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.

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

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.

Snopes.com

Is http://www.snopes.com a reliable source or is it just another self-published website? I went through all the archives and no one had asked before. The website seemed to be maintained by an American couple with no scientific background.(Immortale (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

Reliable in that the site bases what it publishes on what it finds at other reliable sites. Sure, the site may be self-published in some sense, but I don't see any reason to doubt its veracity. Ngchen (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For a statement that the various urban legends the site lists exist...yes, reliable... for a statement that the legends are true (or false)... no, not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Snopes appears to do some fact-checking and seems quite reliable on investigations of urban legends; as described on our page about them it is often cited by the media on the subject of urban legends. At the very minimum Snopes would qualify as an expert SPS. You do have the option to cite them using attribution; i.e. Snopes.com traced this rumor to a chain letter circulating circa 2002. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(For scientific matters) Barring the existence of even higher quality mainstream scientific V & RS that contradict the conclusions of Snopes' verdict, it can be accepted as being reasonably accurate. They also show the sources they have used in their research. This is basically in line with standard Wikipedia policies, which use mainstream sources from V & RS as being "reliable sources" until proven otherwise. If there is significant disagreement in the literature, IOW very real controversy, then both opinions can (and often "should") be provided to show the real world controversy. If better sources unequivocally show that Snopes is outright wrong, then notify them and don't use them as a source for that particular instance until they correct their error. Any website, including JAMA, Lancet, and BMJ can do that. Human error exists. We have to live with it and do the best we can. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly related thread: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 November 10#Verification of snopes.com opinions. Cool Hand Luke 05:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not reliable according to our policies Yes, it is a nice site, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a mom and pop operation. Yes, it sometimes cites sources, but it has a fairly low bar on these sources. These people are not reading the scientific literature, and we have no idea what their scientific background is. Neither are they experts on law, politics, history, or anything else. They're a good start, but there's no way to justify their use as an SPS except through ignoring the rules, and I don't think that's a good solution. If you want to go by the rules, edit WP:RS to allow mom and pop websites which have a good reputation or something. I've seen misleading stories on Snopes -- it was the article on plastic bottles, where whey completely neglected to mention Bisphenol A. I emailed them and they've since updated the page. The thing is, if Snopes is relying on a decent source, then why not use that? II | (t - c) 06:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with II that the website is not reliable. Its RS status is independent of whether we WP editors examine the site's content and find it is truthful or erroneous. Its status depends on its fact-checking systems, which in this case do not appear to be present. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Untrue. If that were the case, it would not be considered as authoritative as it is. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, what can you tell us then about their fact-checking? If they are a two-person operation, then how do they achieve what newspapers and academic presses have departments to do? Can we find quotes from good sources that they are reliable? I'm open to convincing. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reliable for widely publicized opinion. If in doubt about the "truth" of their utterances, then keep in mind that we're about "verifiability, not truth....". They can still be quoted for their very notable and widely quoted opinions. According to the WP:MEDRS guidelines, they may not be a good RS for medical matters, where we should prefer high quality medical sources, but for the subject of their website - urban legends - they are a perfectly good source for opinion. If in doubt, then attribute it to them. They are the most notable website on that subject on the internet, so their notability isn't in doubt, not that notability is a requirement for article content, it is not. Notability is only a requirement for the creation of articles. Since their opinion is relied upon so much by many RS, they can be quoted or referred to in such situations. As mentioned above (and we agree on this), if they are in error, then they are not a RS "for that particular instance," but still for most everything else. If we demand perfection of websites, then no website can be cited in any article. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Generally Reliable Certainly far more reliable than a typical blog. They do try to get correct answers about urban legends, and to present the material as accurately as they can. If shown to be in error, they emend their reports. They are not noted for any overt biases, which, to me, makes them better than some gerally accepted RSs commonly used on WP. Collect (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A source can be reliable and biased. An absence of bias is not the crucial factor. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

ceteris paribus a source which is realiable and not biased is preferable to one which is reliable and biased. Collect (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable on the subject of urban legends. I don't know why we've strayed into debating whether they're an RS on medical conditions or the chemistry of plastics. And they most definitely meet the requirements of an expert SPS ( on urban legends ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reliable on the topic of urban legends. Snopes is regularly cited by other reliable sources on urban legends, and has quite good credibility. Snopes is not as reliable as (say) a peer-reviewed article in Science, but it is more reliable than many newspapers on the same topic. For example, the following reliable sources all cite Snopes (note the wide variety of disciplines):

• KLing J, Stoll J, Hunter MT, Ahamad M (2008). "ALPACA: a lightweight platform for analyzing claim acceptability". Proceeding of the 2nd ACM workshop on information credibility on the web. Napa Valley, CA. pp. 47–52. ISBN 978-1-60558-259-7. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Desai AC (2007). "The Transformation of Statutes into Constitutional Law: How Early Post Office Policy Shaped Modern First Amendment Doctrine". Hastings Law J. 58.
• Murias G, Sales B, Blanch L (2007). "Mechanical ventilation: looking for new paradigms". Curr Opin Crit Care. 13 (1): 1–5. doi:10.1097/MCC.0b013e328013da34. PMID 17198042.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

As per WP:SPS articles should prefer the sources that Snopes sites, rather than Snopes itself, but it is certainly OK to also cite Snopes (as it is often more accessible). Eubulides (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• EXTREMELY reliable for folklore, urban legends and, generally, on whether they are true or not. It's certainly far more reliable than many books about those topics. The fact that it's online instead of in print doesn't make it less reliable -- just the opposite, in fact, as it can be updated as needed. The only things I would consider unreliable about it are when it mentions what it thinks are facts from another field entirely (for example, I've seen it call a short story mentioned offhandedly a novel, or say something about serial killers that experts on serial killer don't say). DreamGuy (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The one warning that Should be known though is that anything from from the lost leneged section is delibertly innacurate as can be seen per this [1]. So if anything from that section is being used a to sustanaticate any claims it should be removed unless it is a description of a false legend. There are only nine of them so everything else should be fine and the page from the lost legend section are clearly marked so that should not present too much of a problem. --76.66.191.98 (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

For example the page for a song sing a song of sixpense mentions the lost legend but as an example of false authiority and in this case it should not be removed since it is not purpratrating the myth as fact. --76.66.191.98 (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• WP:PARITY. If you are using it in articles that source internet memes, urban legends, or e-mail rumors, then I think it is certainly reliable. If you are using it to source an article where the other references are all to highly regarded sources written by scholars of impeccable credentials, then the Mikkelsons are probably not worthy of inclusion. Usually, however, such subjects when covered on snopes have a pretty good list of references. Just use one of them. In other words, snopes is a good first stop for research, but don't make it your last stop unless the subject is so fringe that there simply are no other sources written on the subject. In such cases, you might ask yourself if it's only covered by snopes, does it belong in our encyclopedia? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• More of a notable source than a reliable source. "Debunked by snopes.com" is probably better than "debunked". But, as SA said, it's best to reference their sources directly, if possible. Guettarda (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Self-published, should only be used to support other RS secondary sources. The web is full of hoaxes and crackpot conspiracies. 90% of these should simply be ignored on Wikipedia. We should only mention them if their notability have been established by other reliable published secondary sources. MaxPont (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source for future episodes of shows....

Would http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=220680 count as an official source for future episodes of Disney Channel shows? He gets all the information from Disney Channel as the schedules appear to have Disney Channel shows in columns with the times and which episode is airing for the whole month.

Also, would Showfax count as a reliable source for future episodes being posted on Wikipedia, such as Hannah Montana Season 3 episodes or something like that? - Alec2011 (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• The Toonzone forum is just a message board which would normally be considered unreliable. I don't know the real identity of the person who posts the future episode list there, but if his source is a publicly accessible (whether free or for pay) publication authorized by the Disney Channel, that publication should be used instead. Given that the episode information will eventually be available anyway in reliable publicly available sources, I wouldn't support using a message board poster's information as the source for these episodes, even if he has been correct in the past. No comment on Showfax; I'm not familiar with it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• File:Disney Channel November 2008 Listings.pdf generated by the forum poster in question contains a pdf of a database extract made Oct 7, 2008 that shows programming scheduling information for November 2008. This proves that the forum poster has an accurate source of information - likely from the scheduling information database of a TV station that subscribes to the programming information feed (using software from http://www.storertv.com/). He seems unwilling post a direct link to this information and won't provide directly current month data based on confidentiality concerns. I am not sure this person has the legal right to release the information to the web forum - linking to this data may count as prohibited linking to a contributory copyright infringement. --NrDg 20:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Ok Two Things. ONE: I see you said "I am not sure this person has the legal right to release the information to the web forum......." He told me: "As long as we stay within Disney's six-week rule...." Which means that he can post the information for the month, but has to wait 6 weeks before he can release the schedule out to the public...... The other thing now is, since we have proof that the forum is using a schedule from Disney, can we still post future episodes? - Alec2011 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with the person at Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 3) who said: "I suspect from reading the forum that Burgundy Ranger [the Toonzone message board poster] has got on the mailing list that Disney Channel sends to published guides like TV Guide. ... If this is from the feed that DC sends to TV Guide and others, we will get the same info when TV Guide puts it up on their website in a few days so this won't really buy us much. Overall future episode info is not that important to have as the episode will eventually air and we will have all the information a List of Episodes article needs for that episode." We don't need to jump ahead so much by relying on a source which the public can't access. The information will eventually become publicly available. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• So, what have we come to conclude? We know that the forum is infact getting the information from Disney at a faster rate than the TV Guide websites. So if the information will be posted later as well, there is no harm in posting what the forum posts first, since the information wil be the same as the TV Guide websites. - Alec2011 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You can't infer that their information is accurate and that the published content from the reliable source will match what had been released on the message board. If I may advise ... consider posting the relevant - and non-sensationalistic content if it's needed. We're not in a rush here. Then post to the article's talkpage stating where the info came from and as soon as a more reliable source publishes the same you'll add that source. You might also do a search and see if that same or a similar poster has a blog that may pass for such purposes. If they are a media blogger and (even better) state where they get their info from, you can cite Disney press release via ____ blog. -- Banjeboi 03:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• The information is accurate as the uses the .pdf file and it's posted in the forum as the what it already says in the source. And I thought that a blog site isn't counted as a reliable source either? What's the difference from the blog and that one little section in the forum where the acurate information is being posted? If they have the information from Disney, then it is an ACURATE source of information. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, there's no way the forum site can ever be a reliable source per Wikipedia standard. Maybe by your standards, but not by the site's standards. Second, see WP:CRYSTAL -- what do we even care about future episodes for? That's not what an encyclopedia is for. We aren't TV Guide, we aren't a fanlisting, we aren't entertainment news, we are an encyclopedia. When the episode actually comes out we can write about it. Problem solved. DreamGuy (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• First off, my opinion is that you guys are looking at the whole forum and not just the ONE PAGE. I'm not talking about using the WHOLE forum as the source just that one page as a source. We have a reliable source that it is getting the information from Disney as I said. The importance of the future episodes is that we know that there are future episodes, and when they will air. If it's not a TV Guide, then we shouldn't even have ANY Episode list pages. It's important to know these and that the information is relaible as we already know it is. - Alec2011 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A page of a forum is never a WP:RS for facts, no matter how much you trust that the writer is reliable. It might be an OK source for someone's opinion on occasion, but even that's unusual. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Alec, no offense, but you need to stop trying to rationalize what you want to do and start listening to people about what editors on Wikipedia are supposed to do. Your question has been asked and answered. It's not our fault you don't like the answers. Arguing with us isn't going to change anything. DreamGuy (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

When is a peer-reviewed Journal not considered reliable?

I have been recently been spending a lot of time cleaning up the Jesus myth hypothesis page and have tried to put in these quotes: "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (abstract) "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." (body text) Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 but had one editor remove it because "it never will be notable or influential: it's confusingly written, demonstrates very little familiarity with the literature on the historical Jesus..." but no expert is cited as proving any of these or later statements and another author confused Anthropology of Consciousness with the Journal of Consciousness a totally different journal. I finally gave up as the article at that time wasn't improving and it seemed like a struggle to make any changes in it.

However progress is finally being made and I was thinking of putting in the quote again but rather than go through the mess I had last time I thought I would ask the people here if Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 really is a reliable source.

Now Anthropology of Consciousness (not to be confused with Journal of Consciousness) is published by the Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness and states it is "a section of the American Anthropological Association". In fact it was through American Anthropological Association's AnthroSource that I found the article. So my question is two fold: is this a reliable source and can editor issues with regards to quality and importance keep it out if it is?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the article, however I have created a stub for Anthropology of Consciousness; the Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness appears to have quite an interesting history starting in the 1950s. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That article is really obscure: Google Scholar reports zero other scholarly sources that have cited it since its 1994 publication. The article is not a reliable source for whether there is historical evidence for Jesus, as its main topic is storytelling, not Jesus, and the author (as near as I can make out) is an expert on hallucination and sensory experience, not on historical evidence for Jesus. By the way, given its obscurity, any citation to that article should give its DOI (doi:10.1525/ac.1994.5.4.16). Eubulides (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I contributed to the earlier discussion on Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis, and I don't think a journal article, even if peer-reviewed, can be considered reliable on a subject outside the expertise of the author and the normal scope of the journal. Fischer's article is very badly written (or translated), but he seems to argue that (a) an examination of Josephus and the New Testament reveals Jesus to be probably fictional, and (b) the role played by this fictional narrative within Christianity illustrates a response to "consciousness of sin and despair, and longing for salvation". Proposition (b) may fall within the field of anthropology of consciousness, but not (a). Amusingly, the article's Greek quotations are handwritten; apparently the journal couldn't handle a Greek typeface, which shows how far it is from being somewhere one would look for academic criticism of the relevant ancient texts.

Regardless of anyone's opinions about the truth of Fischer's views, it's clear that he's unfamiliar with the relevant scholarly literature. His discussion of Josephus mentions some 16th-17th century scholars but otherwise depends on the authority of Emil Schürer's 1886-1890 Geschichte des Judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi; Fischer mentions in passing that this was "translated" by Géza Vermes. In fact Vermes was connected with a heavily revised edition of the work, for which he served as an editor rather than a translator, and the revised edition reversed Schürer's original conclusion about Josephus' references to Jesus. Fischer then devotes a single paragraph to rejecting the New Testament evidence for Jesus' existence, in which he cites no modern sources whatsoever. (There's a tangentially related endnote, citing one source which is not relevant to the main text.)

(Since the Jesus myth hypothesis article is about the view that no historical Jesus existed, an academically unreliable source could still merit discussion if it constitued a noteworthy statement of the non-existence hypothesis. That would have to be shown by reliable secondary coverage of Fischer's position.) EALacey (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

All I see here is a repeat of POV claims like "very badly written (or translated)", "he seems to argue", and "academically unreliable source" with not one citation to back them up used to keep the quote out of the article. Unfortunately, Arthrosource has just restructured its website so the above link is not longer valid but the article can still be found at Anthrosource though the preview that was provided seems to have been eliminated.

As I said before by the kind of logic being presenting we should take Dr. E. Jerry Vardaman's claim's regarding micro lettering on a certain coin as the truth especially since John McRay uses it despite David Hendlin having wrote "Theory of Secret Inscriptions on Coins is Disputed," The Celator 5:3, March 1991, 28-32) which question the claims Vardaman was making and then Richard Carrier produced a picture of said coin in "Pseudohistory in Jerry Vardaman's magic coins: the nonsense of micro graphic letters - Critical Essay" in (of all things) the Skeptical Inquirer because David Hendlin isn't an expert in archaeology while Vardaman and McRay are experts in that field, google scholar shows not one reference to this article, and its being used by the Skeptical Inquirer and self published web page. Let's just ignore little fact Vardaman never published a peer reviewed journal quality paper on his discovery while both Hendlin and Fischer published their statements in peer reviewed journals.

It doesn't matter how often the article is referred to by others or your OPINION on the writing quality of the author (For example, I personally feel Binford should go back to school and learn how to use an introductory paragraph but that is not going to keep me from using relevant articles of his from a peer reviewed journal because that is my OPINION and violates NPOV as a reason for exclusion.) but rather if the article came from a respected peer reviewed journal (ie is reliable) and the quote is not being taken out of context. I've proven the second and as for the second I am quoting the entire abstract as well as the sentence in the text body--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the Vardaman case supports my position. If the Skeptical Inquirer article is accurate, then Vardaman never published his supposed coin-inscriptions in a journal devoted to numismatics or epigraphy, but by drawing theological conclusions from them he did get them into several theological publications, including a book issued by a university press. Presumably, none of these publications was reviewed by anyone with expertise in the right fields to realise what was wrong with Vardaman's claims. This seems precisely analogous to Fischer's article – his arguments about Josephus, the New Testament and ancient mystery religions don't concern consciousness, but the conclusions he draws about consciousness allowed his article to appear in a journal devoted to that topic.

And my complaint about Fischer's poor writing was not just an aesthetic judgement. The article is so badly written that I'm not certain I understand what Fischer is arguing (hence my "seems to argue" above). Most of the article implies that Fischer thinks Jesus was a purely fictional creation, but I have to confess that on that interpretation I can't make sense of the paragraph on p. 17 beginning "Who then was...". EALacey (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem, ironically is you are basically giving the SAME ARGUMENT I was using to keep James Charlesworth quote out which I will reiterate here: "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ..." (Charlesworth, James H. (ed.) (2006). Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.) There are several problems with this quote in particular: possible Wikipedia:Libel as it basically states that anyone that questions the idea "Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived" is not reputable scholar (even among the Historical Jesus group there are those who dispute the 'son of Joseph' part so are they somehow unreliable scholars? The logic here is circular in any case: anyone who supports this theory is not a "reputable scholar" because no "reputable scholar" would support this theory), Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issues as the statement is an Ad hominem attack and doesn't really add anything to an encyclopedia article, WP:V issues as Charlesworth is the editor of the very book in which his comment appears and Eerdmans presents themselves as "Publisher of religious books, from academic works in theology, biblical studies, religious history and reference to popular titles in spirituality, social and cultural criticism, and literature." creating COI concerns. The quote has been put back in with claims that Charlesworth is an "expert in biblical archaeology" failing to explain what supports this and later that Eerdmans is "reputable academic publisher" something not even claimed at Eerdmans' own web site. More troubling is this review by Jonathan Reed from University of La Verne in Review of Biblical Literature 10/2007: "One minor criticism must be raised: scattered throughout the book are numerous illustrations, mostly from Charlesworth’s collection, which, although at times helpful, at other times seem misplaced or could be replaced with something more appropriate. So we see, for example, a bichrome Canaanite decanter in Klassen’s article on Sidonian Greek-inscribed glass, or the excavations at Cana in Kloppenborg’s article, but none at all of the Theodotos inscription whose letters are analyzed in a way that is hard to visualize without a picture. Of course by using his own photos, Charlesworth was able to keep the cost down, so that at $50.00 for over seven hundred pages, we should be thankful." When an editor is given this kind of free reign one has a right to call the work "self published" especially when you have things like a Canaanite decanter picture being used in a Sidonian Greek-inscribed glass article. Good grief, that is insane as even a courtesy investigation by John Q Surfer shows the Canaanite culture extending a far greater range in both time and region than the Sidonian culture. That is almost akin to using a picture of an Olmec artifact in an article on the Zapotecs and makes one again wonder about the "reputable academic publisher" claim.

Despite this the Charlesworth quote was allowed. Now how can Charlesworth be allowed per the guidelines you just presented and Fischer not?? The inherent illogic here should be obvious as any argument you can present against Fischer I already presented against Charlesworth and included the fact we don't even know what Charlesworth degree is in. If anything Fischer seems to be the flipside to Charlesworth. Care to explain how this is not inconsistent??--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I should mention the reason I said I feel Binford needs to go back and learn the introductory paragraph it because he tends to wandering all over the place. Binford's 1986 "An Alyawara Day: Making Men's Knives and Beyond" American Antiquity, 51(3) 547-562 is prime case in point--there are times it reads like raw field notes. His earlier works like "Archaeology as Anthropology" (1962) American Antiquity, 28(2) 217-225 are far easier to follow but still require a good handle on Anthropology to even understand what he is talking about. This is the problem with truly scholarly papers--some of them give even their fellow scholar headaches and the non scholar tends to be totally out of his depth trying to understand them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My position on this article is simple: it appears in an academic journal, so it meets the threshhold of WP:RS. It could be used as a source in a Wikipedia article.

However, I don't think we should use Fischer's article as a source in Jesus myth hypothesis. There are several reasons, some of which EALacey has set out above. Another reason is because the article contradicts itself--BruceGrubb wants to use it as evidence that an anthropologist denies the historicity of Jesus (and sometimes he has used this article as evidence that the field of anthropology denies the historicity of Jesus). But on p. 17 of his article Fischer has a paragraph summarizing Géza Vermes: "Who was then "Jesus the Jew"? Was he a fiction that became flesh or was he of flesh and bones to become narrative fiction? Jesus, the Galilean Jew, was independent-minded, unscholarly (compared with Jerusalem Pharisees), "charismatic," a hasid, exorcist, healer, popular teacher--in short, a remarkable and in many ways admirable representative of a known type of first-century Judaism." In other words, BruceGrubb has picked a quote from the article that supports his position, and ignored the paragraph that contradicts it. (This was discussed at length at Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis/Archive_17#.22However.2C_in_anthropology_the_situation_appears_to_be_different....22, so it's not as if BruceGrubb is unaware of this contradiction.)

It should be obvious that not everything that meets the threshhold of WP:RS should be used in a Wikipedia article. Fischer's article shouldn't be used because it's not a good source. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A summery of another author doesn't mean you agree with that other author; it is just that a summery. Also you fail to explain if "Fischer seems to endorse Vermes' picture of who the real Jesus was" why both the abstract and text clearly state "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived". The only other editors to agree with you during the mess you referenced were Paul B who couldn't keep from confusing the Journal of Consciousness Studies (ie "Journal of Consciousness") with the Anthropology of Consciousness and stated "The precedence of policy over guidelines is irrelevant."; and dab who didn't understand Fischer was writing in an peer reviewed journal. EALacey was going to get a full copy but didn't get back before that particular talk issue basically stopped.

Terjen and DreamGuy were both for keeping the Fischer quote in. I should point Akhilleus had been repeatedly trying to keep this reference in despite being told repeatedly of its flaws:

"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." - Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Scribner, 1977, 1995). The quotes 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars' and 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' come from Roderic Dunkerley, Beyond the Gospels (Whitefairs Press, 1957), p. 12.

As I pointed out repeatedly one set of these quotes did NOT seem to come from Roderic Dunkerley but Otto Betz whose What do We Know about Jesus? I finally traced to "S.C.M. Press--a religious book publisher" a point Akhilleus tried to dismiss as a characterization of mine despite the fact it was practically a direct quote from the meta tag (<meta name="description" content="Religious Book Publishers. Buy books now using our secure online ordering") S.C.M. Press uses to tell google what to present to John Q. Serfer. As I said then the Grant quotes were an argument from authority using Grant's credentials and Scribner's reputation to foster on to us what were really the claims of two other authors who credentials were unknown and nobody knew how those authors got to their conclusions. Yet Akhilleus defended this reference for months.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically this article has been home to a huge amount of POV-pushing, with people cherry picking sources and trying to misrepresent what one source says as not just an accepted view but the only view. This particular discussion page isn't going to help with those kinds of issues, and the article (and other articles on similar topics) have been in trench warfare for a long time. Many of the comments above seem to have been made by partisans who wish to have the article express a certain view and are juding things based uopn that end result and not on a fair application of reliable sources.

To come down to the Reliable Sources end of things, we seem to have determined that this is a reliable source. Determining that something being a reliable source, however, doesn't dictate to us the exact way it can be used. Having an anthropologist argue that Jesus had no historical basis is not a reliable source that all anthropologists believe something. It is however a direct contradiction to the idea that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus", which is what some people were trying to present not as the quote of a single author, and not as the supposed conclusion of a majority of scholars, but out and out the truth so that anyone who says otherwise isn't a serious scholar according to the Wikipedia article as certain editors had written. By WP:NPOV the source should be present in the article as what it is: an academic opinion of an author who denies Jesus was a historical figure. Individual editors who disagree with that and who cite their own sources are doing original research and trying to use the article as their own personal soapbox, which is clearly prohibited.

And, frankly, the Jesus myth idea is not some fringe idea. Lots of people of varying backgrounds are supporters of it, despite attempts by some editors here to censor that idea as offensive to themselves or whatever. We can reference any number of books on it... and those need to stay and not get removed based upon more Wikilawyering and gaming the system for POV-pushing, lik has clearly happened on the page. Focusing solely on this one particular journal as the main battleground just shows how entrenched things are. We should list off a long row of books with the same premise. DreamGuy (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is rather interesting, for a few reasons. Firstly, it brings up the problem of what peer reviewed articles we should use as sources in WP. Just because something is peer-reviewed does not mean it should not be evaluated. Fischer's piece shows than AN anthropologist (one scholar, in a field unrelated to the historical question at hand) has written an article that both never gained enough traction to be cited and that manages to contradict itself as was noted above by Akhilleus. Why should we consider the source reliable when scholars in the field clearly have not?

DreamGuy's accusations of POV, OR, and SOAP are (as usual) blatantly false and often indicative of the pot calling the kettle black. Citing sources to prove the contents of an article is not OR...it's how things are done. Doing so in the interest of factual accuracy is not POV...it's how things are done. The ad-homs launched at those who would not include the Fischer article also don't help matters much.

The claim that "the Jesus myth idea is not some fringe idea" is absolutely laughable. Sure, many people of varying backgrounds support it, but then again many people of varying backgrounds also support the 6000 y.o. Earth theory of Intelligent Design. This does not lend credence to ID. When we talk about reliable sources, we do not look at how many general people believe a certain thing. When we write articles about whether or not Socrates existed or whether Shakespeare actually wrote his plays, we do not cite journal articles by mathematicians, biologists, or even journalists. These people know, forgive my French, shit-all about the subject at hand.

If there are several books and articles written by experts in the field (i.e. people whose research, information, and analysis can be trusted to be accurate), then we should cite THOSE in the article as we present the debate. As it is, we do not need to present this discussion as if both sides are on equal footing. They are not. To do so would be akin to representing the scientific debate over Evolution as anything but over. Perhaps we could cease the accusations of POV-pushing, Wikilawyering, and "OMG THERE'S A CABAL!" and start evaluating this question from a educated WP:RS perspective. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 11:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that what the Jesus-myth/Christ-myth even is varies from author to author. Remsburg in The Christ give the broadest definition I have read: "While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable." Price says basically the same thing in Christ a Fiction (1997) "My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction."

The Remsburg quote shows that the idea that "claiming "the Jesus myth idea is not some fringe idea" is absolutely laughable" is as much POV pushing as anything else. G.R.S. Mead has been called a "Christ-myther" and yet he didn't hold that Jesus didn't exist but rather he existed about a century earlier. The Jesus Myth covers more than simply saying Jesus didn't exist but critics keep trying to limit it to this artificially narrow area.

One only need look to the John Frum cult to see how plausible the Jesus myth hypothesis really is. If you look for the John Frum of the religion you will not find the 1930s American GI it talks about; the closest thing you will find is a native who took up the name John Frum in 1940 but the religion states that he was not the "real" John Frum. Paul says something similar in Galatians 1:6 regarding other teachings showing that even at that early stage Christianity was having issues regarding a 'canon'. The Jesus we know is only one of the many views regarding Jesus that existed in the 1st through 4th centuries and it was chosen for political as well as religious reasons. The quality of the gospels are historical documents is all over the map with even some historical Jesus supporters putting them as late as the 2nd century. Furthermore unlike Jesus, Socrates and Shakespeare both have contemporary comments about them by several people.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone would have any doubt about people trying to push POV in an article, all they have to do is look at User:CaveatLector's post. The fact that he is deluded about the nature of his edits doesn't change the obvious disdain he has for NPOV and for experts who disagree with his personal beliefs and opinions. Any discussion of reliable sources isn't going to get us anywhere when someone with such a blatant agenda of censoring opinions he disagrees with is trying to control an article, and he's certainly not the only one there doing so. DreamGuy (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, I am not here to talk about the "validity" of the Jesus Myth hypothesis in general. That's a discussion for another forum. I commented to make an argument that the nature of Fischer's article should disqualify it as a RS. If there are other strong sources for this hypothesis, they should surely be included in the article in an NPOV fashion.

As for DreamGuy, I long ago lost patience with such "I'm rubber and you're glue" rhetoric. His perception of my "disdain" for NPOV is driven by something internal rather that what is actually here in the discussion, so I'll put faith in the community here that they can judge what I said for themselves without being influenced by his venom. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 20:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

CaveatLector, you set the stage when you stated "The claim that "the Jesus myth idea is not some fringe idea" is absolutely laughable." Nevermind you totally missed the point I was raising: if the sources aren't agreeing on what the Jesus myth idea really is or worse the meaning of the term has changed over the some 200 years it has been around then how do you contrast their ideas? Furthermore, non citation is NOT evidence of scholars considering a source unreliable as I previously demonstrated with the Vardaman and Hendlin example. Now, a scholar citing a paper and saying it has problems followed by examples would be evidence that a paper might be unreliable. Furthermore your argument against using scholar "in a field unrelated to the historical question" is the EXACT SAME ONE I presented for keeping James Charlesworth out. If the argument didn't work for Charlesworth then it cannot work for Fischer especially as Fischer is in a peer reviewed journal while Charlesworth's is coming from a book he was the editor of forma publisher qho has been shown to have questional peer reviewing. Simply put if Fischer is no good then neither is Charlesworth and if Charlesworth is good then so is Fischer. You cannot cherry pick your criteria to allow one and eliminate the other.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My comment was on the prevalence of the Jesus Myth hypothesis in the field, not a comment on its actual validity. Whether or not the idea is valid, claiming that there is a large movement in the historical field towards its acceptance is fallacious. I was merely pointing that out. Your arguments using John Frum belong on a forum where people are actually discussing that issue (an argument that is OR in any case). If I'm a member at whatever forum that is, I would engage you. Here, not so much.

I'll leave it to further users who will come and read/comment here to judge whether or not you have actually 'demonstrated' this or that claim within this discussion. I happen to think that answer on that one is quite clear. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 02:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You still side stepped the real issue of how can Charlesworth be allowed and Fischer not.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Li as a video game expert

This stems from a dispute related to original research, however, the solution was to provide sourcing for the contested content. One such source was this paper by Frederick Li. He looks to qualify as a Computer Science expert, but we're wondering if he qualifies as a video game expert, and if so to what extent?

• Here's his page at Durham University.
• Listing of research and professional activities.
• Listing of publications he's written.
• Listing of courses he teaches

The border line part in my mind is he's participated in a few things related to gaming and his papers, courses, and one degree relate to video game concepts: computer graphics, virtual reality software, and game-based learning. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC))

I think he'll do until a better one comes along. If he's wrong, eventually another source will say something different. If both sources are merely CompSci experts, then report what they both say. If an actual video game expert (I'm not even sure how you'd judge someone's qualifications for that) comes along in a reliable source-approved way, say what he says instead. No reason not to go with the best source we have now as long as he's in a related field instead of some completely different one. Of course that's just my recommendation, others can weigh in too. DreamGuy (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Most people considered video game experts are those that have been working in the industry for some time and whose work has met with critical acclaim: Shigeru Miyamoto and Peter Molyneux. With very little academic research done on the medium, it's been hard for us to say how people like Li fall into that category. Thanks for the input. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC))

To clarify, the dispute itself is around terming Handheld electronic game as "consoles" in the Origins section of the Handheld game console article. My concern, as noted, is that in relation to the topic (Handheld consoles vs. handheld electronic games) and the industry he has no notability or background, let alone in the video game industry in general. He also appears to be using the term "console" for everything (which is not a norm), with no explanation or citation as to why. The other person involved in the dispute claims that because he is a CS PHD he somehow has intimate knowledge with the video game industry. What separates him from the plethora of CS PHD's in the world, and people in academia who specialize in computer graphics to be able to make that definition against the industry itself? Where is his experience directly related to the topic? And what makes that personal, unpublished paper (with no citations, etc.), and a small passing section related to this topic, reliable? Likewise, that's not true about him being the best source so far. If you look at the links to this discussion, I provided several sources (including real world examples via catalogs, magazine articles from the time, etc.) that do not term those items (70's handheld electronic games) as "consoles". A perfect example is in the provided book citation to High Score! (Demaria and Wilson, McGraw Hill, 2002, pp 30-31), which discusses the exact same items in question and terms them as a Hand Held game (defined as a single game, sits in your hand or the table in front of you and uses LCD or VFD displays) vs. Handheld Game Systems (Nintendo Gameboy, etc.). It goes on even further to discuss the same 1972 Tic Tac Toe game as a Handheld Game and the mid to late 70's games like Mattel Auto Race and Football as Handheld Electronic Games. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

What you are arguing ultimately may or may not be right. At this point, however, whether it is right isn't even the issue. It's what an encyclopedia can cite and source according to academic standards. Your whole process above is essentially original research and synthesis -- you determine what sources are good ones in your own mind based upon definitions of consoles that you follow, etc. You as an individual person can determine who you think is a good source and what you think the right answer is, but you cannot determine for Wikipedia. And an encyclopedia isn't here to choose what's right and what isn't anyway, it's here to represent what documented reliable sources say. If reliable sources disagree, put what each of the says with enough info about that person's credentials to be saying anything so that the reader can judge for themselves. IF you have a reliable source contradicting Li, include it also. If you have multiple reliable sources, then eventually Li wouldn't even be necessary. But since this depends upon a definition,a nd definitiosn can always be in dispute, I don't see anything inherently wrong with using Li's conclusion. It may ultimately be wrong, but you need to have the sources to back you up, not just your own personal conclusions. DreamGuy (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

How are the questions I stated regarding Li synthesis and where is the WP:OR? I'm not advocating putting WP:OR on the page, that's what the other person was doing (and what Guyinblack was referring to). The questions I state above are ones that would have to be answered regarding Li, per Wikipedia standards, to provide notability and reliability. Li also does not give a definition to "console" in his paper or why he's calling these handheld items consoles, and the proposed statements of Li's also suffers from weasel worlds. My statement regarding Li's position not being the norm is based on my being someone in the industry and as a WP:EXPERT video game industry historian - and even then, I was not promoting my own words be put in the article, but those of established sources as required. And again, as stated, there are multiple reliable sources - High Score! The Illustrated History of Electronic Games is already a published, notable and used source. Likewise for the Time Magazine source, NY Times source, and Sears catalog promoting the items in question. More can be provided from the time period of the devices in question, where none are referred to as a "console". The onus would then again, by Wikipedia standards, fall on why this one unpublished paper with no citations and no demonstrated oversight, and no demonstrated notability on the author's part in relation to the subject matter as to why he should be considered reliable. If the devices themselves, as demonstrated in the given resources, were not referred to as consoles at the time, how does that make Li's position reliable - especially when he uses terms like "generally" while describing the terms?. The paper is being used to justify putting the word "console" after every product name in the Origins section, which also would be hard to put alternative sources as you suggest: "The first handheld game console,..." "Atari's first handheld game console..." Its not just an issue of Li as a source, its in using the Li source as a reference to allow the above verbiage on the page.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You say "How are the questions I stated regarding Li synthesis and where is the WP:OR?" and then "My statement regarding Li's position not being the norm is based on my being someone in the industry and as a WP:EXPERT video game industry historian". The latter more than adequately proves the former. If you are an actual expert then it should hopefully be easy for you to find a source that meets our criteria on reliable sources to support what you believe. Otherwise your own personal knowledge isn't any more real to us than anyone off the street claiming to be a video game historian. It's reliable sources that prove things instead of just taking everyone's word for what they say they know. I certainly have sympathy for your position, being an expert on some topics who has struggled with editors who clearly had no knowledge other than what they may have gotten from a brief Google search. But as a practical matter the only way we can sort the experts from the wannabes is by providing reliable sources. If you do do that and still have problems because the wannabes think they are smarter than the sources (which I have seen too often on this site), let us know and we'll see what we can do. DreamGuy (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since I posted my previous response, I had found a reliable source that states point blank these are not consoles here, The Mobile Revolution by Dr. Dan Steinbock, also a PHD and in the field of academia, but a well published author - 19 books to his credit according to Amazon and 4 in regards to portable devices. I went ahead and spent 6+ hours digging up resources for material and citations on the page. Kept the Li reference for the main console definition per your advice, and used the high score book's exact definition of handheld electronic games in the Origins section. (also per your advice of working in multiple references). If you can, take a look at Handheld game console and let me know what you think (preferably on the talk page). Its obviously just the article intro and the Origins section, I haven't touched the rest of the article yet (since it was these sections that all this was in regards to). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Guardian Science blog

I understand that newspaper online blogs are taken on a case-by-case basis -- does anyone have a feel for the Guardian Science blog?[2] I'd like to use this article: [3] which is written by one of The Guardian's science correspondents. It's in relation to this ongoing AfD, so there isn't much time to search for better references. (I don't need to cite anything that appears in a comment.) Thanks for any advice you can offer! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian's blogs can be treated in a similar way to those of some other mainstream media outlets. The original signed pieces can be considered as equivalent to articles appearing in the newspaper itself. The readers' comments on the other hand are most definitely not reliable. Please note that a newspaper article should not be considered reliable as to scientific fact. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The two blog posts that Espresso Addict links to seem to be perfectly acceptable sources since they are (1) published by a reputable publisher, (2) signed pieces by the newspaper's regular Religion and Science correspondent respectively, (3) they are reported pieces and not just a link item (like some blog posts are). In summary, I agree with Itsmejudith, that the reliability of these sources should be judged at par with any science news story appearing in a mainstream newspaper like Guardian and the fact that they appeared in a "blog" format is inconsequential in this case. Abecedare (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both. That was my feeling but it's useful to have it confirmed. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Rock On The Net

Is this website a reliable source? It is used in many Featured List articles regarding musician's awards, but I'm not sure if I should use it. Thanks, Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 21:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No love for me? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, holidays... looked at it and ran out of time to respond.

It looks absolutely not reliable to me. It's just some site put together by some private person lifting things from other sources for the sole purpose of delivering ads. I hope it was added to articles in good faith by peope who just didn't know any better, but lots of times these kinds of sites were spammed here. I'll poke around and see if I can figure it out. DreamGuy (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

So I thought. Thanks! Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 06:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not link to a forum?

Is there any reason other than policy for refusing to put a "Opposing Discussion" link to a forum on the topic? For example a district attorney has developed a following who prefer to remain anonymous and their opinions about the DA are on a forum. It is not false to provide a link to the forum if accurately labeled "Opposing Discussions" even if some or all opposing discussions are as faulty as Wikipedea's entry on the guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.213.230 (talk)

1) Anonymous sources are not reliable. How do we know who is writing? How do we know that they are qualified to say what they say. 2) forums are not reliable, as the those posting are anonymous. Blueboar (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

1) You are not reliable by your same logic. You have a user anonym so we don't know who you are nor your qualifications. 2) It is expected that a DA detractors forum won't all be more accurate than many Wikipaedia entries since it's public contributions, like Wikipedia having anonymous contributors. 3) Citing "reliable sources" such as newspaper articles that are hidden behind a newspaper's fee system as was done in Talk:Joshua_Marquis does not make for accurate entries. Neither is a freely available news story necessarily accurate, factual, or opinionless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.213.230 (talk)

1) Absolutely, which is why when Blueboar, or any wikipedia contributor, writes articles his contributions should be referenced to reliable sources. 2) Not sure what you are trying to say here. However, we do not consider a wikipedia article to be a reliable source, when sourcing from a wiki page we should always use the sources that the wiki provide rather than the wiki itself. 3) Our requirement for reliable sources is that they be available in a well stocked public library. This includes subscription newspapers. We do not believe that news stories automatically are accurate, factual or opinionless. For factual accuracy our articles should never be considered as better than the sources we provide, and it might at times be worse. For POV biasing we have a NPOV policy that demands that when different views of a topic is presented then we should cover all views. (Subject to undue weight for very minor viewpoints) That means that when a conservative newspaper writes about an issue in politics we should also include what liberal newspapers writes. Taemyr (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

For your information, any information available on the Internet is now available in any well stocked public library, including web forums. None of you have provided a relaible reason to not incluce a forum link as a reference for opposing discussion. For more accurate citation guidelines I refer you to the Bible discussion a few topics below where it is explained how references to uncertian knowledge are handled. Therefore I request restoration of said link on the Joshua Marquis page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.213.230 (talk)

Sorry, that's not how things work here. All you have to do is look at WP:EL and see that we do not link to forums... The link also fails our rules on WP:BLP and probably a bunch of other policies too. The link is not going back. DreamGuy (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Logic does not work here? All you have to do is look at Joshua Marquis page to see you have an external link to his blog which allows anonymous comments, clearly no more reliable than a forum. Someone who thinks logically should either put my link back OR pull the DA's blog link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.213.230 (talk)

Per WP:EL we can link to the official websites of the subject of the article. If that were a forum that was claimed as official I'd still yank it, but a blog is publishing his thoughts, which is permitted as an external linked site. DreamGuy (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

For those who have actually read WP:EL and related WP:SPS the opposite is clear. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources." Further exceptions do not include Marquis thoughts on his vacation to Neurenberg and other topics since he's not a notable expert on most topics which he choses to blog about, nor do many of them relate to his limited notability, plus the fact that he's unreliable on an issue he posted on his own talk page. Therefore his blog should be pulled by a responsible editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.213.230 (talk • contribs) 21:06, December 29, 2008

Teen Ink

Hello. Is Teen Ink a reliable source for book reviews? Kaguya-chan (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think that yes, yes they are a reliable source for book reviews. They have been publishing reviews for going on 20 years now. Remember, however, that since reviews are essentially opinion pieces they can only be cited as a source for the reviewing editor's opinion on the work in question. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that book reviews cannot be used for statements concerning the production of the work? For example, what if a review said "the author worked on his novel for over five years" or something? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How would a reviewer know any of the production information? Not reliable for that sort of thing, no. DreamGuy (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, a reviewer may have access to a "review packet" (just as film critics do, afaik), may interview authors and publishers, attend book conventions etc for such production information. For example this review by Michiko Kakutani of the novel Juneteenth contains meta-information about how the manuscript was converted into the book, which is perfectly reliable for wikipedia. Of course, if the production information is disputed or controversial, it can be specifically attributed to the reviewer. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv image captions

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Bloody_Sunday_(1939)#Caption about the captions of the images [4] and [5]. These images have been uploaded from Bundesarchiv, the federal German archive, whose reliability was discussed above.

Bundesarchiv gives two captions to each image: "Originaltitel" (caption the image had before it was aquired by Bundesarchiv) and "Archivtitel" (caption given by the Bundesarchiv). These two captions can be found in the WPCommons image description (where "Originaltitel" is followed by "Archivtitel", the latter one in brackets) and in the Bundesarchiv image description (linked from the image description in WPCommons, must select "detail" to view full description including "Originaltitel" and "Archivtitel" at the respective Bundesarchiv page).

At the Bundesarchiv page [6], the Archivtitel is explained as follows: "If the image does not have an "Originaltitel" or if the "Originaltitel" is missing information or false, a new caption ("Archivtitel" is assigned."

In the article Bloody Sunday (1939), Bundesarchiv images from the Nazi era have been inserted, the "Originaltitel" of which is written in a propagandistic style. For the image "Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-E10612,_Bromberg,_Leichen_get%C3%B6teter_Volksdeutscher.jpg", I inserted the "Archivtitel" as the image's caption: "Bodys of killed Volksdeutsche (victims of the Bromberg Bloody Sunday)". This caption is repeatedly changed to a caption stating that the picture shows "alleged victims" and that it was created by or, in other versions, used by Nazi propaganda. My understanding is that if the Bundesarchiv caption states that the image shows the victims, we can rely on that and must not add "alleged". My understanding is also, that because the "Originaltitel" is written in a propagandistic way, that does not mean the image itself was created by Nazi propaganda, it however gives the reader a hint that the image was most probably used in a propaganda campaign. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Example

The following is the Bundesarchiv image description of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-E10612, Bromberg, Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher.jpg. The Bundesarchiv description is linked from the WPCommons image description, the URL is http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/_1229936395/?search[view]=detail. Signatur (signatur, from which the filename is derived), Originaltitel (initial, contemporary caption), and Archivtitel (Bundesarchiv caption) are emphasized.

Signatur: Bild 183-E10612

Bestand: Bild 183 - Allgemeiner Deutscher Nachrichtendienst - Zentralbild

Dateiinformationen

Bildtyp: Fotografie

Ausrichtung: Querformat

Farbe: Nein

Abmessungen: 3738x2843 Pixel

Dateityp: image/jpeg

Dateigrösse: 936.3 kB

Bei 300 dpi druckbar bis 31.65 x 24.07 cm.

Originaltitel: Die Massenmorde von Bromberg - die Folgen Englands Blankovollmacht an Polen. Über Bromberg steht der Schatten des Todes. In den Straßen, Parks , Anlagen in Gräben und Hauseingängen, zwischen Hecken und Büschen liegen die Opfer polnischer Grausamkeit, die Leichen vieler hunderter von Volksdeutschen, mit deren Ermordung die Polen ihre Drohung nur zu schrecklich wahr gemacht haben, vor dem Einzug der Deutschen noch Rache zu nehmen. Widerliche bestialische für Menschen kaum denkbare Grausamkeiten sind, bevor die Opfer unter den Bajonetten und Gewehrläufen ihr Leben für Deutschlands Ehre und des Reiches Größe hingaben, an diesen Toten verübt worden. Weinend suchen die Angehörigen ihre Vermißten. Die schmerzgebeugten Frauen selbst hatten für ihre hingeschlachteten Männer und Söhne die Massengräber zu schaufeln begonnen, bis ihnen die einmarschierenden deutschen Soldaten diesen letzten Dienst für die unschuldigen Opfer des Polenhasses abnahmen. Die Geiselmorde von Bromberg, eine Folge der leichtfertigen englischen Blankovollmacht, wird allzeit ein Schandfleck in der Geschichte der polnischen Nation sein. 8.9.1939

Archivtitel: Polen.- Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher (Opfer des "Bromberger Blutsonntag")

Datierung: September 1939

Fotograf: o.Ang.

Agentur: Scherl

Quelle: Bundesarchiv

Klassifikation: Bild 183 ADN/G {Gesellschaft}/G X {Kriege}/G X 1939 {Zweiter Weltkrieg}/G X 1939 5 {Hinter der Front im besetzten Gebiet}/G X 1939 53 {Geiselmord, Greuelbilder, Beisetzung von Opfern}/G X 1939 531 {Geiselmord} Bild 183 ADN/G {Gesellschaft}/G X {Kriege}/G X 1939 {Zweiter Weltkrieg}/G X 1939 1 {A-Z der Kriegsschauplätze}/G X 1939 1 Polen {Polen}

As it was debated in previous postings that a Bundesarchiv caption exists despite my various hints were to find it, I inserted the respective parts of the Bundesarchiv image description above for everyone to review. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Can the German text be translated? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

---

English version (http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/_1229936395/?switch_lang=en, the stuff not translated by the Bundesarchiv English version was translated by me and is given in brackets)

Signature: Bild 183-E10612

Inventory: Bild 183 - Allgemeiner Deutscher Nachrichtendienst - Zentralbild

File information

Image type: Fotografie [photography]

Orientation: Querformat [horizontal]

Colour: Nein [no]

Dimensions: 3738x2843 pixels

File Type: image/jpeg

File Size: 936.3 kB

At 300 dpi printable up to 31.65 x 24.07 cm.

Original title: Die Massenmorde von Bromberg - die Folgen Englands Blankovollmacht an Polen. Über Bromberg steht der Schatten des Todes. In den Straßen, Parks , Anlagen in Gräben und Hauseingängen, zwischen Hecken und Büschen liegen die Opfer polnischer Grausamkeit, die Leichen vieler hunderter von Volksdeutschen, mit deren Ermordung die Polen ihre Drohung nur zu schrecklich wahr gemacht haben, vor dem Einzug der Deutschen noch Rache zu nehmen. Widerliche bestialische für Menschen kaum denkbare Grausamkeiten sind, bevor die Opfer unter den Bajonetten und Gewehrläufen ihr Leben für Deutschlands Ehre und des Reiches Größe hingaben, an diesen Toten verübt worden. Weinend suchen die Angehörigen ihre Vermißten. Die schmerzgebeugten Frauen selbst hatten für ihre hingeschlachteten Männer und Söhne die Massengräber zu schaufeln begonnen, bis ihnen die einmarschierenden deutschen Soldaten diesen letzten Dienst für die unschuldigen Opfer des Polenhasses abnahmen. Die Geiselmorde von Bromberg, eine Folge der leichtfertigen englischen Blankovollmacht, wird allzeit ein Schandfleck in der Geschichte der polnischen Nation sein. 8.9.1939

[The mass murder of Bromberg - consequence of England's carte blanche to Poland. Death casted its shade on Bromberg. In the streets, parks, green areas, in ditches and entrances, in hags and bushes lie the victims of the gruesome Polish act, bodies of several hundred Volksdeutsche, with the murder of whom the Poles have carried out in a dreadful manner their threat to act out revenge before the Germans move in. Disgusting, bestial, nearly unthinkable cruelties were exerted on the dead before the victims gave their life for Germany's honour and the Reich's magnanimity under bayonets and rifles. Crying relatives search for their missing. Women bent by pain had started to dig the graves for their slaughtered husbands and sons themselves before the German troops marched in and took on with this last service for the innocent victims of Polish hatred. The hostage killings of Bromberg, consequence of England's frivolously given carte blanche, will for all time blemish the history of the Polish nation. 8.9.1939]

Archive title: Polen.- Leichen getöteter Volksdeutscher (Opfer des "Bromberger Blutsonntag") [Poland. - Bodies of killed Volksdeutsche (victims of the Bromberg Bloody Sunday)]

Dating: September 1939

Photographer: o.Ang. [not specified]

Agency: Scherl

Origin: Bundesarchiv

Classification: Bild 183 ADN/G {Gesellschaft}/G X {Kriege}/G X 1939 {Zweiter Weltkrieg}/G X 1939 5 {Hinter der Front im besetzten Gebiet}/G X 1939 53 {Geiselmord, Greuelbilder, Beisetzung von Opfern}/G X 1939 531 {Geiselmord} Bild 183 ADN/G {Gesellschaft}/G X {Kriege}/G X 1939 {Zweiter Weltkrieg}/G X 1939 1 {A-Z der Kriegsschauplätze}/G X 1939 1 Polen {Polen}

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC), copied from Talk:Bloody Sunday (1939)

Survey

(1) Bundesarchiv is a reliable secondary/tertiary source for the image. The image caption given by the Bundesarchiv ("Archivtitel") is the reliable caption for the images. In cases where there is no "Archivtitel", the "Originaltitel" is the reliable caption for the image, as Bundesarchiv assignes Archivtitel only if Originaltitel is missing or false.

Support (nominator) Skäpperöd (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(2) Bundesarchiv captions ("Archivtitel" or "Originaltitel" in cases where there is no "Archivtitel"), if assigned to the respective Bundesarchiv image in a wikipedia article, shall not be altered in meaning nor be removed, although of course other, preferrably sourced information may be added.

Support (nominator) Skäpperöd (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(3) Propagandistic "Originaltitel" may be used as a hint the image once was used by state propaganda.

Support (nominator) Skäpperöd (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(4) Propagandistic "Originaltitel" does not sufficiently indicate that the image once was created by state propaganda.

Support (nominator) Skäpperöd (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• None of the above... Bundesarchive is absolutely a reliable secondary/tertiary source for the image. It is also reliable for what the "Originaltitel" was, and for their own "Archivtitel" caption. However, Wikiepdia is not required to use the same caption as the Bundesarchive. I don't see anything wrong with using the Bundesarchive caption (it can be cited and attributed to Bundesarchive if need be). On the other hand, there isn't anything wrong with using some other caption either... as long as there is consesus on the article talk page that another caption would be more accurate. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:Skapperod claim is not supported by Bundesarchive itself:LThe image caption given by the Bundesarchiv ("Archivtitel") is the reliable caption for the images

The Bundesarchive mentions clearly that they copy the text descriptions from original archive names and captions. In some cases they use their own version, but they also rely on suggestions. This means that

• A:All photos need to be judged case by case.Caption given by Bundesarchive can be copy of the original archive caption as noted in their explanation.

• B:Bundesarchive pictures can have non-reliable captions.

• C: They are hardly dedicated scholary project to show captions as evidence in support of contested claims.

From Bundesarchive page: http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/index.php?barch_item=en_help#a15 The Federal Archive describes pictures - where available - with the original text. If no original text is available, the picture is described by the archivists of the Federal Archive. In view of the large number of pictures, of course it can come to discrepancies in individual cases. We are always grateful for notes and additions because of this. --Molobo (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to post a rebuttal to Skäpperöd's strange WP:SYNTHESIS conclusions, but Molobo sums it up quite nicely. They're just captions. They aren't necessarily reliable for anything other than that somebody wrote those captions. Those don't prove facts, and certainly they do not proove propaganda. We need real sources for any of these.DreamGuy (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS applies to article content, not discussions about articles. Here, it is a good thing to debate on which meanings are more likely so that we can choose the best one. Anyway it seems to me this discussion has gone on too long. Bundesarchiv titles are secondary sources. Original titles are primary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Daily Princetonian

Simple problem. Simple solution. Is the Daily Princetonian considered a reliable source? Argument stems from this edit (rather, series of edits) pertaining to a controversial review on the Black Hawk Down article. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm the other editor involved in this dispute. I don't think it can be classed as reliable source since it is certainly not a mainstream paper (a circulation of just a few thousand) and it is a college newspaper. Are all college newspapers going to be classified as reliable sources? Would a respectable encyclopedia ever cite a school newspaper?Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are classified as reliable sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Per an earlier discussion about UCLA's Daily Bruin, I'd say that a university newspaper would qualify as a reliable source. So long as they have an editorial board and are responsible for any errors they make, that qualifies. The circulation is irrelevant. The issue with that edit is that it is an opinion, which is a different matter. Even if it were printed in the NY Times it'd still be questionable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As someone who knows Nick Guyatt personally, I am surprised to see this here. It's an opinion, obviously. It's definitely his opinion. As to whether it is an opinion of WP:PROMINENCE, well, um, that's not what this noticeboard is about. I think people get confused. There isn't a catch-all "X is reliable" "B is not reliable" answer all the time. The Daily Princetonian is as reliable as any other serious college newspaper. However, that doesn't mean it must be included in every article where it possibly can be used as a source. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The paper is a RS. Whether to include the info is an editorial decision. I would have leaned towards no, but the author isn't your average college kid. Tough call. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've located a handful of other "more notable" sources, corroborating this guy's opinion, so it ends up making this whole issue a bit moot. Tool2Die4 (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SA that the paper can be used when appropriate--and also that more universally accepted sources should be used in preference if they are around. DGG (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

And in practice that means college papers should almost never be used as a source for Wikipedia. And we'd probably be well served by a blanket ban, because I can't think of an example of something notable by Wikipedia standards that a college paper would have coverage of and no more well respected sources wouldn't. DreamGuy (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Notablity is only for the main topic of an article. It's generally a good thing to build an article like a skeleton, with the main points cited to sources that are both highly respected and widely circulated, with the finer points sourced to progressively more local or more specialist sources. It's not unusual that a college newspaper would have good coverage of local issues. Whether to cite them on national issues is an editorial decision. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

askmen.com

Special:Linksearch/*.askmen.com - literally hundreds of links to a site which, on the face of it, is not reliable and certainly not an example of the kind of source we want. In every case I've seen the source is essentially redundant, there are much better sources for the same content. Cites of the site supporting the statement that the site rated x Simpsons episode as one of tis top ten look to me to be gratuitous; does anyone actually care? Guy (Help!) 20:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say nuke them in most cases, clearly not a RS. dougweller (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the article. It's just like if you were citing GQ or Maxim. If its something like a fashion, lifestyle, or pop culture topic that askmen is good at, keep the cite. If its something that another source covers better, use that instead. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem with it. Are you saying it doesn't have editorial oversight, or is just not scholarly enough? If it turned out to not be reliable, it could lead to some major shakeups. It's part of IGN, along with other websites we use as references, like rotten tomatoes. It's also a part of News Corp. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Bild

Is the paper Bild considered a reliable source? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It will depend on what you're trying to source. Since it's a tabloid, I wouldn't use it on a biography of a living person, especially if the info is contentious. What are specifically trying to source? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

BILD is the worst tabloid of Germany and nearly as bad as THE SUN. It is therfore my opinion that BILD is never a reliable source for any kind of information. One of their most well-known headlines was for example "UFO sect wants to clone Hitler". --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bild Zeitung is about as reliable as The Sun, as Novil Ariandis pointed out right above me, so you might want to find other sources. Especially for anything that's even a tiny bit contentious. --Conti|✉ 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bible as a reliable source

Could anyone explain why the Bible is permitted to be used as a reliable source? - Shiftchange (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Like most questions here, the answer is it depends. It's a reliable source on what it says. If it's "the bible says Adam and Eve..." then it's fine. If it's "the bible says the earth was created in 0" it's not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's wrong. "The bible says the earth was created in 0" is actually OK. What would be wrong is "the earth was created in 0". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Poor example, because the Bible doesn't say that earth was created in any numeral. Some people claim that their interpretation of the Bible means that the earth was created in such and such a year. You'd source the person making the claim, not the Bible in that case. DreamGuy (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain why you assert the Bible "is a reliable source on what it says"? From reading WP:RS the Bible is exactly the opposite of a reliable source. It is not credible, the authors were not notable, no facts were checked and no independent third parties have ever reviewed the content. Why is all the scrutiny given to the other sources on this page questioned and in some cases rejected, because of the minor possibility of bias but then not applied to references from the Bible? - Shiftchange (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that WP:RS says that sources are reliable in relation to the subject at hand. What matters is the context in which the Bible is being used as a source. For example, Bible would be an appropriate source when it comes to describe the Life and teachings of Jesus, as told in the Gospels or when used by an expert to give a certain religious interpretation within the Cristian world. On the other hand, the Bible becomes less of a reliable source, for example, when it comes to science historic analysis. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 09:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would think the Bible is an "appropriate source" when it clearly fails to meet the standards for a reliable source. I thought this that is what matters, regardless of context. If a source is unreliable, such as the Bible, why do you think it is appropriate to use it in Wikipedia in any context? This is what I have been trying to find out. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You've been answered, read the answers again please. If we want to write what the Bible says about Jesus, for instance, the Bible is a reliable source -- for what it says. That is not using it as a source for any historical Jesus, if there was one, it is using the Bible as a source for what the Bible says, just as we would use Vanity Fair or Lord of the Rings as a source for what they say. What could be more reliable as a source for what a book says than the book itself? dougweller (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As usual editors must use good judgement. For example the Bible is not always consistent - a striking case is Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him" and Proverbs 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." So even "the Bible says that ..." needs to be used with care. --Philcha (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, when using the Bible as a source, we need to check various translations, to make sure that they all say the same thing (If they do not say the same thing, we have to note which version we are citing). Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a problem here in that the Bible is as much a subject as a source. Considered as a subject, it is of course the most obvious source (the only question then being the version to be cited). Considered as a source on particular topics, its reliability should, naturally, be called into question. Pingku (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary source. It's often cited in articles about biblical subjects. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If so, one has to bear in mind that manuscript and translation can vary. So "the Bible says" is only applicable if you're quoting Greek or Hebrew (and even then, you should speak of ms, not "the Bible"). Other than that, you should cite specific translations, but scholarly works should be considered superior sources. Guettarda (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Some time way back in my youth I heard Garner Ted Armstrong read from the Bible and rather correctly per its wording describe the ancient creation of same-as-Christmas trees: chop a tree down, decorate it, worship it. Even then I was a skeptic. I pulled out my other Bible in Latvian (fewer translations removed from the original), and it was clear and unambiguous that what was meant--in present-day terms--was not "Christmas trees" but "totem poles." I would agree that which Bible is quoted is as significant as which passage. PetersV       TALK 06:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Something that might help is ceasing to view it as "the Bible" and to begin viewing it as a compilation of primary sources. This is especially useful in the case of the New Testament, where the authors are mostly known. Writing "Paul says" or "John says" makes a lot more sense than "the Bible says". In addition, talking about the Bible as if it were a "reliable source" gives the impression that it is somehow a secondary source of research. It's not. It's a primary source document, and should be used with as much skepticism as any other primary source. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 21:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call what went into the Bible as "primary sources". With the noted exception of Paul's letters the Bible consists of almost entirely of secondary sources. Even the Gospels were written years after the events the describe and there is a large debate on who and even when they were written--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC).

They are as much a "primary source" as Herodotus or Homer, both of whom we refer to by that label. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 06:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Articles, Commentaries, etc. that appear in a Scientific Journal.

Template:RFCpolicy A small group of editors has come to an impasse regarding whether a group of published commentaries meet WP:RS and should therefore be summarized in the article we are working on, or fail to meet WP:RS and therefore should not be included on the page. We are hoping to have the input from otherwise uninvolved editors to help us resolve the issue. (In the interests of disclosure, the editors most involved in the disagreement are user:Dicklyon, user:DarlieB, user:Hfarmer, user:James Cantor, user:Jokestress, user:ProudAGP, and user:WhatamIdoing.) This is a redux of a conversation all of the above editors had a long time ago and archived here. (Scroll down to see it)

Agreed upon facts

• The Archives of Sexual Behavior (ASB) is a prominent academic journal on sexology.
• The June 2008 ASB issue is devoted to the controversy surrounding the 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen (TMWWBQ).
• The article is by Alice Dreger and the peer commentaries discuss Dreger's article.
• Peer commentaries are written by notable people, including John Bancroft, Ben Barres, Ray Blanchard, John Gagnon, Richard Green, Deirdre McCloskey, Charles Moser, Seth Roberts, Julia Serano, and ASB Editor-in-Chief Ken Zucker. Who are all notable academics and experts on transsexuality.

Arguments for including peer commentaries

• Peer commentaries are verifiable (published and available for purchase in print and online)
• Peer commentaries are in a reliable source (Archives of Sexual Behavior) alongside the article.
• The article and peer commentaries are all listed individually the same way in PubMed, as well as other databases of academic output.

Arguments for excluding peer commentaries

• In Zucker's editorial introducing that issue of the Archives, Zucker wrote the Dreger article underwent peer-review.
• Zucker wrote, "I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in consultation with the author."
• Zucker wrote that all commentaries submitted were published (except for one which did not pertain to the topic).
• These commentaries should be treated as letters-to-the-editor.

There are basically three options:

• In this case include only the peer reviewed article itself.
• Treat everything in the journal on an equal footing and use anything published in a journal as a reliable source.
• In this case exclude the whole issues of Archives of Sexual Behavior because the editors, who in this case are all arguably experts on this matter, cannot come to a consensus.

--Hfarmer (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The above is a question that was in the first instance and it is still the best way to ask the question now. was negotiated by all of the editors then involved. It is my opinion that for the sake of not having to do this crapola a third time we take account of the archived discussion in reaching consensus. Not all of those people are active now, it's like their taking a break for the holidays or something. They will be back and they will demand that we redo this if we ignore their really good arguments on both sides.

In the previous discussion it was established after agonizing debate that the peer commentaries are self published sources. Ok I agree with and stipulate that unless anyone disagrees and wants to go over that again. The argument for them being self published came from the fact that these commentaries were not fact checked or reviewed before being published. In my analysis of WP:RS and WP:SPS self published sources are useable as a source for thier own opinion if that person is an expert. In the last debate many editors agreed with that.

The last debate also turned on the definition of just who is an expert? What defines an expert? It was argued and most uninvolved editors at that time agreed that for our purposes a expert is someone who has published on the topic at hand in a peer reviewed journal. I think this is a horrible definition of expertise. Only in a very small part of human experience can expertise be gained by writing and publishing. In most things expertise is gained by doing. Using that standard for "expert" an astronaut that has been in space a dozen times but never published a paper in a journal is not an expert on space flight. However a engineer who writes a paper about it but has never been near an actual rocket is an expert. Clearly that does not make sense. I do recognize that the engineer may know technical aspects and formal engineering aspects that are invisible to the astronaught who is immersed in the experience of being launched into space then reentering. Thus if anything both sources should be used.

For the case at hand simply replace astronaut with transsexual and engineer with sexologist and you get what I am saying. The issue at had is are transsexuals expert enough to have their opinions expressed in an article which is all about transsexuality. I would say of course we can use some sample of those commentaries for their opinions but nothing more. While similar commentaries which are by authors who have published in peer reviewed journals about the topic could be used for technical aspects of the theory. (The astronaut should not tell the engineer how to do his/her job either.) Both of those perspectives would be a valuable part of making the article at hand more complete and true to the state of the situation we are writing about.

I am sorry for all of the reading involved in this request. To those of you who actually do this you have my deepest gratitude.  :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What an interesting a case! I've had a look at The Man Who Would Be Queen (our article, not the book) and at the earlier discussion that led you to raise the issue. These make it plain that the whole issue was more like a war than a normal academic debate. So I'd consider it very unwise to make policy on the basis of this case.

WP:RS is not a guarantee of reliability, it sets out to define minimum requirements (IMO they are OK for physics, chemistry, biology, etc., but I don't know about academic articles on the arts or sociology, etc.) - for example many science articles are consigned to the rubbish within 5 years after publication, sometimes because the authors made mistakes but more often (in my experience) because of subsequent progress. So it's always up to editors to use good judgement.

I also know of cases where "technical comments" on an article are worth citing, and the original authors' responses to these comments. Very often how you cite them is the most important point, "X commented that ..." and "Y responded that ..." is often OK and warns readers that there is an on-going debate.

Re "the peer commentaries are self published sources", I think the facts you present contradict that, as the editor of ASB went over them in detail.

Re "for our purposes a expert is someone who has published on the topic at hand in a peer reviewed journal", I agree that it's far too broadbrush and your astronaut / engineer example is right on target. I also think the statement contains too many ambiguities. For example:

• In some of WP's scientific topics some content is so well-accepted in scientific circles that peer-reviewed articles are no longer published on it, especially if the topic has a very wide scope, e.g. a phylum such as Arthropod, and you need an undergraduate-level textbook by reputable authors. The authors of good textbooks do not have time to be active researchers in all of a field, in this example invertebrate zoology. so you have to trust that they are using their sources sensibly. If necessary you can always back that up with book review in peer-reviewed journals, although AFAIK book reviews are not themselves peer-reviewed.

While the seological theory of transsexualism due to Dr. Blanchard is part of this discussion it is not the main part. (it has it's own article which is not the subject of this discussion). While compared to Physics and Chemistry most "_ologies" are pseudosciences. The ologies still do have standards by which theories are judged. Those are the standards one must apply when talking about the scientific qualities of a sexological theory.(i.e. a physics theory can be confirmed by predicting values to some high degree of precision. What could any psychological theory do that would be equivalent to that?)

• It depends on who "our" refers to:

That basically refer's to the editors who wanted to exclude the peer commentaries of many critics of Derger's article. While many of the critcs are academics they haven't published in scientific fields related to psychiatry, psychology, or sexology. It is my personal postion that we should not use their comments for whatever they have to say about psychology. However we should still be able to use them for their opinions of Dreger's article. It depends on what we want to take.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• • If you mean WP editors working on normal scientific topics, peer-reviewed articles and top-of-the-range books are the preferred sources. However it may be necessary to supplement their material with "official" sources (government or similar) on matters of public policy, e.g. public health or conservation - Platyhelminthes uses a few of these because some flatworms are very damaging parasites.

Nope see my above two replies.

• • If you mean editors working on scientific topics that are so controversial that there's a lot of dirty politicking, like this one, the safest course is to treat it like any political controversy that is still active (e.g. The Middle East situation): assume all sources have a POV; aim for balanced coverage rather than attempting to identify a consensus; if any doubt at all, attribute statements as the views of particular person or groups.

Wikipedia has precidents for things like this. Any article relating to human evolution, creationism, biblical arhaeology or what not will likely generate allot of heat. Though As I said in my first comment this really is not about sexology or science. This is more about A book which cited Blanchard's theory, then the reaction to that book, and a journal article written about that reaction. This is more about the controversy surrounding the book than whatever science or lack thereof in the book.

• • I have no experience of working on academic topics outside the traditional sciences, i.e. where hypotheses are not empirically falsifiable. If I got involved in such a topic, I'd treat as controversial (balanced coverage, attributed statements, etc.) until proven otherwise. Other editors with more experience in thse fields may take a different view.

By traditional do you mean the physical science, Physics and Chemistry? Just wondering.

• • For most other topics on Wikipedia, WP:RS already takes an excessively academic point of view, and I would hate to see that reinforced. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree more about that. The definition of expertise should extend to people who have done things but not necssarily journal published about them. It is excessively hard to publish anything in a peer reviewed journal. What get's published is more a reflection of the bias'es of the people who are on the editorial board. This is called a paradigm. This concept is part of the discussion at hand. It is alleged that the people at "Archives of Sexual Behavior" are totally comitted to Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory as if it were the scientific paradigm accepted by all or almost all. Which it isn't. Though neither is it fringe kooky science that only a few other psychologist take seriously. Just for the record what the widely accepted paradigm in this field is would have to be what the DSM IV calls "Gender Identity Disorder". --Hfarmer (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take my not responding to your comments as snub. First, I'm no sexologist, my main concern is to prevent over-enthusiastic attempts at legislation from doing harm in other areas. Second, I think we need to hear from more people. --Philcha (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider asking at WP:RFC? This area is really for short discussions on what passes the minimum of a reliable source. Its already been established that the disputed citations have been published, the question is whether it makes sense to use them in the article. A request for comment should help with that. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, but since I already wrote my comments and got an edit conflict, I'll go ahead and put them here. Dicklyon (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The interlinear comments of Hfarmer among Philcha's points above is getting too confusing, and makes it hard to follow. Let just go sequentially, OK? Also, Hfarmer, now that you've framed it and made a dozen edits on the topic today, slow down and let others get a word in. Dicklyon (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem that Philcha quickly recognized is that these topics are controversial, with active ongoing nasty politic fighting going on between the academic sexologists and the transsexuals that they seek to put into two categories that are found offensive. Bailey's book was one step in their campaign, Dreger's analysis of the backlash was another, and now, in the person of User:James Cantor, a prominent principal in the arguments, they've brought their campaign to Wikipedia, seeking to leverage Wikipedia's tendency to give the upper hand to academics; they've been joined by User:ProudAGP, apparently wearing his POV on his handle as a proud autogynephiliac, in support of the controversial theory; and User:WhatamIdoing is always on their side, too. When Cantor (first as an anon and then as User:MarionTheLibrarian) started with nasty attacks on the biography of my friend Lynn Conway, I noticed and got involved in defending against such biased editing by such committed partisans in the fight. So OK, I have that bias myself, but I'm basically a long-time active Wikipedian working on technical topics, and I don't like to Wikipedia used in such a POV way by academics trying to push their controversial ideas.

...So, what I mean by all this is that excluding half of a special issue on a controversial topic, on the basis that the editor Kenneth Zucker, himself clearly on the side of the academic sexologists that he works with, used the words "peer reviewed" on one side not on the other, is unbelievably bold and offensive to me as a Wikipedian. Anyone else think this is over the top? Can't we report BOTH sides of the controversy as published in this journal? Dicklyon (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

One cannot have an informed discussion about this topic without knowing its context: There exists great conflict at the moment between the ideas expressed predominantly in high-end scientific journals and the beliefs expressed predominantly by transsexual activists. (There are some exceptions on both sides; I simplify just to show the general lay of the land.) The extent to which editors want to lower WP’s criteria for “expert” is precisely the extent to which editors want to have the attention to the activists’ side increased.

Both sides accuse the other of acting out of self-interest: Activists will argue that the extent to which editors want to maintain the current WP definition of expert is the extent to which one wants the attention to the activists’ side minimized. The only solution, to my mind, is to edit the articles to fit WP policy, not to edit WP policy to fit how one wants the articles to read.

For editors to who believe that WP is “too” academic (as if there is such a thing as a non-academic encyclopedia), I recommend explicitly starting a conversation about expertise on the relevant policy pages, not fighting on the transsexual-topic pages and then backwards-engineering WP definitions of expertise to suit it.

There is a reason that so few of the statements of extreme activists appear in RS’s (including journals devoted to transsexual issues), and there is a reason that WP limits itself to what is said in RS’s and not to what appears on various blogs and other non-RS’s. I have no opposition to the views of activists being included the moment they appear in an RS; I oppose only changing the rules to suit activists’ (or anyone’s) efforts to use WP as a soapbox and battleground.

— James Cantor (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Request for clarity Hfarmer, could you explain what you want to do with the comments in that journal? No source is universally reliable for every possible statement. It's not a bright line, "This {is|isn't} a reliable source, so you {can use it for anything|can't use it ever}." It's not just the source, it's how you use it. What Wikipedia considers to be a self-published source is a reliable source for its contents, and can be used according to policy to support a statement such as "John Smith said that X is Y." They just can't be used to support statements of fact (i.e., "X is Y (Smith 2008).)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A number of journals in the social sciences make a practice of publishing these commentaries (e.g. Behavioral and Brain Sciences), not just for articles that are particularly controversial, but in some cases for all or for the major articles, This is actually an extremely valuable feature, for it provides for a comprehensive collection of alternative views. Most journals who employ this method select the commentators carefully, and in some cases I have seen what amounts to truly significant publication take place in this manner, as the commentators discuss additional examples. Normally, the author of the principal article publishes a reply and evaluation of the the commentaries--sometimes the other commentaries also refer to each other. So long as they are under the control of the editor, i consider them as published. They are not quite the same as the primary article in the journal, but, depending on the journal, they can be close to it. (Letters to the editor also can be under various degrees of editorial control--they are often selected, and are not in responsible journals published as a matter of course.) They can be taken to represent the views of their authors presented in a recognized forum. In the case where they are expressions of opinion they need to be quoted as such. But this is also true for the opinions expressed by the author of the primary article: they are none of them expressions of scholarly consensus. Indeed, if there were such cosensus thee would be no point in the whole procedure. DGG (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

DGG as James _Cantor will soon tell you these commentaries were not from a select invited group of experts. Anyone could have published a commentary you and I could have published a commentary. That is why an argument for their full inclusion as expert sources does not work. However I think I have a pretty good arguement for their limited inclusion below.

• Clarification What I would Ideally like to see done with these commentaries is to take a small sample of quotes from them. To give due weight to both sides. The critical commentaries were more numerous so naturally they should be represented by more quotes. The comments supportive of Dreger should also be represented in proportion to their number. Also information from the other commentaries should be allowed in this and other articles. Though their use should be sparing. The, as you put it, anti-sexology crowd, would like to treat these with equal weight as Dreger's article and fill the article with critical remarks. This would not be good either. For example comments in the commentaries about the scientific merit or lack there of of Dr. Blanchard's theory, unless they are by other sexologist or psychologist would not be appropriate. In short limited use of these commentaries mainly just to provide a characterizeation of the commentaries themselves.

Dick sorry if the way I responded to that first comment confused you. In an attempt to avoid that I made sure to indent by a large ammount. This was in hope of avoiding that confusion. I also wanted it to be totally clear just what in the first commentors comments I was responding to.

Reponse to James_Cantor What you write is why I would advocate for a limited use of these commentaries. There is a policy that can back this up. WP:SPS says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field.

• The material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources;

WP:BLP states:Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subject themself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Considering both of these policies I get the conclusion tht the b i o g r a p h i c a l fact of how a given commentator responded to TMWWBQ, and Dreger's article would be admissable. However comments about BBL theory, Blanchard, Bailey, the JSM affair any of that could not be admitted. Now some will argue that Dreger's article is basically an opinion pice and whatnot. However WP policy being what it is dreger's article get's more weight. All I can do is swear on my holy Qr'an that as soon as a simmilar paper appears by say Wyndzen who published under her own name I will gladly put it here, and eagerly cite this discussion to justify it's inclusion as it would have appeared in a peer reviewed journal. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The above comment about WP:SPS is misapplied: That portion of SPS is so that people's statements about themselves are useable in articles about them. It is not for allowing their opinions to appear in articles about the topic of their opinion. That is, an editor may use a quotes from Andrea James to support statements such as "Andrea James believes X" in WP articles about Andrea James but not in the articles about X itself (unless Andrea James is a bone fide expert on topic X).
— James Cantor (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why was the result of the last WP:RSN discussion not sufficient? I don't see any reason to deviate from:

• Treat the published article as RS.
• Treat the named "invited" comments as self-published material and include them per WP:SPS and WP:UNDUE (where I specifically mean that if they are experts their opinion and factual notes are included and where they are not experts no mention is made because the article isn't about them)
• Exclude the anonymous and pseudonymous commentary entirely.

• What happened to that? Protonk (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, I believe that there were no "invited" comments, in the usual sense: they allowed anyone to comment. The previous RfC centered around the use of a (single) pseudonymous comment that discussed (for example) statistical issues and specifically its use to support facts (instead of supporting only the fact that it made such comments). That should continue to be excluded.

As for summarizing what the other 22 comments say, in a classic SPS-style "John Smith said this, and Mary Jones said that" style, I'd be surprised if anyone would actually object -- although, I suppose, since the "history" paper merited only a single sentence that says who wrote it, it might be disproportionate to provide details about the commentaries, when no details are given about the paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the single sentence was done in order to keep this from being a big deal. If I wrote a four sentence paragraph using dreger as the source. AJ, Dick, and others would complain that I was biased. Therefore I barely mentioned it. All of this over a paragraph of no more than ten sentences.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

See, the problem is that Cantor and other "experts" only want the opinions of "experts" to be heard, even though the alternative views in the same journal represent the other side of the controversy. By calling them self-published, but seek to be able to cut off anything that's an opinion outside of their area of academic expertise. That's why the previous discussion that some people tried to conclude this way does not work. It gives all the editorial control to the self-proclaimed "experts", the academic sexologists. The alternative, of letting any opinion in the journal be cited (as an opinion), would be more sensible. Is there any precedent for slicing the "reliable source" thing between items in a single-topic journal? Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Dick do you admit that if you had your way the alternative views would be presented not only for their own opinions but treated as sources of facts and scientific consensus. When most of the people writing those comments know have no independent first hand knowledge of the subject, They are not trained psychologist or psychiatrist, or anything else. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I think all of the papers, including Dreger's, are about opinions. Or, to turn your question around, do you admit that you want to use Dreger as a source of "facts"? She certainly wants to be used that way. Dicklyon (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, you ask an excellent question. I too believe that the prior recommendation was sufficient and, moreover, that the prior recommendation was exactly as you just summarized it here. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that the other editors working on this topic did not heed that advice. Rather, they went ahead and "interpreted" the recommendation from you and the other non-involved editors to mean nearly the opposite of what was actually said; see here and surrounding discussion. — James Cantor (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason for my relisting this was in order to clarify once and for all just what the deal is with these commentaries. To make sure there is a real steady actual consensus which I can work under. Since DickLyon decided to make it out like I was mistreating him or showing bias by working under what I understood to be the last decision. I had to do this. Otherwise this would just be a conflict. Following the page on conflict resolution I am trying to find some kind of consensus position. My question is Who objects to the way Prontonk summarized the last consensus? --Hfarmer (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come now, I've never taken your edits as anything personal to do with me (except for your gratuitous personal attack of earlier today when you addressed me as TunnelVision). Dicklyon (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In the above I typed resisting when I meant relisting. (My spell checker did not recognize it) Gratuitous personal attack? It's only a personal attack if it's not true. Consider DarlieB's edits that you thought were so good. Removing Dreger's affiliation and job title as a way of, I don't know, denigrating her perhaps. Making her paper sound less reliable. All the while removing information that could suggest to a reader her possible conflict of interest. By way of her working at the same place as Bailey. Not being able to see beyond the direct effect of that one edit was tunnel vision. Not being able to see that I am on your side in this issue is also tunnel vision. I am arguing FOR inclusion of information from those commentaries. Clearly not any and all information. However instead of working with me in this. All you do is argue against ME instead of FOR what you want and can get. That's tunnel vision and it's counter productive. That is a perfectly civil way of saying all of the above in one word.

Now please make a convincing argument for what you want. So far all you have done is express your opinion that Dreger's work is merely her opinion. Uninvolved editors did not buy that last time. They are who you must convince.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The commentaries published in response to Dreger make it clear that what she wrote is essentially just one opinion, even though it is woven around selected facts. Nobody needs me to make an argument to that effect. As to calling me "tunnel vision" because you don't like my edits, that's called a personal attack; it doesn't matter whether you think it's true; focus on my edits instead; most of what you attribute to me above I have not actually done, so use diffs if you have actual complaints. Dicklyon (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of simply not liking your edits Dick. Sometimes you are so focused on simply looking for ways to smear the other side that you can't see the edit in it's full context. i.e. in the case of Dreger's affiliation with NU being removed, as well as her job title. You were so focused on that small piece of the picture that you could not see the forest for the trees. Not all criticism is an insult. Lord knows if I took every bit of criticism I have received on here as a supreme insult then I would be constantly offended. Take that for what it is.

Those commentaries because of TONS of WP policy cannot be used to speak to anything but the opinions of the person writing them. I say again Dick make a WP policy based argument for including those commentaries more fully. Back me up. I have argued for their inclusion and if you persist to only focus your spot of vision on me you won't achieve your goal in the big picture.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved commentary

Include, with caveat Commentaries in peer review journals represent opinions of qualified specialists. Journals would not publish them if they did not represent important opinions. They are more than letters to the editor. They are an asterisk on the article they are commenting on. It is possible that if the journal had sent the paper to the commentator for review, the paper in question would not have seen the light of day without major changes. That's why commentary from credible researchers SHOULD be included. However, the author should be identified and the commentary prefaced with "In a commentary on ..." or other qualifier to properly source the given information. This can best be embeded in the reference. P.S. It would help if you stuck to discussing process instead of content. It would make for a more productive discussion and make all arguments easier to follow. --soulscanner (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• The commentaries in this case were not from what we would think of as "qualified specialist" per se. By which I mean. ASB being a psychology journal, that the commentaries were not from other psychologist. Nor were these from invited academic experts, the commentaries were solicited from the interested segment of the public in an open letter. The editor of the journal, Ken Zucker, has written that he published all but one of the submitted commentaries. While I want to include them I don't want to get that inclusion under false pretenses. I argue that depending on exatcly what we use from the commentaries academic expert status is totally irrelevant. (i.e. a persons comments regarding thier personal actions,reaction, opion, or feelings.) --Hfarmer (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hfarmer is correct: The commentaries were the result of an open call--the editor published all the commentaries that were sent in (except for one that was off-topic). Some of the commentaries were written by topic experts, some by laypeople. My own opinion is that WP allows for the inclusion of the commentaries written by people who previously published on the topic in an RS, but not for the inclusion of the others. However, there are editors here who say that that is a pro-scholar bias on my part or even on WP's part. Hence, we need the input of otherwise non-involved editors.
  — James Cantor (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Okay. I see why this is complicated. In my field, we don't have open calls like this. Thanks for keeping content out of this because I have no way of judging that.

If the editor published all submissions, then all submissions should be treated as a letter to an open public forum. Academic scholars are human, and it is just as likely that what they say is personal (as opposed to professional) opinion. Indeed, many scholars often confuse the two. However, if any commentary cites a fact, then the fact should be verifiable somewhere else. For example, if they cite a fact from another study, the reference should be to that study, not the letter.

Finally, there is a question of whether this is a point of scientific fact, or one of social relevance. If this is a discussion of the state of knowledge in this specific field, then there are probably relevant textbooks, review papers, classic papers etc. that would be more appropriate sources; it's obvious that a commentary does not offer the same authority. If, however, this article delves into political and social impacts or policy, then all significant viewpoints should be included. These two facets should be dealt with in separate sections, perhaps even separate articles and prominently linked to each other in a hat note.

That brings up the question of notability in the case of social relevance. Obviously, specialists in the field should have a say here: they can provide insight from their knowledge. If Barack Obama or George Bush had something to say on the subject, even though they are not experts, it would probably be notable as well. Is the author a notable figure who publishes op-ed pieces or articles in popular journals, a significant political leader, a representative of a significant interest group, or did the person's participation make the news elsewhere? These would weigh towards inclusion. Is this a private citizen? In that case, I would automatically reject inclusion.

Hope this helps. --soulscanner (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC

Pretty much nothing in the Dreger piece or the commentaries is about academic issues or science; it's all about who did what bad thing to whom, and who over-reacted to what, and stuff like that. Academic qualifications are just a smokescreen that Cantor raises so that he can exclude the opinions of the commentators who aren't in the sexologists' in crowd. It was stated as an agreed fact above that "Peer commentaries are written by notable people, including..." (including 10 with wikipedia articles about themselves). Although, as far as I can recall, the only author he has specifically objected to is the one who regularly writes under a pseudonym (Madeline H. Wyndzen) because it would be dangerous for her to reveal her true identity when writing about her transsexual past and opinions. She's well known as a self-published source, but non-existent otherwise

In truth, I don't recall what particular argument caused HFarmer to bring this up again here. When I look at what's attributed to the Dreger piece in The Man Who Would Be Queen, the only controversial part is the sentence The controversy surrounding Bailey's book has been cited as an example of infringement of academic and intellectual freedom and freedom of speech by Alice Dreger who wrote a "history" of the controversy. When I check the Dreger piece, only the commentaries talk about "freedom". Probably in this case the footnote is just misleading, meant to suggest what the "history" referred to was, rather than supporting the assertion of the sentence. The sentence that follows, sourced to a NYT interview, is the actual source of this section's content, I think. It's a very biased article, but it's in the NYT, so reliable enough.

Ah, right, it was this edit by HFarmer, to which I objected Your long string of edits started by taking out the word "alternatives". If you're going to do that, you should put instead some actual quotes from some of the commentaries. If you aren't willing to say there are alternatives, and treat Dreger's piece as more "reliable" than those alternatives, even though in your personal life as you say you are well aware of how slanted Dreger is, then how are we to interpret your intentions? HFarmer then said Dick we have been over this. There was a big long request for comments, allot of people from all sides participated. Our side, remember I was on your side in that debate, lost. That's done with. Looking again at the various policies related to reliable sources I don't see how we can treat those commentaries as reliable sources. Just so that you won't feel wronged. I am going to leave a message at WP:RS/N. Perhaps this time we can get uninvolved editors to agree to at least using the commentaries in some limited sense should be allowed. So, I've finally looked up the last RS/N on this, and sure enough she did support using all but the pseudonymous one. But she didn't object when James Cantor, the most biased person involved, wrote the biased summarization of the discussion, and she resummarized as "The Dreger article can be used as a reliable source on par with any other peer reviewed journal article. All the commentaries have to be treated as self published and vetted on a case by case basis." I still find this to be a bizarre and unacceptable position, treating Dreger as "on par with any other peer reivewed journal article" and the alternatives as "self published". Then Cantor followed up to push very high standards for being considered an "expert" to prevent people quoting any of the commentaries. It's nonsense. Why can't we just agree that the commentaries can be cited as needed to balance the Dreger opinions? Why did HFarmer herself start editing out even the mention that there exist "alternative" opinions about what happened???? Dicklyon (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a good idea to focus on principles rather than personalities. Is the commentary in question in a section reviewing the results of documented research, or is it intended to be about policy, social and political relevance, or possible applications of the research? --soulscanner (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Blogcritics.org

This one is a problem. we have many hundreds of links to blogcritics.org, some of which may be valid (if the author is a recognised authority) but many are not, there being no apparent bar to registration and publication. This came to light as Dorksandlosers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) linked his own reviews on a number of articles, but the problem is much more widespread. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right... it is a problem. We do the best we can. Blueboar (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Milk (film)

There is a statement in Milk (film) published in a small local paper, written by a screenwriter named Richard Boyle. Statement: "[o]ne thing left out in the film 'Milk' is the role in that election of radical preacher Jim Jones and his San Francisco-based Peoples Temple."

I am not questioning that the writer wrote this. I am questioning if he is qualified to write it, and therefore, if it should remain in the article.

I wrote the article for Harvey Milk, and have experience disagreeing with the editor who inserted this information into the film article, who concentrates primarily on articles about Jim Jones and Jonestown. Our unpleasant interactions about this issue have gone to mediation for the Harvey Milk article. I am not denying that Milk had interactions with Jim Jones. However, comprehensive sources about Milk's life and San Francisco in the 1970s do not indicate there was any significance to this relationship. Jones was connected to most politicians in northern California during this time. The insertion of this statement only suggests something existed that never did. It is a matter of due weight and historical accuracy.

Furthermore, in the same local paper essay Boyle misstates facts and makes unverifiable assertions. He aligns himself with Milk when no source I used in the Milk article ever mentions him; I doubt he was as close as he would like to lead his readers to believe. I've had difficulty finding anything about him except for a self-penned biography written while he was running for office. His statements about Dan White are flat-out inaccurate according to sources I used, including a book by journalist Mike Weiss and articles from the San Francisco Chronicle.

This is fine hair splitting about what is a reliable source, but one that has implications. I am asserting it leads readers to believe something that did not exist. --Moni3 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Probably not strictly an RS issue, but here goes. There are a series of competing narratives at work and a dearth of agreed upon facts. It is very likely that Milk had no more connection w/ Jim Jones than any other N. California pol, indeed this is what the preponderance of sources have to say on the subject. It is simultaneously likely that this level of connection was significant enough to be mentioned. The Harvey Milk article, as it stands, does a reasonable job of doing that. The Milk film article could do better. I haven't seen the film yet, but if the film doesn't mention Jim Jones vis Harvey's election and one source of dubious nature (but ostensibly reliable as the policy goes) notes this, we might do to reflect that. However, simply using the statement you quoted above is irresponsible. The original source does do two things wrong which we should strive to not replicate:

• It begs the question regarding the connection between Jones and Milk (rather obviously)
• Beyond that it presents the connection dishonestly. The line mentions Jones' radicalism as though this makes the association radical.

• We shouldn't synthesize criticism of the film by saying that it excluded Jones from the Milk narrative but we can also more gently introduce the notion into the article. My suggestion is keep the somewhat dubious source but modulate the claim. It might bear mentioning that the film avoids the connection, but it is not appropriate for us to mention it in the fashion quoted above. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Here's an amusing data point about Richard Boyle and Milk:

"[Oliver Stone]'s movie Salvador, based on the exploits of free-lance journalist Richard Boyle, who coauthored the screenplay, was criticized for exaggerating Boyle's role in actual historical events. ... This custodian of our recent history is not only pursuing the Kennedy murder, he's waiting for a script to begin another political drama: the life of Harvey Milk.... Stone plans to produce this movie, though he will not direct." Stephen Talbot (1991). "Sixties something". Mother Jones. 16 (2): 47–9, 69–70.

• I am somewhat disappointed that this connection between Boyle and the movie Milk was not mentioned in Boyle's review: it casts a bit of doubt on the fullness of the disclosure behind that review.
• Moving along to politics, Boyle's self-bio does not mention any association with Milk or with Milk's election.
• Nor does Boyle's campaign literature.
• Given the campaign literature, which is not entirely sound, I am skeptical of Boyle as a reliable source about Milk's politics.
• Without better sources, I see no reason to mention any purported connection between Milk and Jones in Milk (film); this is on WP:WEIGHT grounds.

Eubulides (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a question of WP:WEIGHT, and this is how I would approach it:

The article already has a well-written section on the film's critical reception tin the US national media. Is it necessary to add anything else? Yes, two things would be useful. 1) one or two reviews from major newspapers in Canada/UK/Australia and 2) one or two reviews from the most important local San Francisco newspapers. These additions should reflect the balance of the reception of the film in 1) the international and 2) the local press. If the Boyle review is not typical of how the film was received in San Francisco then it should be omitted. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

St. Petersburg Times

Is this [7] valid in regards to this [8]?Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It could be a fluke, but "Christian metal" underoath -wikipedia googles for 19,000 hits. Fred Talk 19:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes... another "what is the correct music genre" debate... wonderful...

OK... Yes, it is a reliable source, but in this case there are lots of other reliable sources that say something different. When there are multiple sources we do our best to determine if some are more reliable than others. I would say this is the case here. The St.P Times is reliable, but is not the most reliable source available. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

zionism-israel.com on Zionist history

I searched and this source is used a lot on wikipedia. While I'm sure I'd have problems with other assertions by this site, the one below, which has been challenged on Israel Lobby in the United Kingdom seems pretty reliable. Comments (esp. by neutral editors) welcome.

According to the Zionism & Israel Information Center Russian Zionist Chaim Weizmann moved to England in 1904 and met Arthur James Balfour, a British Lord, whom he convinced that Palestine should be the Jewish national home. The “British Zionist movement began actively lobbying the British government.” The British Palestine Committee in Manchester also “lobbied for the mandate and Jewish rights in Palestine.” REF:The Balfour Declaration, November 2, 1917, Zionism-Israel.com. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if the website is an RS, wouldn't basic facts like this be in a history book? Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• I recommend doing a Google Books search to confirm these statements instead. Pretty much everything here can be confirmed by multiple books via limited previews in Google Books. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is the actual use of the word lobby since it is alleged that material cannot be used unless every single WP:RS mentions the word lobby or lobbying - even if it is preceded by material saying lobbying happened in the incident/area mentioned and describes to a "T" every kind of activity known as lobbying. (Discussion on this at WP:No original research/noticeboard. I tried google books and got some things that did mention "lobby" but a tad indirect so immediately shot down. I would prefer a better source and will keep trying, but obviously if this source is frequently considered WP:RS I'd want to go for it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Carol, you say "I searched and this source is used a lot on wikipedia." I was only able to find it used in 5 articles on Wikipedia; are there more than that? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, is that what this is about? I thought we were looking for sources on who met with Balfour and so on. We're still zoned on that magic word, "lobbying"? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's any help... the site you mention is run by Dr Ami Isseroff [9] He is an expert in the area, I've worked with him. As to the use the word lobby... I don't think you've actually proven anything. The fact that people lobbied for something doesn't mean much at all. I think it is common knowledge and common sense that those advocating something would be lobbying for it. The purpose of the Zionist movement was to create a Jewish homeland in the location of the historic homeland of the Jewish people. The Jewish community in the UK was deeply divided over the issue and lobbied both ways. The executive of the board of deputies was originally against it, fearing it would cause problems for Jewish in the UK and not wanting to risk that. When the next election came around, the executive were I believe voted out of office (or at least there was a threat of this happening) and the boards position was reversed. I don't recall all the details but I read it "History of the Jews in England" by Cecil Roth Oboler (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did search google books and tried to use Endelman's Jews of Britain which mentioned lobbying twice, twice about other types of lobbying, once regarding Zionism but both were shot down. I must have seen something of Cecil Roth's since the name sounded so familiar but doing as you advised found several interesting leads with word Lobby which shall puruse. Thanks! (Also, you have the common sense position on describing lobbying that I think most wikipedians would use - of course a good percentage of the sources should use the phrase lobbying in regards to the topic under consideration; but some material, especially contextual and transitional, might only describe efforts which everyone knows are in fact lobbying. This is an encyclopedia for the benefit of educating readers NOT a wikilawyering exercise in deleting anything negative about your favorite subject! CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See A History of Israel by Ahron Bregman: "In a brilliant exercise of sustained persuasion, lobbying, and influence, a small group of Zionists, in England, induced the British government, in the winter of 1917, to publish a declaration supporting a "natinal home" for the Jews in Palestine. ... The prime mover and architect behind the Balfour Declaration was a Zionist by the name of Chaim Weitzman, later the first President of the State of Israel." Is that good enough? --John Nagle (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

70 articles use Zionism-Israel.com as WP:RS before I stopped counting

Here's the search. I guess Jayjg is even a worse counter than me cause I thought I found only 7 or 8. I thought I'd alert a few pages using it but after I finished seeing it used on so many articles from every imaginable perspective, I realized that it would be absurd for this board or any article to question this as a source unless other WP:RS conflict with it, which is true in any case. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It later occurred to me that maybe for some reasons all those other returns originally didn't come up in search and someone noticed the discussion here and did whatever needs to be done to get them picked up. Possible?? Just curious, for future reference on other sources that might not be adequately represented in search returns. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Book snippets from Google search etc. as article references

The following article is translated by the editor from Chinese: Suanmeitang. It uses the following sources, including Google book "snippets" from a google search as references:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=s_AOAAAAQAAJ&q=suan+mei+tang&dq=suan+mei+tang&ei=NedNSYrfB5PGyAT1luzYAg&pgis=1 (snippet from book via google search)
• http://www.sinica.edu.tw/tit/dining/1195_PekingCuisine.html (advert/dinning guide link)
• http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/citylife/2007-06/04/content_886638.htm (ad link originally from foodtourist.com)
• http://finance.thestandard.com.hk/thestandard_cb/CB0806.pdf (authority unclear)
• http://books.google.com/books?id=0-kDAAAAMAAJ&q=suanmeitang&dq=suanmeitang&ei=7p9OSbykIqTGMsa9wPgN&pgis=1 (snippet from book via google search)
• http://books.google.com/books?id=8F5kAAAAMAAJ&q=suanmeitang&dq=suanmeitang&lr=&ei=-6BOScD5NYq0Nry_yc8G&pgis=1 (snippet from book via google search)

Are these considered reliable sources for this article? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: the article in question uses proper book citations, with convenience links to Google Books. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I often do this myself. Sometimes I have the book and want to help readers by providing a link to a snippet that shows the relevant info. Other times, I don't have the book, but GBS shows enough info that I know the book supports the point (and quite often that info is visible in the search result text snippet but not in the page image snippet). In any case, if the info is verifiable in the book, having the book snippet can be a helpful way to show that, even if it doesn't prove it. If in doubt, check the book. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also please note that as Squidfryerchef says, the article has what appear to be proper citations to sources, with authors, publishers, dates, and such, not just the URLs mentioned above. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

But how do you know he has read the context? The key is "what appear to be"? Easy enough to do. It could be WP:SYN or WP:OR but you would never know. Oh well. Never trust wikipedia anyway. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't. But, unless you check the sources yourself, you never know that the sources are being accurately represented. The source in this case is the book, not the convenience link. Taemyr (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In the current case, it seems hard to imagine what you would need beyond what's shown in the snippets. Is there anything controversial in the article that you'd need more solid support for? Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of Armenian-Genocide denialist texts as sources

Can sources that are works of propaganda produced by the Turkish State or their agents as part of Turkey's campaign to deny the Armenian Genocide be considered legitimate sources?

The work in question is O. M. Kemal's "The Armenian Question 1914-1923", a book from 1988 that was produced by the Turkish Historical Society, a state-run, state-financed organisation based in Ankara. The book is being used to support an extremist claim within the Mehmed Talat article, namely that Talat was not assassinated by an Armenian organisation Operation Nemesis as revenge for the Armenian Genocide, but that it was an assassination arranged by "British intelligence". This theory does not seem to appear in any other source. The reasoning within the book is presumably that since there was no Armenian Genocide, he could not have been murdered as revenge for something that did not happen. Given that the Armenian Genocide is an historic fact accepted by all mainstream historians, and the book is a work of state-produced propaganda espousing a marginal viewpoint, can it be excluded as a source for this claim if it is the only source making the claim? Meowy 03:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The arguments included this text is also represented in the article "Donald M. Reid, Political Assassination in Egypt, 1910-1954 The International Journal of African Historical Studies, Vol. 15, No. 4 (1982), pp. 625-651" Is there any source that supports your generalization of Turkish Historical Society's works are propaganda. Also the text does not claim "Talat was not assassinated by an Armenian organisation Operation Nemesis as revenge." I did not found this remark in the article. By the way, a global generalization can also be said to any source published by Category:Armenian historians on this issue. --Rafael Hanyan (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is in part a question of whether the work in question meets WP:RS (it doesn't look like it does) and in part a question of undue weight. If it's the only source that makes this claim, and there are many other reliable sources that state the opposite, it sounds like placing the claim in the article is granting undue weight to an extremist/propagandistic viewpoint. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not just attribute the claim to the book, as an alternative view? Certainly the book is reliable enough to show that they make such a claim. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus and Dicklyon ... the book is certainly reliable for Mr. Kemal's views on the subject. The question then turns to WP:NPOV and Undue Weight. Is Mr. Kemal's view significant, and if so how significant? Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the state the article's text is at the moment, this marginal opinion it is being given undue weight. So a rewrite there is in order. However, this is not a content issue, but a sources issue. For example, should a book whose main purpose is to claim that the moon is made out of cheese be a credible source for any claim to do with the moon, even claims that are not cheese-based? Should it not be excluded entirely if the subject is to be treated seriously? To do otherwise would be to put the bizarre, the marginal, and the extremist, on the same level as proper academic treatments of a subject. Meowy 16:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The hypothetical moon/cheese example is not a good way to get at the current issue. Tell us what you think is not right and we can consider it. A pubished book such as this one should be a fine source for opinions of its authors, but probably not for things to be presented in the article as historical facts, unless those are uncontested. Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

But the core aims of a source, be it proving the Moon is made of cheese, or provong the Armenian Genocide didn't happen, are crucial in assessing its value as a source. It is not us who are deciding whether those core aims are true or not, it is the vast number of other sources that disprove those core aims. However, obviously not every claim in our hypothetical Moon of Cheese book will be disproved by other sources - many will be too trivial or too obscure to have been addressed by a serious source. The only basis we have of assessing the truth of those sort of claims is to judge the validiy of the book's main aims. In both the hypothetical example and the "The Armenian Question 1914-1923" book the main aims are not valid. Meowy 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We do not judge a source's reliability based upon whether we think the claims made are "true" or not, but rather based upon the reputation of the author and publisher. If the claims made in a reliable source are controversial, we can attribute them to the author as his/her opinion on the subject, and note any discenting views. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's actually the point I'm trying to make. The author of a book whose aim is to disprove the Armenian Genocide cannot be considered a reliable source. Meowy 18:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

academic sources at Jesus myth hypothesis

At Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Remsberg, again I bring up three academic sources which define the "Christ-myth theory": William R. Farmer, "A Fresh Approach to Q," in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, eds. Jacob Neusner, Morton Smith (Brill, 1975); Alan H. Jones, Independence and Exegesis: The Study of Early Christianity in the Work of Alfred Loisy, Charles Guignebert, and Maurice Goguel (Mohr Siebeck, 1983); and William Horbury, "The New Testament," A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain (Oxford 2003). In response, an editor characterizes them as "Christian writers", implying that their definitions are good for nothing.

So, I'd like to ask the editors of this board: are these works reliable sources? Should we use their definitions or Wikipedia editors' interpretations of primary sources? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

They certainly seem reliable. Whether they are reliable for a given statement really depends on how you are using them (ie what the statement is). But, being "Christian writers" is not a legitimate challenge to reliability in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Blueboar here. However Remsburg, Holding, Doherty, and Price all show how the term "Christ-myth" is used and defined varies with the author and even when it is used. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1982) defines it very broadly as does History and the Gospel C. H. Dodd Manchester University Press (1938) (who even goes as far as saying "They seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." pg 17 under the title "Christ-myth Theory"). So even a university press don't agree with the limited definition you trying to use.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally as I said on the talk page "Christ-myth theory" and "Jesus-myth theory" are NOT interchangeable though they tend to be used that way and there in is the real problem with this article. Strictly speaking a literally reading of "Christ-myth theory" would say that you are arguing about Christ being a myth; it doesn't make any evaluation regarding the person of Jesus as a myth which the "Jesus-myth theory" does. Take for example Thomas L. Thompson's The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David. Now no one can claim Thompson holds to the idea there was non-historical Jesus but that there are enough questions to wonder how much we have is accurate (if any of it). The removed Joseph Campbell quote ("It is clear that, whether accurate or not as to biographical detail, the moving legend of the Crucified and Risen Christ was fit to bring a new warmth, immediacy, and humanity, to the old motifs of the beloved Tammuz, Adonis, and Osiris cycles.") is not too different to what outer edge JMH are saying only they push it a little further and say Jesus was totally made up. The range is large and is is clear from the Van Voorst and Wells contradiction that just what "Jesus-myth theory" means tends to vary from scholar to scholar. Once you have shown that then you can cite quotes till cows come home but all the quotes show is that is that how that individual scholar defines "Jesus-myth theory".

Finally Farmer, Jones, and Horbury all define the "Christ-myth theory" as saying Jesus having NEVER existed which put their definition at odds with such Christ-myth theorists as Mead, Ellegard, Thompson, and now Wells who all hold that there was a historical person ranging from c200 BC to contemporary to the period the Gospel Jesus supposedly lived behind the Gospel Jesus. Akhilleus himself has considered the based on a previous historical person part of the "Christ-myth theory" and yet he chooses sources that throw this part of the definition out the windows as NEVER means NEVER. People who have gone for the historical Robin Hood have found him in times other than the classic Richard I-John Lackland (c1190) period but they say Robin Hood DID exist. Trying to use authors who say "Christ-myth theory" mean saying Jesus NEVER existed when you can cite four Christ-myth theorists who say Jesus DID EXIST but not as the Gospels describe him and you have previously supported this "soft" position IMHO indicates a desperate POV pushing agenda.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

sources for Witchcraft

Recently, I re-added a reference which was removed because it allegedly doesn't meet WP:RS: (Gibbons, Jenny (1998) "Recent Developments in the Study of the Great European Witch Hunt" in The Pomegranate #5, Lammas 1998); I had also included a link to an archive.org mirror of a copy of it.

Here's what Pomegranate has to say about itself:

The Pomegranate is the first International, peer-reviewed journal of Pagan studies. It provides a forum for papers, essays and symposia on both ancient and contemporary Pagan religious practices. The Pomegranate also publishes timely reviews of scholarly books in this growing field. The editors seek both new interpretations and re-examinations of those traditions marked both by an emphasis on nature as a source of sacred value (e.g., Wicca, modern Goddess religions) as well as those emphasizing continuity with a polytheistic past (e.g., Ásátru and other forms of 'reconstructionist' Paganism). The editors also seek papers on the interplay between Pagan religious traditions, popular culture, literature, psychology and the arts. [10]

Now, the other point about my linking is correct, that we shouldn't link to a copyrighted article, as an archived image, that was used without any express permission noted on the archived page. However - there's no need to even link to the article, it can be cited just fine, not every reference needs to link to an online copy of the cited work. But the reference is a good cite, and a reliable source.--Vidkun (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the probem is that modern paganism in general and Witchcraft in particular are both considered a fairly fringy topic to begin with (You have to admit that they are outside of the mainstream in terms of modern religion)... so a peer reviewed journal dealing purely with Paganism is going be suspect. I think the key here is to determine who is actually doing the peer reviewing... if the "reviewers" consist of a small group of adherants, who essentially just review each others work, and are unlikely to be very critical, then I don't think it can really be called reliable. If, on the other hand, the reviewers are people who are considered religious studies scholars (who happen to be specialists in paganism and so have started a new journal for their speciality), then we can call it reliable. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Main editor is an author on Wicca and NeoPaganism, and not an author of twee books, Chas Clifton, lecturer at Colorado State-Pueblo, member - Association for the Study of Literature and Environment (ASLE); member - American Academy of Religion (AAR); letters and review editor is Nikki Bado-Fralick, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies & Women's Studies at Iowa State University.--Vidkun (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As pointed on on the talk page of the article in question, this is not good source for a variety of reasons. Primarily it's just an essay written by someone with no known credentials on the topic making claims about what "new research" made by historians outside of Neopaganism have allegedly discovered. The source itself doesn't present itself as being an expert on such topics but merely repurposing information from elsewhere. If this info is correct, then we should be citing those historians on their own findings instead of crediting the info to this pagan writer who takes certain liberties, tries to interpret it, etc. And anyone actually reading it can tell it's not academic, as the tone is all wrong and it's in a "what we pagans should do about this" instead of presenting the information in a scholarly way. The insistence upon using this particular essay as a source for information that, if true, should be readily available in sources which no one could possibly question, strikes me as quit peculiar. In fact the info that the essay was being used as a cite for was rather trivial in one case and in the other already had a reliable source. I'm not sure why this editor is so determined that it has to be this particular one. DreamGuy (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out by more than just me, it is NOT an article by someone with no known credentials, and the journal from whence it came is not just some newsletter. I'm not sure why this editor is so adamantly against this particular article for this citation.--Vidkun (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Wanted to know if these two sources could be considered viable.

http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/reviews.aspx?p_id=9951
http://www.ozzfest.com/profile/staticx

Why is everyone ignoring this thread? This user's edits are on hold until he gets some feedback on whether those sources are reliable or not. It would be helpful if some of you that frequent this page would respond. Thanks in advance. Landon1980 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Various Road Sites

(moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources) We at WikiProject U.S. Roads have run into a small problem determining how reliable a few sites are. Ahead I have written an explanation of all 4 sites and what we believe of them. They are the following:

Alpsroads.net's NJ route log

Located here, this is a log of all highways that existed in New Jersey since 1927. The problem is, this is mainly written by a former Wikipedia editor and is also not citing any of his sources. What is the case here? (It should be noted that the log has been partially verified and/or updated with field evidence remaining in the state of New Jersey.)

NYCroads.com and such sites

Located here (NYC), here (Philadelphia), here (Washington DC), here (Boston), and here (Montreal), Steven Anderson has compiled pages about highways in the metro areas of different cities. He does cite his sources, but does not cite which fact goes to which source. Is it possible this is a reliable source? (It should be noted that errors have been found on these pages, but contrarily many facts are found here and nowhere else.)

Jimmy and Sharon Williams NJ routes

Located here, Jimmy and Sharon Williams have compiled information on the original 1920s routes in New Jersey before the 1927 renumbering of highways. They source laws and such, and use the evidence of existing remnants of the original routings (i.e., highway bridges). The problem is, one of their sources is a former Wikipedia user. Can we have some detail into the reliability of this one?

Pennsylvania Highways by Jeff Kitsko

Located here,this one is ultimately the biggest that should be a reliable source. Jeff Kitsko has used Pennsylvania Department of Highways and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation maps to source lots of his information. He also uses newspapers. His site is often used by cops, lawyers, newspapers and ultimately PennDOT and Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. He has been in many news stories. This news story says a lot about the site.

Kurumi's Connecticut Roads

Located here, a person named Scott Oglesby or Kurumi has compiled information on all of Connecticut's highways. He sources all his information in the logs, but there are no access to the original sources. I do believe that this is a reliable source, but I want to check it out.

Can I have replies about each of these? It will help us in our article work. Thank you.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 03:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably not reliable, except where they reproduce primary sources (such as the 1920s New Jersey laws). --NE2 05:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably reliable as expert SPS. Seems to me that if we're doubting sites like these for something as uncontroversial as state highways, we've veered well into "academic standards disease" Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

They're "experts" in the way that USRD members are - they have an interest in writing about the topic, and do personal research into it. --NE2 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

King, LaRouche, and Lerner

User:ScienceApologist suggests asking here if I don't think this source is reliable:

• King, Dennis (1989). "32". Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. Doubleday. ISBN 0385238800. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

In particular, he wants to cite it in support of this sentence in the BLP of Eric Lerner: "In the 1970s, Lerner became involved in the National Caucus of Labor Committees, an offshoot of the Columbia University Students for a Democratic Society, and the US Labor Party, both led by Lyndon LaRouche." (actually, User:Will Beback added that, but ScienceApologist is the one arguing for it and reverting my attempts to bring the article to a more NPOV state.)

As I read the online chapter from the book, it does not say or even hint that Lerner was involved with the US Labor Party; rather, that he resisted getting involved. And it's a flimsy source for introducing Lyndon LaRouche into the bio in a way that tries to paint guilt-by-association, when a reading of the source indicates that if anything, LaRouche was the reason Lerner broke off from the NCLC. I have no problem mentioning that Lerner was associated with the NCLC, and am OK citing this book for it.

I'm sure the book is reliable for many things, especially the political opinions of the author and some undisputed facts, but not for these guilt-by-association statements. ScienceApologist is blinded by his single-minded drive to denigrate people whose scientific opinions are not "mainstream", and this is what he resorts to, reading nonsense in through flimsy sources.

Let me know if this would be better covered at a BLP page or something, but SA said to come here, so I thought I'd give it a try. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The subject has been politically active from his college days, and continues to serve on political committees. It would be improper to mention some involvements but not others. If we choose to mention politics, then the King book and his two articles (one in the Wall Street Journal) that mention Lerner are all adequate sources for the article. The subject has confirmed his involvement in the main LaRouche entity in the 1970s, the NCLC. If we want to go into more details then we can say that he left over disagreements with LaRouche. However the details of their business arrangements and lawsuit would probably be excessive in this short bio. I haven't followed ScienceApologist's editing, and I can't speak to his motives. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The mention of the NCLC has been explicitly accepted. There's little reason to mention LaRouche, since, as you say, they had disagreements, and mentioning him suggests the opposite. I notice you didn't object when I removed the US Labor Party; but SA reverted me and hollered. Dicklyon (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we even reading the same book? He was involved with LaRouche and had a falling out. Why is this problematic? ScienceApologist (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I think you're misreading the source. The King book says,

• Businesses run by NCLC members are expected to put the NCLC's needs first. Former LaRouchian Eric Lerner found this out when he and several comrades formed a company to promote a water desalinization invention. After leaving the NCLC, he stated in a 1979 lawsuit that NCLC leaders had pressured him to funnel the firm's profits to the U.S. Labor Party, the electoral arm of the NCLC, in violation of election laws. Lerner charged that this was standard policy with other NCLC-controlled businesses. [11]

The Wall Street Journal article says:

• A former LaRouche follower, Eric Lerner, stated in a 1979 affidavit filed in a commercial dispute with LaRouche loyalists that he had been pressured by NCLC leaders to "funnel" profits from an engineering business to the U.S. Labor Party (an electoral arm of the NCLC) in violation of election laws. "It is the policy of the USLP to use corporations as fronts for the USLP and as channels for funding of USLP," Mr. Lerner charged, citing the case of Computron, a software firm once associated with Mr. LaRouche. [12]

More details can be found in two articles from a larger series.[13][14] None of those indicate an involvement with the U.S. Labor Party. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, here is a forum posting by a former LaRouche associate who has a history of posting apparently reliable material. He seems sympathetic to Lerner, so there's no reason to think he's attacking the man (though he does have other axes to grind). The poster indicates that Lerner's primary involvement was with a NCLC quasi-subsidiary, the Fusion Energy Foundation, and with its magazine, Fusion. He also says that Lerner served on the second tier body of the NCLC, the National Committee.[15] Anyway, it's not a reliable source to use for any article, but it serves to confirm and explain the nature of his involvement and the reasons for his departure. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What am I misreading? The sourced fact I would like to see in the article is that Lerner was a LaRouche devotee or a follower of LaRouche, or a LaRouchian. I don't care how we say it, really and the details may or may not be interesting. What I don't understand is why people are removing references to LaRouche in the text when the source clearly states that he was connected to LaRouche. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he rejected LaRouche's methods. All you are left with is guilt by association. Fred Talk 15:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what we're here for, isn't it? Let's settle down and see if we can get any comments on whether the word "LaRouchian" in the book is reason to say more than the fact that he was associated with the NCLC. Seems to me that WP:BLP suggests you need a better source to include a "guilt-by-association" factoid. Dicklyon (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

??? If I read you correctly, you're saying that a direct quote from a book is "guilt-by-association". What that "guilt" supposedly is, I have no idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of the sources is that Lerner was not a LaRouche follower or devotee, but that he and LaRouche had both been involved in the Columbia SDS, and when LaRouche started to set up a non-profit foundation to promote fusion energy, Lerner took a position in the organization. He worked hard on the fusion project but he left when LaRouche sought to subsume the foundation to the movement's overall fundraising goals. While I don't think we need to say that Lerner was a LaRouche "devotee", it would be appropriate to identify the NCLC as being led by LaRouche. Otherwise it's too obscure for the average reader to know about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

An "associate" sounds a little strange. My reading of the forum-posting seemed to confirm the direct quotes from King that Lerner was not an equal to LaRouche.... he may have been indifferent to LaRouche and more interested in the organizational opportunities to promote his dreams of fusion and desalination, but the history of LaRouche's control of that organization paired with the timeline makes me think that if you asked Lerner point-blank about whether he was a "follower" of LaRouche at the time, he would probably have to agree if there were others in the organization around. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't think so much. We're not here to rewrite what two reputable sources have already concluded. One says he was a 'LaRouchian', and the other that he was a 'LaRouche Follower'. Any guilt that you read into that is your own assumption. Quote the source, don't draw conclusions. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Following this here from the note on BLP/N). Will Beback says above that Lerner's political activism is a constant and important part of his life. If this is the case, and can be demonstrated by more than the brief mentions in the King book and piece in the WSJ (which is, I'm guessing, an op-ed?) then it makes sense to include a political activism section in the article. As to whether Lerner can be described as a "follower of LaRouche" or "LaRouchian" (or a formerly either) -- my opinion is that the sources don't support that. King's identification of Lerner as a LaRouchian seems off-hand, and he hasn't given details that would support that description. An association with an organization led or founded by LaRouche, or subordinate to another organization that is, doesn't make Lerner a "follower" any more than being a Democrat or Republican makes one a "follower" of Obama or Bush.

I'm not sure its established that inclusion of the political activism material is necessary for this article, but if that is agreed then here is the version of the sentence above that I suggest:

• "In the 1970s, Lerner became involved in the National Caucus of Labor Committees, an offshoot of the Columbia University Students for a Democratic Society. Lerner left the National Caucus in 1978, and later argued in a lawsuit that he had been pressured to (but did not) illegaly channel profits of an engineering firm to the US Labor Party, an organization led by Lyndon LaRouche."

Is that an improvement? It doesn't represent him as a LaRouche follower, or inaccurately claim a connection to the US Labor Party, but it does note his connection to the NCLC and the lawsuit that followed his disassociation with that group. Avruch ^T 15:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added Avruch's suggestion to the article along with this:

According to investigative journalist Dennis King, Lerner was briefly associated with organizations controlled by Lyndon LaRouche, but had a falling out due to his rejection of LaRouche's methods.

This seems to adequately explain the association, but avoids branding him a LaRoachee. Fred Talk 15:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Both Fred's and Avi's drafts look fine to my eye, except that "briefly" isn't in the sources. I believe the relationship lasted for several years, so briefly may give the wrong impression. Maybe a phrase like "in the 1970s" would be more accurate while still indicating a limit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What Will said. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Emails in comments

I removed some references to emails in Native countries of North America, but they were replaced as comments [16] which feels to me as a way of getting around our reliable sources policy. What do others think? dougweller (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not acceptable. While the format we use to reference things may be somewhat flexible... we still need to point to reliable sources, and an e-mail isn't reliable. If Curtis whats to preserve the record of his attempt at sourcing for future editors, he can post the e-mails on the talk page. I have removed the hidden comments. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got lots of emails from reputable sources I'd love to use, but of course haven't! dougweller (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Where an email is acceptable is in back channel, talk page discussions. For example, a few years ago I was in a complicated debate over whether an article in a given publication was reliable for a claim... (it was one of those controvercial claim situations where several online sources cited a print source which in turn cited a third original source, a perfect example of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT) in the course of untangling everything, one of the involved editors exchanged emails with the archivist of the original publication, and it turned out that the original article never existed. All the online sources were simply repeating a bogus citation. Since it was likely that the issue would pop-up again (it was a common claim in certain tin-foil hat circles of the internet) we posted this email exchange to the talk page, so didn't have to repeat the conversation over and over again. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's really more of a WP:V issue than an RS issue. If these sources self-published they might be permissible as SPS experts. But if something isn't published anywhere, not in libraries, online, or in official records, then it doesn't meet V. You can obviously have notes like these in hidden comments, and maybe you can even acknowledge emails in footnotes, ( and I agree with Blueboar that the talk page is a good place for them) but they cannot be the sole source of facts in the article, and uncited facts can be challenged and removed at any time. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Undercover.com.au

The following article is under dispute [17], and causing disruption to multiple pages it mentions i.e Butterfly (Mariah Carey album), Rainbow (Mariah Carey album). I consider this a non verified article from a non SME on the subject. They do not cite where they obtained their details. However it is easy to find references from official souces that contradict the figures - and other editors arguements is that these are old.

From article, "Butterfly did 15.5 million". From Sony Annual Report 1998 [18] pg.30, says 8 million. Sales are minimal after it has peaked for any given album. From the article "MusicBox sold 32 million". From Universal Music Group (Korea)[19] 25 million. From Press Release (Entertainment wire)[20] 24 million. From the article "'Charmbracelet' sold 5 million", but from the artist herself in an interview [21] - 3 million. CBS News [22] 3 million. Please can this be discussed. In the end, the best possible approach is to delete any reference to sales. Eight88 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Any takers? I have added multiple verified sources to Talk:Music Box (album) as an example of the inconsistancy of the source being used. I cannot progress in correcting the data (if my assumption is correct on this not being a reliable source). I repeat my arguement that this article is from an unknown reporter from a relatively unknown website whose figures are non stated as to where they were origininating from (therefore is secondary at best), and match no known figures reported anywhere else. I also would like to make the comment that a small town reporter would not have the resources or funds to correlate this information, so the sources already used from published publications, press releases, and record company annual reports are a better source that this one. As these figures were disputed, I removed them until this request was sorted out via this media, but again deemed to be a vandal by the editors. Any assistance appreciated. Eight88 (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Rap-Up.com

I am planning to create a page for this magazine, but though it would be better to check if it's reliable enough to warrant a page. I'm pretty sure it can be considered a reliable source, mainly because it is published as a magazine. If you check the About Us segment on their website, it says: "Rap-Up has appeared on CNN, ABC News, BET, VH1, E!, The CW, EXTRA, and mtvU. The publication has been featured in newspapers and magazines including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Daily News, New York Post, USA WEEKEND, OK! , GRAMMY Magazine, Entrepreneur, Folio, Fast Company, The Daily News of Los Angeles, and more." The page also links to several pages where it has been used by reliable sources. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

when it comes to creating an article about a web magazine (or anything else), the issue isn't how reliable it is ... the issue is how notable it is (see WP:NOTE). To establish notability you need to be able to cite independant third party reliable sources that discuss Rap-Up.com.

Reliability comes in to play if you want to use Rap-Up.com as a source in other articles. Blueboar (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I intend to use Rap-Up.com as a source in other articles, which is why I want to create an article for it. If it is reliable, then I will make one. If not, then I don't really care for the notable part. Why make an article for a page website that cannot be cited? So, I guess I'm looking for reliability and notability, although I'm sure it has the latter. I hope I better phrased my question. :S Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How many errors does it take for a source to stop being reliable??

I guess books by Roland Perry count as being reliable, as it's from a proper printing press and so forth, per the traditional standards. But this author is very careless and makes a lot of errors, even though some people think he is an expert and gave him awards, but a lot of other cricket historians think he is poor. I counted 18 errors in one span of 32 pages in one book, which I document here in case by attacking this fellow and expressing my negative POV I might raise a few BLP eyebrows :| . So does Perry still count as a RS, or at least "an RS except when overruled by a better source". It's a pretty corny set of works, but I did use it because it was convenient. This book isn't dodgy because of propaganda or bias, just carelessness that causes maybe some non-trivial error percentage. Or at least, we should write down a list of errors in books so we don't propagate misinformation. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the crucial thing here is that other historians have said he is unreliable. This is unusual and is a reason to treat his work with caution. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No source is absolutely "reliable" or absolutely "unreliable". We have to look at the specifics of the situation. Lots of sources are reliable when looked at in general terms, but end up being unreliable for something specific. When two or more reliable sources disagree with one another, you have to ask why? If it is possible that the disagreement is due to one of the sources making a simple error, then we can attempt to determine which source made the error (ie which is the most reliable source in terms of that specific fact). If we think can not determine who made the error, we should neutrally discuss what each source says, (essentially treating the disagreement as if it were a difference of opinion/POV per WP:NPOV). Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case, given that the source is full of errors and widely regarded as inaccurate, wouldn't everyone just avoid relying on it and citing it? If not, then you have to address specific cases as suggested above. Dicklyon (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there are at least 2 types of problem here:

• A source may be just plain unreliable, as Itsmejudith says Roland Perry's books on cricket history are. Just avoidng such sources does not help, as another editor may add material based on these works. A comment in the article's Talk page is an obvious short term approach, but has 2 limitations: archiving; and the possibility that the same source may be used in other articles. Longer term it may be a good idea for Wikiprojects to save analyses of particular sources' relaibility, so that they can be referred to in subsequent discussions.
• A source may be reliable on some topics but not others, for example because of personal bias or because the source is a specialist in some topics, and in others simply retails received wisdom from the writer's formative years (may be out of date by now), or the opinions of friends or colleagues. I've seen this in both sporting and scientific subjects. I suggest the remedy is the same, comment in the article's Talk page and then save on a Wikiproject page. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Huffington Post

There has been discussion on the William Timmons bio whether The Huffington Post (hereafter HP) is a reliable source for information related to a biography of a living person.

Wikipedia lists HP as “a liberal news website.” Referring to the site, Howard Kurtz wrote in the Washington Post, 9 July 2007 that it is a “pugnaciously liberal operation.”

Tim Graham of The Media Research Center in September 2007 called HP a “House of Horrors – A Compendium of Far-Left Flame-Throwing, Name-Calling, and Attack-Dogging.” Graham in support of his claim points out the bias of HP bloggers: “Impeach Bush,” “Cheney Is A Terrorist,” “Could I Kill Cheney with Osama’s Corpse,” “Bush’s Human Scum, Supported by Flag-Sucking half Wits,” “Forget His American Birth, Deport Alberto Gonzales,” “Ann Coulter and Overly Patriotic Americans Are Hateful Filth-Spewers,” “Adolph Hitler, Better Than Bush?” “Tony Snow Deserves Cancer, Thanks to His Daily Lying for Dictator Bush,” “Sadistic Alcoholic Bush,” “Republicans Are Psychotic, or Mentally Disabled,” “Believers in Dictator Christ Want dictator Popes or Presidents,” and other commentaries apparently acceptable to HP.

On 21 February 2008 complaints were made on Bill O’Reilly.com about HP entries the editors refused to delete. One among many examples was regarding Nancy Reagan’s fall and rush to the hospital. The blog stated that Nancy Reagan, “like her husband, she has lived far too long. Here’s hoping the hag suffers for several weeks, then croaks in the tub.” There are others with vulgar and abusive comments.

Jessica Aldred in The Observer, 9 March 2008, identifies HP as the “flagship liberal blog.” On 21 May 2008 Hilary Rosen was named political director for HP. She announced support for Hillary Clinton and was the co-executive producer of the Democratic Presidential Forum.

HP is a political blog with “left-of-center audience with political commentary and analysis” wrote Sophia Banay in Portfolio.com on 5 June 2008. HP “began as a left-leaning political news outlet…” by Caroline McCarthy on CNet News, 19 June 2008.

Referring to HP, James Rainey wrote in L.A. times 27 August 2008, “The site has earned its niche as a vibrant aggregator for the political left.” The HP is a “top political blog” according to Peter Henderson, Reuters Blogs, 23 October 2008.

HP is a “liberal alternative to the Drudge Report” wrote Tim Arango, New York Times, 26 October 2008.

The 14 October 2008 HP article by Murray Waas “McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam in Lobbying Effort” (Timmons was not McCain’s transition chief and did not aid Saddam) probably was not directed against Timmons except as a vehicle to embarrass John McCain in the closing days of the campaign. Timmons was not newsworthy in his own right, and the story starts and ends with comments about McCain. Indeed the article follows not long after the Democratic National Committee and the Obama campaign issued press releases and a television commercial trying to tie McCain to Timmons as “one of the lobbyists running the McCain campaign” although Timmons never was involved in the campaign. Dozens of Democratic bloggers took the cue from headquarters and saturated the Internet with the Timmons-McCain lobbyist charge. This Waas story fit in well with HP’s aggressive support of Obama, and it was a continuation of the political drumbeat against McCain. HP is not unlike tabloid sensationalism, lax in creditability, intended to produce a scandalous effect.

There can be no question but The Huffington Post is both political and liberal; therefore, it is not objective and has a special interest agenda to disseminate. The blog does not meet the standards of Wikipedia as a high quality reference with a neutral point of view that is not contentious, especially about a living person.

Any feedback would be appreciated (especially from an official WP admin).

Rtally3 (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The HP is reliable only for opinions correctly placed with their authors. It does not do "fact checking" (vide the large number of rumors placed on it during the campaign which were not removed). Using it for "facts" is very iffy. Saying "Jane Smaith on the HP said that she felt "xxxx" is about as far as I would try going. If it provides a link to an RS, then go to the RS and not use HP. Collect (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Collect. I wouldn't use HP as a RS for facts. If they break a story, I'd look to their sources if possible. While some of the columnists seem to have good journalistic standards of fact-checking, it seems impossible to separate them on a site like HP. Generally, I'd say HP is more an opinion generator than a RS. Are some of the things written about factually accurate? Yes. But consistently and reliably? Too difficult to judge. Pigman☿ 17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree, the HP should be considered reliable for statements as to the opinions of its contributors, but not reliable for blunt statements of fact. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all for your input. I think of encyclopedia's as being a source of facts, not a place to find opinions or speculations, therefore suggest that HP is an unsuitable source based on the information above. Would you agree? Perhaps if there was some sort of article on a hypothesis, or benign subject matter, an opinion type of publication could be appropriate, but certainly not in it's application here -- extremely controversial opinions about the activities of a living person. Thanks in advance for your responses... Rtally3 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The perceived political slant of a source is irrelevant to its reliability. The operable standard is "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". As a relatively new venture, HP is still in the process of establishing its reputation. Murray Waas, on the other hand, does have a good reputation as an investigative journalist, so the proper way to cite this would be to attribute it to him. Dlabtot (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

HP in my opinion has succeeded fully in establishing its reputation. The reporting from its regular contributors is in my opinio as reliable and as well edited as any source with a political slant. Much more reliable than Fox, to say the least, and on a par with accepted national sources such as any of the "major" networks. Their opinion is of the same nature as opinion elsewhere and must be reported as opinion--their news accounts are as worthy of credit as any conventional newspaper. Like any news source, challenges tend to come from those who are not shown in a good light by the objective news that they publish. DGG (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

HP repeatedly pushed rumors during the presidential campaign. It appears to have no fact checkers of its own. Its stories are precisely as reliable as their source, and so citing the original source makes sense rather than hanging a cite on HP. Collect (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that no major news sources picked up on this story (because it's really not put together with any cogent reason), and the very title of the article is grossly inaccurate -- John Lehman was named the transition lead, not Timmons. Murray Waas claims to know that Timmons was involved even though the FBI and United Nations couldn't find enough evidence to even ask for a deposition during the trial. I am bewildered how anyone could consider a publication making these kind of errors a reliable source for an encyclopedia. Rtally3 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is a perennial topic on this board, and I'll reiterate my opinion. The huffington post is not a reliable source for facts as wikipedia defines it. The vast majority of the 'news' they traffic in comes from wire services (AP, Reuters or Bloomberg) and this 'news' is comingles with obvious opinion pieces from columnists or celebrities. when they include some op-ed from a notable figure or recognized expert on a subject, that opinion can be given its due weight with the source identified. I have yet to see any serious indicator that HP undertakes any real reportage or fact checking (contra TPM). Again, the point here is finding the reliability of content generated by HP--not just hosted. If we take away the wire reports, is the remainder fact checked and editorially controlled? For me, the answer is "no". Comparing it to FOX news (a partisan but reliable source) doesn't add light to the issue. I consider it less odious than fox news (only because HP owns up to being 'liberal'), but in terms of reliability it isn't in the same league. Regardless of what you may think of Fox News, they have news crews, editors, fact checkers and so forth (this is their NEWS as a source, not the majority of their content which is high volume opinion). Protonk (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's worth noting that in this instance, we are talking about a story that actually was published by HP. Look at the byline - Murray Waas, HuffPost Reporting From DC, Additional reporting by Patrick B. Anderson. So this is content generated by HP. Dlabtot (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct. I stand by my point that the organization itself hasn't developed a reputation for fact checking and shouldn't be considered a reliable source for facts. Protonk (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is editorial control, and HP is not a blog, and does have editorial control from a centralized staff--in a manner than more chaotic organizations like Wikipedia might well envy. DGG (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Those interested in the application of this article specifically might be interested in participating in the biography of living persons noticeboard posting as well -- [23] Rtally3 (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Free Prisoner _____" type sites acceptable ELs?

Obviously not RS for any statement in the body of the article, but the EL standard I'm not so sure on. The particular site in question is the "Free Hovind" site being editwarred over on the Kent Hovind page. I have a feeling it violates the standards of EL, along with one of more WP:NOT issues. Anyone with a brain not on holiday know which ones I'm thinking of? Thanks in advance... Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, but, your question is not really within the scope of this noticeboard... we focus on primarily reliability as far as citation goes, and do not normally discuss ELs. I suggest you re-post your question at WT:EL, as you are more likely to get an answer from those who know the EL guidelines than you would here. I do know that EL has different (less demanding) standards than RS. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions on reliability of researchers, FBI agents

Few Questions on reliable source:

Are the following sources reliable?

The Sydney Morning Herald article on Layden, a psychotherapist at the University of Pennsylvania

Books by FBI agents, criminologists:

• Michaud, Stephen G. (2000). The Evil That Men Do. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 9780312970604. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Douglas, John E. (1997). Journey Into Darkness. Scribner. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Marshall, W. L. (1990). Criminal Neglect: Why Sex Offenders Go Free. Doubleday Canada. ISBN 9780385252515. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Can the findings of the criminologists and FBI agents, researchers quoted from the above books be removed as Undue "anecdotal evidence"? What about Let the facts speak for themselves

I would like to hear from the community. Thanks. -- Bluptr (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)