want to completely silence the homeopathic or alternative medicine viewpoint, but on the other hand, we must always keep in mind Undue Weight, in any article, not just plant articles. Wjhonson (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that is what I mean. That is rather the issue which was of biggest concern on the talk page. I did think it peculiar that the issue was taken to this particular notice board, since its fairly irrelevant to the discussion, rendering this section a big waste of time. Jefffire (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's right, so you have a big long article on say Daisys and somewhere in there you have a blurb that homeopathic practicioners use daisy sap to treat sun burns. Or whatever. The individual editors per-article, can work out how much space minority claims should have. The general principle would be, a thing like that doesn't really hurt the article, in fact in some cases, it would probably make it more interesting. You wouldn't be presenting these claims as facts, only as observations, citing the source. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue of notability still exists, do we add a mention for every use daisies have ever been put to by anyone, everywhere ever? Do we add mentions to every article of every use anyone has ever put them to...etc. This however is beyond the scope of the notice board. Jefffire (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No you base it on sourcing. I'm sure there are uses for daisys that have never been published. Or even if published, that no one actually continues to use them. And if someone has a source stating that Ancient Egyptians used daisys to predict the weather, I think that would actually be interesting. Don't you?Wjhonson (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's the level of incorporation then the article on daisies will be nothing but its "uses". Sorry, but inclusion into Wikipedia requires base standards of notability, but just that something was published. Now this is entirely off-topic for the page, so I suggest taking it to the talk page for undue-weight if you want to change wiki policy. Jefffire (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No because an article simply on it uses would be undue weight. I'm not suggesting changing our policy, I'm interpreting the policy, as it stands, for particular situations that arise. Wjhonson (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a highly non-standard interpretation if your suggesting that any published mention warrants an inclusion. Jefffire (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And you know I did not say that.Wjhonson (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's the issue at hand. I take it you agree with me then, that some establishment of notability is required per the undue-weight guidelines. Jefffire (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in the original discussion - and this is the point I've reached there: I agree with several posters - the issue is not whether deadly nightshade is important to homeopathy (which a homeopathy textbook will say) but whether homeopathy is important to deadly nightshade (which a source of information, such as a book, on deadly nightshade will tell you). Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not an all-or-nothing situation. We have an article on Ginseng, you also know that many people believe Ginseng has some kind of health or medicinial quality. You might perceive that as a minority view. I'm sure there is someone who thinks Ginseng cures cancer. We aren't inclined to present every minority view, that's an extreme interpretation. The idea is moderation. We don't suppress all minority views, we allow the presentation of some, within the boundaries of undue weight. Wjhonson (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it is easy to find a non-Muslim source for Muslim's venerating Jesus - so this would pass my test for inclusion in the Jesus article. I'm sure there is an independent source for a significant use of Ginseng being for (perceived or otherwise) medicinal purposes. So there is no problem with minority views per se. The fundamental issue is that Homeopathy is not authoritative enough to be its own authority. What homeopaths think cannot decide whether homeopathy is important to a subject. Other people have to think it too. In short, Homeopaths are not authoritative sources for their significance to all the substances they use. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it's not appropriate to add information about use in homeopathy to the articles about every plant. But in the case of deadly nightshade it is obviously relevant. This is one of the most common poisonous plants in Europe and it's also well known to have been used in cosmetics and other preparations, to the extent that it is well known by a second vernacular name, belladonna. Its use is a prime example of the homeopathic notion, and this notion however abhorrent to modern medical practitioners is of considerable interest in the history of science, history of ideas, folklore studies and many other fields. All it needs is a single sentence referenced to the Oxford Book of Health. There is no way that such an addition could be read as an endorsement of homeopathy. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly an example of what would be acceptable sourcing. Jefffire (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that we could all find common ground. Wjhonson (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Beg your pardon, but that's been my positional all along -that we required an authoritative source on Deadly nightshade saying that homeopathy is an important usage. Levine disagees. Jefffire (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That is my understanding too. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Books published by Oxford University Press are reliable unless there is a very good argument to the contrary. All we are looking for here is verification of the statement that DN is used in homeopathy. The Oxford handbook is more than adequate for that. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't make such a blanket statement. Oxford University Press can print books of varying degrees of authority and reliability, just like any printing company. What really matters is what they are reliable sources for. Something that's completely off-the-wall, like the journal discussed in the section about has absolutely no scientific weight, despite Levine's protestations, but it is quite acceptable to cite it for certain types of beliefs, whereas a mainstream text-book is a fairly authoritative source on its topic. Levine's contention is that any mention of a plant in a book on homeopathy is sufficient to warrant a mention for that substance, which is obviously unsound. Jefffire (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This sounds more like a WP:UNDUE issue than a WP:RS issue. The article has a rather large section on uses so I don't think a singel sentence about it being used in homeopathy would be undue weight. // Liftarn (talk)

It's quite acceptable to have a mention, provided it's properly sourced to establish notability. Jefffire (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability does not apply to citations. The bar that you are setting is unnecessarily high. If a Lancet article mentions that nightshades as a starting material for a remedy, you find it unacceptable. This is about uses not plant nomenclature. Is even the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia acceptable to you. Anthon01 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand, we are talking about citations which establish notability. If an article in nature says that homeopathy uses plant x, then that would be a fairly good citation for demonstrating that the statement is accurate. However, it would not establish that it had any real importance to the subject, which is the entire point of the discussion. Do you understand? Jefffire (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, notability does not dictate content within an article. See WP:NNC. The point of this discussion is to establish if the sources we have are reliable enough to include mention of deadly nightshade's homeopathic use in the deadly nightshade article. User WJhonson believes that they are... especially if we quote directly from the source and attribute the statement to the source... especially with regards to the Oxford book; however, he/she notes that the authoritative homeopathic sources would be good enough... especially if we quote directly from the source and attribute the statement to the source.

The point of this discussion was not to discuss WP:UNDUE; however that has been a fortunate result. It seems that even you, Jefffire, agree that it is acceptable to mention briefly (in a single sentence).

So it looks as though we have an answer here (at least for the Deadly Nightshade article). I am not going to jump the gun and assume that this applies to the inclusion of homeopathic information for all plant articles. I think we should all take it on a case-by-case basis at first and see if some kind of precedent can be set. Agreed? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Provided you cite it from a non-homeopathic source, yes. Jefffire (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. As this noticeboard has assessed, while the Oxford book - a non-homeopathic source - would provide an excellent reliable source, an authoritative homeopathic source would also work... especially if we quote and attribute the source. However, given that we have the Oxford source, I am inclined to go with that, since it seems less contentious with you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the notice board assessed that a homeopathic source would do simply to verify a claim of homeopaths, it didn't address the undue weight issue (they could not, since you took this to the wrong board). Since there is a non-homeopathic source at the ready, why not use that instead of all the drama? Jefffire (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. No one disputes that deadly nightshade can be used by some homeopaths. But then, almost anything can be used by some homeopaths. The issue is not one of reliable sources at all. Perhaps another example, away from the possible contention of this issue, will help. My 1 year old reads the Maisy series. In the book Happy Birthday Maisy, Cyril quite clearly gives a trumpet to Maisy as a birthday present. Maisy plays the trumpet, creating the sound tooty toot. The trumpet is an important feature of the book, and is significant in Maisy's life. An article on Maisy could even include the fact that she enjoyed playing the trumpet she was given for her birthday - and we could reference a reliable source for this, namely the book where it happens. However, I suggest that we should not mention this in the trumpet article, even though it is true and reliably sourced, because it is not important to trumpets. Similarly, deadly nightshade may be important in homeopathy, but this does not mean homeopathy is important to deadly nightshade. If a reliable source on trumpets said that Maisy's use was important we could include it in the trumpet article, but we cannot on the strength of a Maisy book saying that trumpets are important to Maisy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes an "independent third party source"?

What constitutes an "independent third party source"?

I am considering requesting deletion review of a pair of articles on a pair of Guantanamo captives.

I've discussed this with the closing administrator. He or she said they didn't have a problem with considering Summary of Evidence memos complying with WP:VER. But he or she said that "these sources were clearly not independent or neutral."

I am going to assume that the closing admin, and others who have expressed this concern, were not aware that the Bush Presidency set up an independent body, the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants, which was under the oversight of a civilian, the "Designated Civilian Official", to administer the CSR Tribunals and Administrative Review Boards. Similarly, the staff who prepared the memos in question were not under the command of the JTF-GTMO Commandant.

I told the closing admin:

One could argue that this arms-length status, under Civilian oversight, did not really make them independent. But, since they were independent, on paper, I don't think one can say that they "clearly weren't independent". As I wrote above, this is a judgment call. IMO, editorial decisions, based on unreferenced judgment calls, don't comply with WP:NPOV, whether the editorial decision is the insertion of a conclusion, or the decision to suppress the use of certain references.

I'd welcome the opinion of others.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A civilian authority is an improvement on, say, a military review board; on the other hand, to be truly independent here, it would need to be independent of the President, under whose authority and with whose support the military is acting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

By that reasoning wouldn't we be restricted from covering any person who relied on the defense of a court-appointed attorney?

No offense, but, as I said to the closing admin, the conclusion OARDEC is not truly independent is a judgment call. We'd put a {{cn}} tag, if anyone was to write, in article space:

"It is obvious that since OARDEC is staffed by military officers, and that the "civilian official" it reports to is a Deputy Secretary of Defense, it is not truly independent from the US military."

Unreferenced -- this would be a big-time lapse from WP:NPOV. It would be a violation if it substituted "widely accepted" for "obvious".

No offense, but the very first line of the verifiability policy states that the wikipedia aims at "verifiability, not truth".

• One of the consequences of that policy is that there can be times when we have to present material that we know is verifiable, that we personally believe is totally untrue.
• If we have verifiable, authoritative sources, that assert something we personally believe is totally untrue, and have no references to back up what we believe is true, we have to live with the article referencing the the verifiable source we personally disagree with. Period. That is policy.
• Even a broad hint that the verifiable source makes doubtful assertions would be a violation of WP:NPOV -- when we have no references.
• We are totally entitled to have doubts about the independence of the OARDEC memos.
• We are totally entitled to hold the personal belief those OARDEC memos are biased against the captives.
• But, making editorial decisions based on our personal belief would be, IMO, a violation of WP:NPOV. As I wrote above, the decision to suppress the use of these verifiable sources is just as much an editorial decision as the decision to insert unreferenced doubts. This is, I believe, an instance where we have to rely on what we can reference, not our gut feelings. Geo Swan (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't the two mentioned by say, Amnesty International, or some other non-gevernmental organization, ideally outside of the United States? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe. The DoD uses a non-standard Arabic --> English transliteration scheme. And JTF-GTMO had a habit of changing its official spelling of the captives names. So it is not really possible to definitely say there are no non-DoD sources describing the captives.

But I don't think that should matter, if the judgment that the OARDEC memos aren't independent only relies on "gut feelings". I think this question came from the helpful impulse to find a solution that circumvents the need for a deep discussion of policy. I was hoping there would be a discussion of policy. Geo Swan (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary source, or secondary source?

I forgot to ask, above -- I question the label several of my correspondents applied to these memos -- "primary sources". All of these Summary of Evidence memos were based on multiple documents. In some instances we know they were based on dozens of primary sources from over half a dozen other agencies. So why shouldn't we consider the summary memos "secondary sources"?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)