Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is 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.

EIR vs PRA

I would propose using EIR as a source, judiciously and appropriately, just as I would use King and Berlet as sources, judiciously and appropriately. Alternatively, I would propose using none of them. --Niels Gade (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Treating EIR as a relaible source would require overturning or altering an ArbCom case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Which arbcom case? If there are restrictions on the use of EIR as a source, the same restrictions ought to apply to PRA et al. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. I'd like to know whether Wikipedia applies policy consistently. --Marvin Diode (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please link to the arbcom case you mentioned? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for this as well. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when was the Arbcom given authority on any content matters...? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision#Removal of original work? ...this is a pure content decision and I believe well outside of their authority. Then again, this was 2004, so if this were reviewed I imagine it would have to be tossed. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom decisions don't come out of thin air (though sometimes they may seem that way). One of the issues with the LaRouche articles that was discovered in the three ArbCom cases involving them is that most of the "pro-" editors are socks of a clever puppeteer, and that he's a tireless promoter of the ideosyncratic ideas of LaRouche. I wouldn't call it a content decision so much as a content-based behavior remedy. It's a practical way of dealing with a behavior problem that otherwise would be impossible to enforce. I don't see any reason for the ArbCom to review their decision. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So the only Arbcom sanction specifically involving content, which limits what any editor can do with a subsect of valid material, was done to stop one lone editor? That's wildly disproportionate, and still seems to be beyond the boundary of what the Arbcom is permitted to do. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason that the decison should be reconsidered, aside from a desire for consistency? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there are certainly some circumstances where it would be appropriate to use EIR as a source. If the ArbCom decision is being interpreted as a blanket ban, that should be reconsidered -- particularly if it is a unique case, where EIR is being singled out for some reason. --Niels Gade (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The EIR and similar LaRouche sources are determined to be self-published sources. Like other SPSes, they can be used in articles about themselves. They just aren't allowed in other articles. It's only s lsight modification to normal procedure. Even its proponents here can't think of a single example of how it would improve the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

EIR appears to have a staff of 35-40 people[1], appears in numerous languages, gets cited frequently in other publications. If it is considered a SPS, then PRA web pages qualify in spades. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While the LaRouche movment isn't generally considered a religion, the thread titled "#Religious sources" below appears to apply. The EIR is a fine source for the views of Lyndon LaRouche. It is not suitable as a source for neutral, reliable facts on other topics. Since LaRouche is the Editor in Chief, it's hard to imagine that the editing staff (no matter how large) would ever contradict him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reference to religious sources appears utterly irrelevant to me. EIR is a conventional newsmagazine, but with the editorializing a bit more blatant than one finds in Time or Newsweek. Also, I tried my best, but I was unable to imagine any circumstance in which the editorial staff at Political Research Associates would ever contradict Chip Berlet. --Niels Gade (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

More imagination, please. Both the research director and the editor of The Public Eye edit my work all the time, as do other PRA staffers, plus outide scholars and journalists asked to review what I write. I get edited and contradicted all the time. Makes for better text.--Cberlet (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, OK, it's coming to me. "You call this an analysis? Where's the damn innuendo?" --Niels Gade (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche is the editor in chief, while Berlet is not. Berlet is quoted in mainstream papers as an authority, while LaRouche is quoted very rarely and in a very different context. The two aren't comparable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This thread seems to be going in circles. Unelss there's some new argument to be made I suggest it's time to archive this thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the haste to terminate this discussion? The matter does not appear to be resolved. I just did a google search for citations from Berlet on Wikipedia, and the number seems disproportionately high. I would like to propose a moratorium on any additional use of Berlet as a source for BLP-related edits until there is a consensus. By this I mean the use of materials published or posted by PRA or Berlet personally -- I have no problem with those instances where Berlet is quoted in a mainstream source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Haste? This thread has been open for five months. Unless there's a new point to be made we should archive it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that my proposal for a moratorium is just such a new point. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "moratorium" on use of a reliable source, including PRA. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the same request to invalidate PRA that has been made since December. I don't see anything new. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do the two of you have some sort of ideological affinity for PRA? You seem eager to dismiss a rather extensive discussion and debate on this topic. A source cannot be "invalidated" if it wasn't "valid" or a Reliable Source to begin with. BLP policy says be careful with sourcing. You endorse a guy "whose specialty is smearing anyone outside the traditional left-right categories as an extremist, at best, and a nascent Nazi at worst"? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That quote is the same that started this thread five months ago. Nothing new, time to archive this thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And it shouldn't be repeated all over the place either. (There's no need to use Raimondo if other sources are available.) I too, however, would prefer that we cut down on the PRA cites. Chip's written extensively off his own website, so that shouldn't affect too much how he's cited; but the case has not been made that publiceye has a demonstrated reliability equivalent to the other places Chip's published. Of course, any comparison to EIR is ludicrous. Will's comparison to #Religious sources below is spot-on. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA may not be a reliable source

I was reading some quotes cited to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, and I found a few problems related to the ongoing "Jewish lobby" headache.

• This CAMERA blog article [2], uses the term "Jewish lobby", and links to an op-ed piece in the Guardian [3] which uses the term, which in turn links to the actual report, which does not use the term. See Report of the All-Party Inquiry into Antisemitism (UK) The closest the report gets is "An example of this would be remarks about the Israel lobby. No-one would seek to deny that there is well-organised support for Israel in Britain, but in some quarters this becomes inflated to the point where discourse about the ‘lobby’ resembles discourse about a world Jewish conspiracy."

• CAMERA quotes Desmond Tutu saying, in a speech in Boston:

"People are scared in this country to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful, very powerful. Well, so what?...Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin...were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."[4]

This speech from Bishop Desmond Tutu was also reported by the BBC. Interestingly, CAMERA appears to have dropped a line from the middle of the quote. The BBC quotes him as saying:

"People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. "Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."[5]

CAMERA dropped the bolded text, which distorts the meaning a bit. Tutu was speaking against Israeli apartheid at the time.

So I'd suggest that using CAMERA as a reliable source for quotations is somewhat iffy. What comes out of CAMERA may not be what went in. CAMERA may be useful as a finding tool (they're powered by Google), but actual quotes should come from a less partisan source. CAMERA's output is mostly derived from other press sources, so if CAMERA has something, there's probably another source for it. --John Nagle (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

three little dots... make all the difference. The difference between reliability and unrelibility. They put in the elipses. Ergo, they are rleiable. Unreliable sources are the ones that omit material without elipses. The way the old Soviet Union used to airbrush purged politicans out of the photoAmerican Clio (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

IMO, CAMERA is generally a reliable source for opinions and interpretations, as long as they're attributed in the text to CAMERA. On questions of fact they are dubious at best, and certainly not appropriate for quotations of living people. <eleland/talkedits> 17:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See also MEMRI above. Pretty much any quotefarm from an advocacy source should be double-checked with reference to the original documents. Relata refero (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA is reasonably reliable, but one must recognize that they are an advocacy group. They're obviously not an academic source, or a major news outlet. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA should be treated the similarly to organizations such as CAIR. Both have distinct ideological perspectives, but they usually get their quotations correct. -- Avi (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd use both CAMERA and CAIR for information on themselves and their communities. For example, CAIR can be quoted on itself and Muslims in America. It should not be used for information on Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. (except when decribing their relations with Muslims). I agree with Avi that I'd treat both partisan organizations similarly.Bless sins (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"CAIR can be quoted on itself and Muslims..." -- Would that were true -- See, e.g. "The 8-Million Muslim Lie," INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=253930273179676. Just because "major news outlets" believe them doesn't make it so. [Nor will you find any comparable lies from CAMERA.]

CAMERA cannot possibly be considered a reliable source, and they have been caught collaborating secretly with existing Wikipedia editors to subvert Wikipedia editorial processes. See [EI exclusive: a pro-Israel group's plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia]. The linked article includes primary source emails from CAMERA staff and Wikipedia users. Bangpound (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This assumes that the allegations at EI are true. They may be, they may not be. Again, the key to something like Camera is to attribute their statements. That lets readers know that the source may have a bias. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than Blueboar's comments, we must not give CAMERA undue weight. It may write pages on a topic but that doesn't mean those pages should be incorporated in wikipedia (even with attribution).Bless sins (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the crux of the problem. CAMERA is just another ethno-partisan lobby group, albeit an unusually well-funded and well-organized one. There's no need to go quoting them hundreds of times across the 'pedia, especially since they specialize in dredging up fear, uncertainty and doubt. Where their accusations have genuinely "stuck," that is to say where they've been picked up by more legitimate sources, resulted in a correction being issued, etc., they may be appropriate for inclusion. Where they haven't, they're not. <eleland/talkedits> 15:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This debate reminds me of another one. A while ago there was some discussion on using Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq as sources on Islam (see Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad#Protection and Talk:Criticism_of_the_Qur'an#Robert_Spencer). It was concluded that these sources were notable but not reliable to be used for facts. Therefore they should be used wherever they are quoted by a reliable third party, and their views should be attributed.

I think a similar arrangement could work for CAMERA. We can use their publications in mainstream sources (e.g. this article in the Jerusalem Post) or when they are quoted in other reliable sources (e.g. this article in Al-Jazeera).Bless sins (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We should use sources that speak of "Palestinian duplicity" the same day we use sources that speak of "Jewish duplicity". Using CAMERA for "facts" about the I-P conflict is directly equivalent to using the Communist Party of the US for "facts" about the Cold War or the US in Vietnam. It's not that they've got a POV (we've all got one) - the problem with the CP and CAMERA is that they're in lock-step with the governments they support. In CAMERA's case, it's even worse, since they're the angry wing of Israeli POV-pushing. While I'm here, let me state that I've never seen a critic of Israel cheating (eg removing good information for entirely partisan reasons, as we've seen a huge amount of), and nobody has ever tried to recruit me into any kind of cheating enterprise. CAMERA (even worse than the CP) behaves, and has always behaved, like a source that nobody would want to trust. It's bad enough when the protecting of cheats was happening from established editors, lets not encourage this stuff! PR^talk 09:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of rickross.com and religionnewsblog.com as external links/convenience links

(The following has been transferred from WP:AN as per the request of User:Durova.)

A number of Wikipedia articles currently link to rickross.com and religionnewsblog.com. With respect to rickross.com, talk page consensus on Talk:Prem Rawat a few weeks ago was that the site appeared to be in breach of WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking:

Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.

Our concern was based on rickross.com's copyright disclaimer:

rickross.com: "All META tags, page titles, keywords and other content descriptions used throughout this website are only intended to assist search engines for research and locating purposes. This in no way, shape or form is intended to mislead anyone by implying any official representation and/or relationship exists between this website and the owners of any trademarks, service marks and/or copyrights, which may contain the same keywords and/or titles." ... "Any publisher, Webmaster or news service (i.e., official and legal holder of copyright) that objects to their material being included in this archive may request that it be removed and/or that future material be excluded. An official written and signed request sent via fax or regular mail made by the copyright holder and/or their legal representative on company or legal letterhead will be honored."

Some of the material hosted on rickross.com is for sale online by the legitimate owners. Example: [6] [7]

Religion News Blog has been mentioned as a similar case; in particular, this subpage was proposed on the Prem Rawat talk page as a suitable external link. Here too it seems that copyright owners' permission is not routinely sought:

"Religion News Blog includes copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner."

The Religion News Blog also carries a rather large amount of advertising.

Please advise to what extent these two sites should be linked, or existing links to them removed.

Note that the Prem Rawat article is also subject to an ongoing Arbitration Case (Prem Rawat arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)).

Jayen466 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rick Ross is a commentator frequently referenced by others, so I don't see we should have a problem discussing what he says in context and attributing it to him, with links to his site to back that up. The blog looks to be a link to avoid, on the face of it. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your feedback. I understand the point about quoting Rick Ross himself. However, this is not at issue; the copyright question arises because of the large number of press articles and other copyrighted material hosted on the site, evidently without a proper process of seeking permission from the owners. Instead, the Disclaimer page states that rickross.com will take down any copyrighted material if the copyright owners complain in writing. Rather than licensing the material, as required by WP:EL, this seemed to me to shift the onus from the site operators to the copyright owners. In other words, the onus is now on the owners (1) to become aware of the infringement and then (2) to write in to ask for their material to be taken down. As it is, the status of any document hosted on the site seems unclear; it may be the case that the owners are aware of their material's presence on the site and do not object, or it may be that they are not aware (yet) and will complain at a future date. At any rate it seems to me that where the same material is available on the legitimate copyright owner's own website (e.g. nytimes.com), it would be preferable from a copyright point of view to link to the copy at nytimes.com, rather than the one held at rickross.com. Jayen466 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. My usual take on sites that play fast and loose with copyright is to exclude on principle, but here we have a notable individual who may be quoted as an authority. It should not be a problem to link to that content which is unequivocally Ross' own, attributed to Ross, if a compelling case can be made for the relevance of his opinion. Better, of course, to link to a reliable secondary source that describes Ross' views and places them in context. I am not a fan of primary sources in biographies, other than the subject's own site as a source for uncontroversial facts. Any copyright violating material may not be linked, period. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Starting at the top of the list of WP articles linking to rickross.com, what would be your view on this link, present as ref. 1 in Kenja Communication (permalink: [8])? I wasn't able to find the article on the Daily Telegraph website (note that this is the Australian Daily Telegraph, not the UK one), although there were articles on the subject present there (and hosted for free). This specific article, however, did not seem to be there. Now, what to do? The thing is that I believe many editors consider rickross.com a very valuable resource, which often has detailed material not available elsewhere. Jayen466 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the citation on Kenja Communication, I see the problem.

The citation is worded: "Secrets of sect in sex case. The Daily Telegraph, The Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey (May 25, 2006). Retrieved on 2007-02-08."

It should be worded more along the lines of: "Secrets of sect in sex case by Brad Clifton, The Daily Telegraph, Syndey, Australia May 25, 2006 - as hosted on: www.rickross.com, Retrieved on 2007-02-08."

This would make it clear that the Rick Ross site is being used as a convenience link to the Daily Telegraph story, which is the actual citation. Now... the question becomes: is Rick Ross's site an allowable convenience link? Does he need permission permission to reprint the story that appeared in the Daily Telegraph, and if so does he have it? If the answer to that is that he did need permission, and did not obtain it, then his site can not be used. We must omit the link to Ross and simply cite the Daily Telegraph without the link. This obviously requires someone double checking to make sure that the story in the Telegraph actually exists and says what Ross said it did... but this should not be all that difficult... I am sure that we could find a Wikipedian who lives in Sydney and whould be willing to go to a library and check the May 25, 06 Telegraph for us. If Ross does not need permission to reprint the story... or if he does, and obtained it... then there is no problem. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The (Australian) Daily Telegraph article exists and is correctly quoted on the Rick Ross website. I confirmed that through a Lexis-Nexis search; it appeared in the "Local" section on page 13 in the State edition. Is there any suggestion/evidence that Rick Ross misquotes attributed news articles, or is it only a matter of him (possibly) not having licensed the copyrighted content ? If it is the latter, the solution is simply not to link to his site as a convenience link for hosted newsarticles. Abecedare (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and verifying the article's existence. There is no assertion that I am aware of that any news articles on rickross.com have been misquoted. There may be a quibble as to how selective the choice of articles hosted is; this on the Prem Rawat overview page for example appears to be a record of a couple's divorce proceedings, with the only link to Rawat being the fact that one of the couple had once, years prior to the marriage, been a follower of Rawat. This article reports on the opening of an enquiry, and there is no corresponding article reporting on the enquiry's findings (which appear to have been that the organisation was in order, from checking the UK charity registration website). But this may partly reflect the fact that newspapers and courts tend to focus more on negatives than on positives. The scholarly Dupertuis article also present on the Prem Rawat page was, I believe, actually written by a follower of Rawat's. So far the consensus seems to be then – do not use either of these sites as a convenience or external link, but verify the articles' existence and credit them (and link to them, where possible) directly. Jayen466 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus you state makes sense to me. Does the Rick Ross website have any original content ? If so there may be a case for using it as a referenced source or external link in some cases; if it only hosts links/extracts from news sources, then it is advisable to cite them directly (after verification), and use rickcross.com only as a convenient resource for editors (as opposed to readers.) Abecedare (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found much material on the site that to my mind would qualify as an encyclopedic source. I think most of the texts on the site are taken from elsewhere. Plus there are the pages where Mr. Ross is offering his services to worried families. But I agree with the principle that any original material on the site written by Mr. Ross or his associates could and should be linked to, if it's pertinent to a topic covered in WP. Jayen466 21:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:C. Do not link to material that violates copyright. Cite the original source, and if it's not online, too bad. we are allowed to cite treeware, after all. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

<deindent>
One final thought for now: It may be a good idea to email Rick Ross (info@rickross.com) and ask him (politely) if he has licensed the information on his website and if he can provide an OTRS verification. We may be able to short-circuit this whole debate if he replies in the affirmative. Any volunteers experienced in the process ? Abecedare (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the wording of the disclaimer and the absence of copyright acknowledgments I think it highly unlikely that any such licenses exist. I get the feeling the database of news articles is really designed to bring in customers, because looking for original material by Mr. Ross on the site I realised that rickross.com is also a commercial site, offering expert witness and intervention/deprogramming services complete with hourly rates: [9] [10] [11] [12] as well as selling DVDs [13] and soliciting donations [14]. All of which makes me less inclined to consider it a suitable source for linking to in WP articles. Jayen466 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My view is that whenever possible, we should link to original sources. However, if those sources are hard for an average person to reach, then also linking to existing excerpts or full copies on the web is reasonable as long as we believe the copies are uncompromised. The owners of newspaper archives presumably are aware of the web, and I'd expect that they see no value in going after people promoting their work, especially when those people have a scholarly purpose in doing so. Respecting the property of others is certainly important, but I don't believe we must respect someone's property more than they themselves do, especially given the centrality of verifiability to our work. Thus, I'd consider both sites an acceptable backup source for linking. William Pietri (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's thrash this out. Well over a hundred articles link to the site; if these links are to be removed (or redirected to legitimate sites), there should be a good reason to start this work, and it should be backed up by solid community consensus. Personally, I don't see how these sites can be compatible with the copyright policy outlined in WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. In addition I have the feeling that the purpose of both sites mentioned here is not just scholarly, but also commercial; and if the above reasoning by William Pietri (talk · contribs) were to be applied to any site that infringes copyright, then there would be no copyright-infringing sites on the net at all. Because then we would have to assume that the ongoing presence of such material on a site generally implies the legal owner's consent. Any other views? Jayen466 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this is to say the least not the best characterization of the Rick Ross site links. Rick Ross is a well known expert on groups that many consider cults with huge publicity budgets churning out uncritically reviewed material. The purpose of these Rick Ross links and similar sites devoted to such groups is to provide a ready reference to hard to find published information on many such groups, not to sell services. Wikipedia's restrictions on critical external links have become such that original, critical material by Rick Ross would not be suitable because it is critical, and now you want to restrict linking to Rick Ross as well because he even collects information on these groups although the claim isn't that the information isn't sourced and there is zero chance of derivative liability for Wikipedia. Meanwhile, you can't even put in an article a general statement that critical information can be found on the internet anymore because advocates will demand that you provide anm attributable source for even that or it is "original research", which is absurd. The fallacy here is that there simply isn't a large body of scholarly, NPOV secondary sourcing, only a large amount of primary soured proponency and much less secondarily sourced, published material, simply due to limited interest, and Wikipedia simply doesn't function well in such niche areas. Wikipedia's increasing inability to address the underlying problem with NPOV in such cases by keeping these articles limited in scope for balance results in almost every article on such groups presenting a skewed view. This is just another "cure" that will make the problem worse. Not much point in editing Wikipedia anymore. Bye. --Dseer (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't know much about religionnewsblog.com, I disagree strongly that a substantial purpose of rickross.com is commercial. The Rick Ross Institute is a registered 501c3 nonprofit. I am of course not saying that any infringing of copyright is ok, but I am saying that there are cases where copyright owners may find non-profit use of limited amounts of their work acceptable and even welcome, and that this is plausibly one of those cases.

We should certainly try to be good citizens and follow the law, but we are not obliged to act as copyright police or to take hard-line positions on IP, especially when it would reduce the quality and verifiability of our encyclopedia. When we have no more official option, linking to web-posted copies of referenced articles on legitimate non-profit sites is not illegal, does not hurt the commercial value of the original work, and is beneficial to us and our readership. I believe we should continue the practice as is. William Pietri (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to weigh in here, but after reading the most recent above comment by William Pietri (talk · contribs) (as well as his previous comment), I don't think I could have said it any better than that. Cirt (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As to newspapers' copyright policies, here are the relevant pages from the New York Times website: [15] [16] There is nothing there to indicate that unauthorised reproduction of their articles on websites like the ones discussed here is welcomed by them. The same applies to Associated Press: [17] and I believe most other newspapers. In my view, the fact that editors like or applaud the work that the owners of a particular website do cannot be material here: that is an argument that would be open to any editor, with any site they link to. As regards the not-for-profit status of the Rick Ross Institute, Mr. Ross does use the rickross.com site to advertise his professional services and those of his associates, as outlined above. An American Professor of Sociology has described rickross.com as an "entrepreneurial lone ranger attempt to solicit customers". I still think that linking to the newspapers' own websites, where this is possible, is preferable and more in line with WP policy, and that simply referencing the article without the link (possibly with a note in the ref that the copy cited was found on rickross.com) is the right thing to do in those cases where the article is not available any more on the publisher's own website. Interested users can still find the article online by googling for its headline. Jayen466 14:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That nonprofit institutions take in money is not proof of commercial activity; every nonprofit takes donations, and many sell DVDs and services. Your quote is from 2003 and about the late 90s, and so appears to predate the creation of the nonprofit. If you think the Rick Ross Institute is violating its nonprofit status, you should talk to the IRS, not a Wikipedia noticeboard.

If you've spent any time in a large American corporation, that newspaper has no lawyer-written policy approving web posting of excerpts or articles should be unsurprising. But that doesn't mean that they actually mind their material being re-used as a non-commercial public good. Standards in Germany may be different, but in the US, the doctrine of fair use is an extension of the core of copyright: a limited, temporary grant of property rights to promote the creation and publication of intellectual works. Rick Ross is probably within the legal and moral boundaries of that, and we certainly are. I agree that referencing the original newspaper whenever possible is the right thing to do. However, when I weigh reduced verifiability against a token gesture of extreme deference to a publisher that may be perfectly happy that people are using and discussing their work, I feel that verifiability wins out. That is especially true given that, as Dseer points out, rickross.com has articles about organizations that in many cases work very hard to present and promote a one-sided view of themselves.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that Rick Ross is necessarily a reliable source on anything other than the views of Rick Ross. He's clearly partisan, so I don't think he personally should be cited except in a "critics say" kind of way. But if he's the only guy with a web-accessible copy of a text that we are citing, we should not place unnecessary barriers in the way of verifying Wikipedia articles based on those texts. William Pietri (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite certain, judging by the Disclaimer quoted above and the sort of material hosted, that rickross.com does not operate within the realms of fair use. Just try getting one of these NY Times articles that he hosts uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with a fair-use rationale and you'll see what I mean. Re your concern for WP:V: my suggestion is either to link to the publisher's website or to omit the link to rickross.com, but state that the copy of the article viewed was that found on rickross.com. That should be done anyway – see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. (I don't know what the status is if the copy viewed and cited infringes a copyright – perhaps we'd have to raise this in another forum.) In either case, then, verifiability would be ensured. Readers either get the original article, on the publisher's website (preferable in any case), or they can look for the article on rickross.com, since our reference tells them that we found it there. As for the site being non-commercial, I don't think you understand that Mr. Ross makes his living as an "intervention specialist" or deprogrammer, and as an expert witness in court cases. In other words, these pages [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] advertise the professional services by which he makes his livelihood. So in what sense is the site non-commercial if it advertises his commercial, for-profit services? Surely, the business idea is that people surf to the site to read up on the group that a member of their family has joined, and then at least a small proportion of them will click on "Getting Help", where Mr. Ross's services are available at the quoted prices. See Duck test. Jayen466 20:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but the determination of fair use is made by judges, not by Wikipedia's policies, which are and should be much more stringent than what is legal in the US, which in turn may be stricter than what a particular rightsholder allows. That someone makes a living at a non-profit endeavor does not make it suddenly for profit, and neither does providing services. Most educational institutions, for example, are non-profit, but certainly charge money for services, and just as certainly provide a living to their employees. Do they put up their websites partly because the will attract paying students? Surely. But that alone does not mean they are suddenly a for-profit institution, or that other material on that site would suddenly fail the first part of the US fair use test.

Making readers and editors go the extra step of searching the web for a reference whose location we describe doesn't benefit anybody, and it harms the encyclopedia. If we are going to use the article and say where we saw the material, then we should link to it. William Pietri (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can follow your reasoning, but there remains the fact that the links to these sites appear to be a clear breach of our above policies. And the same argument could be made for any other site hosting unlicensed public-interest material. I've left a note on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems to see if we can get some editors with a clearer understanding of WP copyright policy to comment on the matter. Jayen466 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Many news websites have links and advertisements to items they do not own the copyright to, or host items for sale. They are still acceptable on Wikipedia. However, if an item is a blog, it should not be allowed, except as opinion (and chances are this is reflected in legitimate news websites). I believe the policy deals with things like linking to excerpts of Harry Potter on a website that does not have permission to use it. If the text that you are linking to is rightfully used by the website, then it should be okay. If not, well, there you go. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty straightforward situation. If a website illegally hosts infringing material, we should not link to them. Policy makes this clear (Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, among other places). Additionally, simple legal realities preclude us from linking to such sites. Contributory infringement requires both a reasonable belief that the infringing party should have known the material was in violation of copyright (which is apparent for news "scraping" sites of any sort) and a material contribution to the infringement (which linking from a top ten website would almost certainly qualify). IANL, but a law degree is not required to see why linking to such sites should be vigorously avoided. Vassyana (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is largely affiliated with the open-source community and copyleft, I think we should clarify here: F*** copyright law. People seem to pull out claims of copyright infringement in content disputes, just to push their point-of-view. I.E., a while back, some images I'd uploaded to Wikipedia were deleted by some annoying people because I used copyrighted Wikipedia logos, in the images. Thus, they argued, "That's in violation of copyright." Yes, but is Wikipedia going to sue itself? Is anybody going to somehow use my images, pulled from Wikipedia, in a way that harms Wikimedia financially? Later, I found images which had done the same thing, elsewhere (used copyrighted Wikipedia logos in images uploaded to Wikipedia) which remain untouched. Sometimes, Wikilawyering actually involves real laws, not just made-up ones.

So, the relevant question isn't, "Is this in accordance with the letter of the law?" but rather, "In reality, will Wikipedia get sued?" The second question is particularly important since the government itself often ignores the law and the answer to the second question is no. The legal culpability for linking to another website which violates copyright law is minimal, if not entirely non-existent. Much less, the legal culpability for the Foundation, which delegates editing responsibility to the community is minimal, if not non-existent. Technically, it could be argued that knowingly linking to a site which knowingly links to a site which knowingly links to a site which infringes on copyright is "copyright infringement," but such a ridiculous argument would be thrown out of court. The internet, period, is rampant with copyright infringement. The only way to completely avoid this would be to avoid secondary sources, especially sources like blogs and self-published websites. WP:Copyvio (and all policy, period) isn't like legalist dogma which we pedantically follow, literally, because we all somehow think policy was somehow written on stone tablets, by God, or we have some kind of undying love for copyright law. It's simply practical, pragmatic steps we take to keep Wikipedia functioning and to avoid getting Wikimedia sued. In this case, Wikimedia is not going to get sued from citing Rick Ross and I suggest e-mailing the Foundation for clarification, if you're still concerned.

With that said, what Rick Ross and religionnewsblog.com do could certainly be construed as fair use. If a company thinks they're infringing on copyright, they can issue a DMCA takedown provision very easily and Wikipedia will respond accordingly. Until then, this is just wikilawyering, literally. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This has to be the most sensible post I've seen on this topic - thank you Zenwhat. Orderinchaos 22:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reproduction of entire works for public distribution is not anything close to fair use. However, it is classic infringement. You may wish to say f*** copyright, but copyright is a reality and numerous people depend on it for a living (writers, artists, etc). Is there a good chance we won't be sued? Sure. Does that make violating the law or encouraging the theft of someone else's work correct? F*** no. Also, contributory infringement for linking directly to infringing works is not an obscure technicality unlikely to result in court enforcement, but rather a legal reality upheld by courts in the United States. Vassyana (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I believe that rickross.com is not doing anything illegal or morally wrong. First, copyright is not an absolute right, and not all copies are illegal, as section of the law on fair use makes clear. As the US Constitution says, copyright exists, "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Further, not all uses of somebody else's property are crimes. When the neighborhood children sit on my porch after school, they are indeed on my land, but if a neighborhood busybody called the police for trespassing, I would be outraged. We certainly shouldn't link to people who are engaging in wholesale, for-profit violation of actively marketed intellectual property, and I think nobody would suggest otherwise. But there is a complicated spectrum here, from obvious piracy to sharing abandoned works to educational fair use to simple quoting. We must be responsible citizens, but equally we must not be extremists or prudes. William Pietri (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wholesale copying for broad distribution is not even remotely close to fair use and asserting otherwise is simply ludicrous. I agree there is a whole spectrum of use involved in using copyrighted materials, but I disagree that the use by rickross.com constitutes anything but obvious wholesale infringement. Vassyana (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Then it's a good thing I asserted the opposite. Sorry if my writing was confusing, but "wholesale copying for broad distribution" is one end of the spectrum I'm pointing at, and fair use is close to the other end. Rickross.com is far from the ugly end of the spectrum. It is a legally registered non-profit with an educational purpose collecting small portions of the original salable works, and only those portions related to its mission. Those articles bear no commercial ads. They do not charge for access. The value of the original work seems unharmed. I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like fair use to me.

Back in the days before the Internet, any serious public library would maintain files like this on topics of local interest, and would happily let you read and make copies of articles in the files. This is a functional modern equivalent. We should make use of it to increase the verifiability of our articles when (and only when) we cannot link to the original publisher's version. William Pietri (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Wholesale copying for broad distribution" is exactly what rickross.com does, so your position comes across as more than a bit incoherent. Whole articles are considered single whole works (just as a whole essay or whole short story from a book is a whole work), not "small portions". Since many of the news services charge for archive access, it most certainly is harmful to the value of the original work in those instances. Regardless, there's a big difference between making private copies from legitimately purchased materials (such as your library example) and publishing the material publicly on a website (which is equivalent to handing out thousands upon thousands of copies for free). Also, the for-profit or non-profit legal status of a venture does not affect the status of infringement. It only affects the fiscal culpability of the offending party. Vassyana (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As you'd expect, I disagree that my position is incoherent. AllOfMP3 is the kind of thing I mean by "wholesale, for-profit violation of actively marketed intellectual property". I agree that we should stay far away from that end of the spectrum. If there are articles in the rickross.com database that people are actively trying to sell, then yes, let's link to where they are on offer. But otherwise, I see what he's up to as no more sinister than archive.org, which we happily link to. Indeed, much less so, as his collection is surely less than a millionth of theirs. William Pietri (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there's no real comparison between a web-archive that is cautious to move within the law, has solid academic respect and endorsement, obeys robots.txt and readily complies with the wishes of rights holders, and an advocacy site that republishes news articles without permission. In my own view, your position is logically and ethically flawed (as I've detailed in my responses). Since we are apparently operating on different assumptions and standards of analysis, we will just have to agree to disagree. Vassyana (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note e.g. [23], [24] and [25] – ? Jayen466 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org may be many things, but they (and Google) have not been legally cautious. I know people who worked on it, and they definitely saw themselves as breaking new legal ground. As Lauren Gelman says "The Internet Archive has been involved in the debate over the future of copyright in cyberspace since its formation in 1995." Like archive.org, rickross.com offers to remove any material on request of the rightsholder. The only obvious difference is "solid academic respect" which is not, as far as I know, an excuse under the law for wholesale distribution of other people's copyrighted works. By your own arguments, we should pull both sites; I believe we should pull neither. William Pietri (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that a lot of people, including Jimbo Wales and probably quite a lot of others don't agree that the criterion should be 'do we get sued'. That is why for example, we respect the copyright laws of countries like Bhutan, even though we are not legally required to (hint: try reading WP:Copyrights). Indeed the very essesence of the copyleft and open source movement is that while the current copyright regime may be flawed, we need to work within it an do our best not to violate it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If people wish to change our policy on linking to sites with unlicensed copyrighted materials, they should attempt to get consensus to change Wikipedia:EL#Restrictions on linking and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. If people disagree with the copyright regime, they are free to petition the copyright office and elected officials. Unless the policy is changed, links to such sites should be removed without serious debate. Vassyana (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong concern that some editors are using valid copyright concerns to remove ANY links to sites with critical information about religious groups they favor. Red herring arguments such as "they make money off of this website" confirm my concern -- the New York Times makes money off of their website; should we be banned from linking to it?

I think there is a high value in linking to external websites that simply keep tabs of news stories on whatever issue an article is about, in this case controversy over religious organizations. They should include links, or make their own summaries, instead of simply violating copyright of course. It's best is they are scrupulously fair, but it's not necessary (and not Wikipedia policy) to force external links to meet all of our very strict requirements, such as BLP, no OR, etc.

How about this alternative to RickRoss.com, et. al.: CAIC.org It seems reasonably fair and a site that summarizes copyrighted material instead of copying it. I know that the word "cult" is fightin' words for some, despite the disclaimer on their front page ("Read This First (disclaimer). Both Cults & Isms are listed here. Not every group mentioned on this site is considered a destructive cult. Some are 'benign isms' — different but not emotionally or socially destructive.") We can avoid that word in any case by simply referring to it as CAIC, and linking directly to the page about a certain group or figure, for example [26]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 March 2008

it's not necessary (and not Wikipedia policy) to force external links to meet all of our very strict requirements, such as BLP Note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#External_links Jayen466 01:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been hashed out at length before, with no clear resolution. See Wikipedia:Convenience links. If anyone seeks to remove links to articles hosted on Rick Ross's website they should be sure to not delete the articles as sources - we don't need hot links to use newspaper articles as sources. Instead they should reformat the citation so that it lists the bibliographic information about the article so that interested readers can look up the reference on their own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the fair use rationale, there is a somewhat similar case described here: Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense Jayen466 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have written to the New York Times and Associated Press copyright/permissions departments to seek their advice; when and if I hear from them, I shall report back. Jayen466 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this further, here's my view. From Wikipedia:Copyrights, we are allowed to link to "internet archives", but we don't define what those might be. I can find two obvious ones in use: archive.org and webcitation.org. Both take previously published material and offer it to anybody on the web who cares to ask for it. Both have policies where they will take down material on request. Neither asks for permission in advance. Both are non-profits, and do not put advertisements on the archived material. They do solicit donations and/or offer services. Rickross.com appears to meet all these criteria. Religionnewsblog.com claims to be non-profit, but I haven't confirmed that. They also run ads, but I didn't see requests for donations or offers of services. Otherwise, they fit these criteria. So I would say that both of these sites appear to qualify as internet archives (albeit with RNB possibly closer to the margin) and so should be kept. William Pietri (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For more info: the term internet archive is wikilinked in Wikipedia:Copyrights; archive.org has official recognition as a library. Not sure it solves this issue, but there it is, FWIW. Jayen466 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excellent point. I was thinking mainly of the US fair use criteria when I was comparing things, as that is the legal hole through which they appear to be driving their multi-petabyte truck. The Internet Archive indeed recently (June 2007) became an officially recognized library as part of seeking some federal funding, so that's indeed an interesting difference. They appear not to have done anything more than they were doing before, however, so I don't think that helps us with a duck test for internet archives. William Pietri (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Both archive.org and webcitation.org are automatic (bot) archivers and obey robots.txt and provide information on how to block them via robot.txt. The archive pages precisely and do not reformat or modify pages. They only archive from the internet. Do these apply to rickross.com? From what I can tell, the answer is no. The pages there are 'archived' manually by the site owner (so robots.txt becomes irrelevant), they are reformated for the site, and I'm not even sure if he only archives from websites. I don't think rickross.com is what we mean when we say internet archive. I would suggest if people find stories online that are relevant to an article, they submit them to webcitation, rather then relying on some more dubious website Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no justification to link to sites that repost copyrighted material without permission. None whatsoever. "F*** copyright" might work as the slogan for some anarchist wannabe who doesn't understand the whole point behind intellectual property, but it does not currently and never will fly on Wikipedia. With Wikipedia as big as it is, if it did start knowingly violate copyright laws as policy, it would get lawsuits left and right -- and deservedly so. DreamGuy (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, so far this discussion is more or less stalemated. How would you suggest resolving it, one way or the other? Jayen466 20:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've had a response from the New York Times Permissions Representative at PARS International, short and sweet:

Thank you for your patience as I checked with "The New York Times" legal department.

In all cases, the publisher would prefer to have links directly to the nytimes.com site, all of which is now freely accessible.

Thank you for your consideration of 'The New York Times' copyright material.

(To receive a copy of the mail, contact me by e-mail.) Jayen466 08:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just learnt that, interestingly enough, Rick Ross has a post in his blog on the man running the "relgionnewsblog.com", "Apologetics Index" and "Cult FAQ" sites. It appears that Rick Ross characterises the man as a fugitive sex offender who runs the sites for profit: http://www.cultnews.com/?p=1636 [27][28] Hmmm ... Jayen466 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Msalt said earlier -

I have a strong concern that some editors are using valid copyright concerns to remove ANY links to sites with critical information about religious groups they favor.

Well I have strong concern that some editors are ignoring valid copyright (and other) concerns in order to maintain links to sites with critical information about groups they do not favour. I would think that, especially in clearly POV situations and appearing on rickross.com (or caic.org) is essentially little more than a self-published reflection of the site owners opinions, erring in favour of wikipedia policies and guidelines would be a much more sensible alternative than erring towards ignoring them. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Further Discussion of the Nation

(clipped from closed thread.)

I suggest we don't. Not on that note. I've just pointed out that McNeil performed a guilt-by-association slur on Pipes in which she got her facts wrong.[29] How this article, or by implication The Nation, can be considered a "reliable source" when their unreliability is proven beyond doubt is beyond comprehension. Andyvphil (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, we're done discussing this. I judge from a look at your contributions that this is probably related to your efforts at Barack Obama media controversy or whatever that article is, but I think this issue has been addressed. Relata refero (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I had just pointed out that McNeil performed a guilt-by-association slur on Pipes in which she got her facts wrong just before your premature attempt to close. This hasn't been addressed. I don't know what Obama has to do with this. Andyvphil (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It was presumably considered irrelevant to the overall reliability of the Nation. What an article on Obama has to do with it is evident by looking at your contributions. Unless you have something new to add, I don't think there's anything further to say. Relata refero (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a serious issue with a particular article that was printed in The Nation, and how it is used in a particular Wikipedia article (and it seems you do), then that is something that should be discussed on the talk page of the wikipedia article in question. Go to your fellow editors at the Daniel Pipes article, explain your problems with the McNeil article, and try to reach a consensus on it. If the consensus of your fellow editors is that the McNeil article should not be used... then don't' use it. All we can say at this noticeboard is that The Nation is considered a reliable source. That determination isn't going to change. To continue to beat this dead horse after this determination has been repeated several times by multiple editors is counter productive... and is starting to become a WP:POINT violation. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There are degrees of reliability, of course, not absolutes. The Nation is generally considered reliable, but it's not, for example, a peer reviewed journal. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would note that even the most enthusiastic readers of The Nation would not consider it a source that espouses a neutral point of view. The reason I indicated above that it could be used in the Daniel Pipes article was because the article's writer (McNeil) made certain claims about things Pipes had written, which could be confirmed as things Pipes had written from looking at Pipes' own columns. Furthermore, the Nation article was being used to illustrate what Pipes' critics say about him -- not to report neutral facts. It may be that McNeil also stated other claims about Pipes which were not true, but those other claims were not going to be incorporated into the Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if a source was intended to be used in Wikipedia only to provide neutral facts, then contentious claims in the source would taint the source and make it a poor source to use even for the non-contentious claims. To put it another way, suppose a source said, "George W. Bush was born in Connecticut, has two daughters named Jenna and Barbara, and planned the September 11, 2001 attacks." I would not cite that source even in support of the statement "George W. Bush's daughters are named Jenna and Barbara"; I'd look for another source instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The false claims have in fact been been incorporated in the article, off and on. And should be, since the fact that they are both made and false is relevant context to the other criticisms by McNeil that are quoted. The claims that Pipes is "notorious" and "anti-Arab" are undermined by the double falsehood engaged in by the same author to link him to ethnic cleansing, and that ought not be concealed. Consider if your example had instead read "George W. Bush shirked his duties in the National Guard and planned the September 11, 2001 attacks." Merely quoting the former assertion, arguably merely a POV take on true facts, misrepresents the flavor of the source. The fact that critics in venues as semi-respectable as the The Nation are allowed, unquestioned, to demonize Pipes in ways unmoored to facts is a very legitimate subject in a section dealing with the criticisms made of him. Andyvphil (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For Pete's sake... just attribute the view in the text, as we usually do for reliable sources which have a somewhat subjective perspective. As in, "The Nation wrote X about Y." If other reliable sources have disputed what The Nation said about Pipes or whomever, then the following sentence should read: "But source X said Y." Many literate adults are familiar with The Nation and its viewpoint; those who are not can click on the wikilink and see it described, in the first sentence of the Wikipedia lede, as "the flagship of the Left." What's the problem again? MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem, again: Actually, McNeil does make "wild, out-of-the left-field [and] potentially libelous claims". She writes, e.g., "Pipes is also a regular contributor to the website of Gamla, an organization founded by former Israeli military officers and settlers that endorses the ethnic cleansing of every Palestinian as 'the only possible solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict."

The Nation's POV is not what is at issue here. It could be both highly biased and reliable as to facts. But in this case it isn't. GAMLA does nothing of the sort and Pipes is in any case not a regular contributor to GAMLA's website. Since the Nation 's fact checking process was clearly not applied sucessfully to this article this article should not be considered reliable for the truth of any factual claim made in it. That said, the Nation 's website is a RS for the content of the article, and to the extent that the article is mentioned in secondary sources (e.g., claims are made and attributed to it) we can mention its content. But only in the context of supplying the evidence that it is a tendentious piece of crap.(quoting self, 11:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

As Jayjg says (what a phrase, coming from me) "There are degrees of reliability, of course..." Blueboar's "All we can say at this noticeboard is that The Nation is considered a reliable source" is nonsense. We can, indeed must, use The Nation in describing the emanations of Pipes' critics, but then we must note that venom directed at Pipes in that venue is not well fact checked. Andyvphil (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I request a bit of clarification here from user:andyvphil on why, considering his argument here against the nation as an RS, why he has repeatedly advocated for the use of a Nation article on the Obama campaign page, and why he has reverted back to that version even when other editors' consensus found the text obsolete, if there is such a problem with the Nation? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As usual, without diffs or specifics it's pointless to attempt to reply to 72etc's vaporings. What text is "obsolete"? Andyvphil (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As usual, you don't seem to realize people can look at your edit history andy... first I want you to deny it happened and then you can have your diffs. this is the Hayes article we're talking about here, in case you're wondering... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think you've said that I'm supposed to deny. The Hayes article is also a piece of crap, now that you mention it. I've said so before, so it is clear that you haven't been taking things in. Nothing new about that. Andyvphil (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Again... The Nation is a reliable source. It is a notable publication with extensive circulation and editorial oversight. It is no less reliable than the New York Times, Newsweek, US News and World Report, or any other major periodical. The fact that it has a distinct political slant does not negate its reliability. The fact that a given article in The Nation may contain statements that are deemed inaccurate does not negate its reliability (the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not "Truth"). Thus, it may be used as a source in Wikipedia articles.

Now, questions about whether any source should be used in a particular Wikipedia article, and questions about how it should be used (for example: should it be used in support of a statement of fact or only in support of a statement of opinion) are legitimate. But these have to be decided at the article's talk page... not here. So... stop being POINTy. Take this argument back to the talk pages of the articles involved. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already pointed out that what you are saying is nonsense, and repeating it doesn't make it any less nonsense. "The Nation is... notable publication with extensive circulation and editorial oversight. It is no less reliable than the New York Times, Newsweek, US News and World Report, or any other major periodical."? Really? I don't think so. It appears to do very little fact checking of assertions that align with its biases, as shown by the example I've provided. And the Hayes article 72etc mentions also fabulated an importance to a nonentity named Andy Martin, unsupported by any fact, to perform a convenient smear. Do you have any evidence that it does fact checking, or are you just pulling an assertion out of your rear end? Andyvphil (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil, you've made your point, and consensus appears to be against you. My recommendation is that you accept that and move on. We are all sometimes in a minority of one. Relata refero (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly as simple as that. The Nation is generally considered a reliable source; however, if the claims in question are highly contentious and provably false in some cases, the author in question an otherwise unknown, and the subject a living person, then the determination is quite different. The standards for articles about living people are considerably higher than the usual Reliable Source requirements. I refer you to the opening paragraphs of WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We're all aware of that. If you read the discussion above, you'll see that we are not proposing using it for "provably false claims", so your concern is irrelevant. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether The Nation is a RS for McNeil's highly contentious claims when they are made in conjunction with provably false claims, something it is proposed we not mention. I've already given my answer: "...we can mention [the article's] content.... only in the context of supplying the evidence that it is a tendentious piece of crap." Andyvphil (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that you dont have anythong close to consensus for. Unsurprisingly. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

With BLP issues you don't need all that strong a consensus. When you're defending the inclusion of negative material in a BLP written by a person who is otherwise unknown, whose article contains provable falsehoods, and whose article is found, after all, in The Nation, a periodical - not a peer-reviewed journal - well, then, you know you're on extremely shaky ground at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Editorial decision. The Nation, however is a reliable source. Move on, already. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay says it best: we need a higher standard than RS for BLP's than the Nation, when it comes to negative material. A column in a partisan magazine from a writer no one's heard of (and no one--no one--on this board will admit to supporting) does not rise to the level of quality we're expected to maintain. IronDuke 23:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay said it irrelevantly, actually. The Nation is a reliable source. Opinions published in the Nation are notable opinions. If there is consensus on the talkpage of a particular article that a particular piece should not be cited as it has other problems (as Jay suggests), so be it. However, the reliability and notability of the Nation itself is not questioned. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It does seem odd to me that every time I bring up whether this woman has the right credentials to be judging Pipes the response I seem to get is eyes closed, fingers in the ears "I can't hear you I can't hear you I can't hear you." This insistence that we are somehow not allowed to consider the actual writer of the content we are using seemes bizarre to me. Even if we take it as a given the Nation is reliable, that doesn't mean we are obliged to suspend judgment on everything within its pages. IronDuke 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Err no, not irrelevantly. You keep acting as if "reliable" is a binary choice - either a source is 100% reliable, or it's 100% unreliable. In reality, sources have degrees of reliability, which depend on the nature of the source, the context in which it is used, the author, etc. In this case, the source is about as reliable as other periodicals with a strong political POV - that is to say, more reliable than a random website, about the same as The Weekly Standard and National Review, less reliable than, for example, Time (magazine), and certainly less reliable than a peer-reviewed journal. Your continually pretending that comments made by otherwise unknowns in a moderately reliable reliable sources trumps BLP is tendentious at best. I didn't really care much about the subject when this discussion started, but your continual misrepresentation of both WP:RS and WP:BLP have, quite frankly, gotten my back up. Now, come up with a really good reason why we should include negative material from an otherwise unknown, from an ideological periodical, which contains known falsehoods, in a BLP. A really good reason. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should I? I haven't argued anything of the sort. I have said - several times - that the Nation is a reliable source as we consider such things, and that an opinion published in the Nation is a notable opinion as we judge such things. That is the limit of my statement, and that is the consensus on this noticeboard. On that article talkpage I have in fact pointed out that the contested phrase is used extensively elsewhere, so I am puzzled by the emphasis on this source. I also think you need to review BLP. X policy does not "trump" Y policy. They work together. Reliability works with BLP. In this case, if there are specific objections to this particular article, it should be discussed on the article talkpage. As I and several others have stated above. It does not impact the Nation's general reliability. I hope that puts your back back down, and doesn't cause any further rashes of bold text to break out. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

FreeRepublic

FreeRepublic.com is by and large an unreliable source because it is a self-published source (blog). However, it does have a reprinting service where users add articles to the site from reliable sources that they find interesting followed by frequently lengthy comments on the article by the readers of the website. As an example, [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507163/posts this link] is used as a source in Hindu nationalism. Can the reprints on freerepublic be used as a reliable source, or does the reputation of FreeRepublic and the following comments by the readers of the site eliminate the reliableness of the source. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Since the original newspaper and article publication date are provided with the FreeRepublic article, it would be better to find a way to look up the original article (even though it's no longer available free online) rather than relying solely on the convenience link at FreeRepublic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Cite the original source, not the reprint. Wikipedia is not a method of increasing web traffic to Free Republic. Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I wasn't considering adding links to the site (I've been slowly going through the externals links to it and removing them), just ran across a user that was repeatedly adding a link to an article on the site and was claiming it was acceptable to use it, so I came here for clarification. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking to copyrighted articles reproduced in FreeRepublic is not allowed because they are copyvios. - Merzbow (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Should the site be blacklisted then? Particularly the http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news portion of the site. That seems to be where the reprints are kept. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Relata refero (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I know the site pretty well and even have written on the forum, but I hadn't thought of the problems. If it should be blacklisted, how does that get done?Doug Weller (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that the topic of FreeRepublic.com came up in the fair use discussions above, under #Use_of_rickross.com_and_religionnewsblog.com_as_external_links.2Fconvenience_links. I believe these are essentially similar cases. Our article on fair use has details of a copyright case against FreeRepublic.com: Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense (they lost). I would cite the original articles only. Jayen466 08:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

FreeRepublic is notably different from RickRoss.com. From my viewing, it appears the RR.com includes the full text of articles, with little or no commentary. FR.com mostly posts excerpts, sometimes with commentary interleaved, and always with highly partisan, non-expert commentary following. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, the problem of FR being used for citations has come up so often that blacklisting appears to be the best solution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the commentary adds significantly to the problem, making this a more clearcut case. Jayen466 19:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's essentially just a forum. It's not a reliable source in any way, shape, or form (like its arch-nemesis, Democratic Underground). - Merzbow (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I added it to the blacklist request page back on the 31st, but it still hasn't been acted upon. I just asked for a status check. One thing, www.freerepublic.com itself should probably be whitelisted as the site itself is notable and it should be okay to include a link to the site on Free Republic's article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#freerepublic.com. Blacklisting this, while it may be justified, would take a lot of upfront work, which I have described in my response. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

reliability check

I'm fairly sure that http://www.edbrill.com/ will not constitute a reliable source, but I want third-party corroboration before I take that back to the article. Thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a personal blog to me. As such, it is not RS. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Another: http://www.metalstorm.ee. Not my cuppa, and I'm unfamiliar; please vet. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

looks like a fansite, generally not RS, though it depends what's being cited. An exclusive interview with a band member might qualify for example, if it was verifiable. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDb - again

Hello, I'd like to reopen discussions on the reliability of IMDb. Whilst posts etc are user generated, the majority of factual edits are first moderated by internal editors. You can't just ADD information willy-nilly, it takes a while, and sometimes your input isn't accepted. Why isn't it considered reliable? Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#y.21m Adaircairell (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Generally I agree with you, although it may be difficult for us to get this position accepted. Further below on this page is a discussion of IMDBPro, the paid-access version of the site. I will be commenting there too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Are author/publisher bios reliable sources?

I regularly come across WP articles on authors or musicians where the primary source for the info is the author's homepage or the publisher's bio. Often, my online searches fail to turn up additional info or even confirming sources. My question: Is a author bio (particularly one probably written by the author) a reliable source? I debated posting to the WP:BLP/N but this is really a reliability question. It seems to me these sorts of author bios aren't remotely independent of the subject. If the info was republished in a RS like a newspaper or mag article or a valid online source, that would probably work but trusting what is, for all practical purposes, self-reporting?. I have doubts.

I guess my main concern is that there is also a question of notability if they don't have at least some significant RS coverage. Input? Cheers, Pigman☿ 17:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not reliable, per se, but you just treat it like any self-published source. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In other words, if it's being used for something like confirming the real name of someone, where they were born, etc, it's probably fine. If it's being used exclusively to support the claim the person won a Nobel Prize, probably not. Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What about for claims of educational qualifications? They're not easily verifiable elsewhere. Should we take what they say on the book cover at face value? --Insider201283 (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Email from an official source

Resolved

Is an email from an official source, in my particular case an embassy or ministry of foreign affairs, a reliable source? Over on the International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence page we're trying to gather the positions of as many countries as possible and since less media-friendly or geographically distant countries do not announce their positions on Kosovo, it's often necessary to email them and ask. I can see this becoming a dispute as it becomes a more common practice for us to do so, thus I seek an opinion from this page. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, personal emails are not absolutely NOT reliable. What's more it would be a WP:No original research violation to add information gathered from such a source to an article. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. You can ask the country reps. if the they can point you to published documents (press releases, quotes in newspapers etc) where they have stated their position in the Kosovo situation, and cite those published documents; but you certainly cannot cite any personal communication. Abecedare (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

adenda, I had the same question

Meh, I have a very similar problem with a list sent by the Comitee for external relations of Saint Petersburg, and I was going to ask the same question. Now I know the answer.

Only difference is that in my case the information wasn't controversial at all (a lister of sisterhoods with other cities). Problem is that some info that is correct and confirmed by other sources does not appear on the official list on an official website by a different official organism but does appear on the comitee list, and viceversa. Well, I'll ask them again to publish the list on an official website so I can reference it --Enric Naval (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the American Medical Association a reliable source?

In the article on "orthomolecular medicine" also commonly known as "megavitamin therapy", it is disputed whether a statement from the AMA Council on Scientific Affairs dealing with Alternative medicine section on Diet/nutrition is a reliable source to which we can attribute criticism of alternative medical systems that use diet and nutrition: particularly the discussion of systems that, as the report says, "promote dietary supplements beyond the Recommended Dietary Allowances". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say since its issued by a reputable and well-kown organization in the field in question, to which many people in the field look for professional guidance and standards, it would be reliable in the conext you describe. MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The AMA is most definitely a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That said, it should be noted the webpage you linked to was actually a tertiary source, so you may find even better sources by hunting down its own, which were well indicated. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article has a large number of links to the primary literature, which poses its own challenges. I was trying to find as an authoritative mainstream overview of the field to cite in the lead. User:TheNautilus rejected a direct quote of the American Cancer Society from this report dealing with the subject of "orthomolecular medicine" in general, since he argued they had no expertise outside cancer. This was the best alternative I could find. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This user has indicated that he may refuse to accept any consensus that forms on this noticeboard diff. I get the feeling this is headed irrevocably towards dispute resolution process. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made repeated attempts to offer AGF versions that balance and report all sides rather than prominently promote POV. You are repeatedly making (not so?)subtly unfair & provocative statements with undertones that suggest that you want to target me in some way. That needs to change.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing is that AMA has been cited for anti-competitive behavior about disparaging competitors before, the specific page does cite other fields by name but not "orthomolecular" anywhere - an WP:OR violation, and has had highly flawed (but slowly acknowledged, 20+ yrs) attacks on this area, orthomolecular medicine, since Pauling demonstrated a number of embarrassing or serious scientific errors in their methods and publications. Favoring a compromised medical faction to pre-emptively settle or deprecate scientific disputes with flat contradictions this supposed "RS infallibility" is inappropriate.

Blind credibility to economic competitors with repeatedly demonstrated bias and error fails WP:V in multiple ways. WP:V, UNDUE weight, bias, and WP:OR are crucial issues here.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that any peer-reviewed article, as opposed to editorial, in an AMA journal, is reliable. If an editorial clearly states the position of an author in that debate, it is authoritative in terms of that position. The New England Journal of Medicine is very good about making biases clear. Policy papers of the AMA, however, are quite another matter. Membership has dropped to about a third of American physicians, and a good number of the members do not participate in AMA politics, but join for journal and other discounts.

Your mention of Pauling, however, does concern me. Now, I have read more of his work on chemical bonds than in medicine, but I have not seen, and they may exist, well-designed randomized clinical trials of his theories in medicine. I have seen things he wrote that seemed essentially anecdotal. I'd really like to see some independent review of Pauling's demonstrations of errors, before I would be ready to accept Pauling, Nobel Prize and all, as a reliable source in clinical medicine. If Pauling was a co-investigator with qualified clinical researchers, with a research protocol approved by an Institutional Review Board, that would be an excellent start. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of Pauling's comments about rigor in handling and representing data, as well as his critiques of his opponents, have been quietly acknowledged or adopted over time, without (much or any) credit. In a number of cases, Pauling doesn't have to be right on his hypotheses to show his (AMA, too) opponents were wrong or even grossly out of line in terms of scientific conduct and method.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The source you cite claims that: "But the approach taken by some alternative practitioners encourages what many consider the excessive use of health foods and dietary supplements, often of a proprietary nature and meant to enrich themselves while promoting several myths:⁴

1. it is difficult to get the nourishment one requires from ordinary foods
2. vitamin and mineral deficiencies are common

As a study found that selenium supplementation far above the RDA reduced the rate of some cancers by approximately 50%, it would appear to me to be unwarranted to include this pronouncement by the AMA as anything other than an opinion, which must be contrasted with other, competing, belief systems.--Alterrabe (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly, that study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which seems to be somewhat ironical. It actually failed to show a reduction in the kinds of cancer the study was designed for, but some indication that some other kinds may be affected. It clearly states that a followup-study is necessary before a final conclusion can be drawn. Anyways, this is not any indication of wide-spread selenium deficit - chemo will help many cancer patients as well, but few people claim a lack in cytotoxins.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you understand that selenium is a substance naturally contained in one's diet, whereas cytotoxins are not. I also hope you understand the distinction between prophylaxis and treatment. If you take the time to do the research, you'll see that Szent-Györgyi explained the theoretical reasons why Se should be a prophylactic against cancer.--Alterrabe (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is an "opinion" in the sense that any summary of medical evidence is an opinion. As the opinion of the AMA, it carries suitable weight to be included in an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure what the complaint is; the whole article consists of describing "other, competing belief systems". MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

An accomplished biochemist has explained to me that it would be a war crime to force prisoners of war to work the hours that residents at medical schools must because such overwork deprives people of the ability to critically examine what they are being taught, "brainwashing" in the vernacular. I wouldn't describe the point I was trying to make as a "complaint," but rather as an insistence that no blanket "appeals to authority" be made. One text that would do this justice would be: "While the AMA declares that there is no evidence that vitamin deficiencies are common, it has published a preliminary study in its own journal that suggests otherwise."--Alterrabe (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

← I would caution against the approach that Wilk v. American Medical Association invalidates the AMA's position on everything. Jayson Blair's fabrications don't make the New York Times an unreliable source. The question is not so much whether the AMA is infallibly correct, but whether it is a useful representation of mainstream medical/scientific opinion, which for the most part it is. Hence it is a reliable source, as Wikipedia defines the term, regardless of our personal opinions of its reliability. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My position is that I have offered a neutral acknowledgement that there are significant disagreements, some highly critical and some more neutrally stated in the next to last sentence. The single paragraph designed to good faith represent all sides without overpowering the article with POV that has significant flaws (& attack), in the vein suggested by the uninvolved editor [30], Furthermore, the paragraph could be accurately summarized simply as "This controversial field needs more scientific research to support its claims.".--TheNautilus (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the article in general, but to decide if the AMA is a reliable, notable and mainstream source to which we can attribute an opinion on this form of alternative medicine. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"mainstream"? the medical one, yes, not necessarily the Scientific one. "notable" yes. "Reliable" case by case, it is a trade organization beholden to its politics and concentrated financial concerns, where WP:V has too frequently punched holes in its WP:RS on matters of competitors and orthodoxy. Again, the WP:OR concern, and the particular pedigree of the material (many highly partisan sources, not a peer reviewed paper AFAIK).--TheNautilus (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The AMA is unquestionably a reliable source (as per wikipedia's use of the term), and in most instances also a noteworthy source. Just need to be careful that any AMA opinion/recommendation is properly attributed to the organization in the main text itself. Abecedare (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the lead says "However, the scientific and medical consensus is that the broad claims of efficacy advanced by advocates of orthomolecular medicine are unsupported,[8][9] with the American Medical Association saying that the idea that most diseases can be prevented by nutritional interventions is a myth.[10]" Is this direct attribution acceptable to everybody? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine as far as sourcing and attribution are concerned. It would be a problem if the article stated, "X is a myth.[10]" instead. Abecedare (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course more comments in the RfC would be most welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a temporary fix. Having named the other nutritional groups, it is still offtopic or OR, whether or not AMA or the webpage is WP:RS. The specific webpage for that text looks like just partisan opinion inadequately noted or structured, misrepresented as some kind of "nutritional" authority where drugs and nutrition have different evidence bases.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The American Medical Association is an excellent RS for describing the mainstream POV in medical science. The different wording (orthomolecular vs dietary supplements in excess of RDA) is not troubling: the former is an "in-term" among those who ascribe to high-dosages, while the latter is a more mainstream description of the same phenomenon. Therefore, the AMA is not only a reliable source in general, but it is also reliable in the context of this article. Antelan^talk 20:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, you are confuting "big supplements" willy nilly in excess of RDA = "orthomolecular". This is incorrect. Big iron, d,l alpha-tocopheryl acetate, (long) time release niacin, Synkavite (K3) are not "orthomolecular" especially where one component accelerates demand of another (per Menolascino, 1988). It says nothing about protocols, *including the conventionally accepted megadose ones*. If AMA wants to criticize orthomed, they needed to do so directly, or more clearly, in this equivalent of a 16 page precise' to avoid OR issues. The various nutritional groups have significant differences that require identification to avoid OR, especially where some were named.--TheNautilus (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Establishing "mainstream" for clinical medicine, yes. I often find JAMA articles (and advertising) at variance with best medical science, e.g pushing the old LDL biomarker as the crucial CVD risk factor, when so many others/combinations already had much better correlations.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this article is about a form of clinical medicine, do you now accept that the AMA is a reliable source to which we can attribute mainstream medical criticism of OM? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AMA is sometimes a reliable source. See WP:COATRACK. This particular, lengthy tertiary work (~16 pp) which is itself built upon some reknown, less-than-reliable references that have WP:V problems, is not a reliable source for the WP sentence that it purports to support. This particular AMA article's non-specific blurb is being used as a soapbox for twisted text without RS and balance - e.g. " Claims of consensus" & the underlying sources factchecking is dubious. Work the text to achieve its corresponding RS or suggest a better reference.--TheNautilus (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Our personal opinions on the accuracy of this AMA council report are irrelevant to the discussion. Remember, Wikipedia depends on verifiability, not "truth". However, it seems to me that there is a clear consensus amongst the other editors here that this report is a reliable and notable source to which we can attribute criticism from a mainstream medical organisation of orthomolecular medicine. I'll therefore like to ask you to stop your attempts to remove this source from the lead. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a weakly related, POVish source (COI sources that seriously fail WP:V), where an NPOV, direct statement (Orthomed...) really is needed. I am going to ask you to try to collaborate objectively in good faith, and to quit belittling my intent[31] and efforts[32][33] to get an accurate, NPOV lede. Other editors have managed to parse my complex discussions of a complex subject littered with distorted, highly loaded statements from conflicted sources with more collaboration and better WP:V, NPOV, RS results.--TheNautilus (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to understand the concept of the policy here. Is the AMA "most definitely a reliable source" because they are big and famous? No. We should look to third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and I think that the Journal of the American Medical Association just sometimes meets that policy standard. Considering the criticisms that the AMA at times acts as a guild would violate our policy because in those cases they would fail the third-party threshold. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To check that I understand you correctly, SaltyBoatr, are you saying that the AMA is a notable mainstream medical organisation, but the official report from the AMA council is not a reliable source to which we can attribute the fact that the AMA is critical of this form of alternative medicine? The exact sentence this reference is used in says "..with the American Medical Association saying that the idea that most diseases can be prevented by nutritional interventions is a myth.[10]". What source do you think we should we use to support this statement? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that the AMA is acting in the role of a guild here, and making a statement about the policy practice of their members. Still, the statement appears reliable as a statement of the AMA about their medial standards, and does not extend to a greater 'truth'. Therefore I would word the passage "...the AMA has stated that the idea that nutritional intervention can prevent most diseases does not conform to standard medical practice." SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is only used as source of verifiable and directly attributed criticism from a notable medical organisation, the consensus that this report is a reliable source for this criticism now seems clear. As to the specific wording, if you look at the section on Diet/nutrition they use the word "myth" to describe this belief and make no direct comparison to standard medical practice, so I wouldn't want to change their meaning. This sentence was written to be a paraphrased quotation. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Plainly, per their policy statement, "The Council on Science and Public Health (CSAPH) reports on medical, public health, and scientific issues that affect the practice of medicine, the public health system, the quality of patient care, and the translation of scientific research into patient treatment.", I see that their declared purpose is to improve "the practice of medicine" in context of the "public health system" and their "patient care" and "patient treatment". In my opinion, I read their policy statement to mean they are speaking to their members about their standards of medical practice as opposed to making at statement about a greater 'truth'. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the purpose they might have had in making this specific criticism, do you agree that this report is a reliable source for supporting the statement that they did make this statement? Please note that the lead does not state that this idea is a "myth", just that the AMA has said that this idea is a "myth". i.e. as the NPOV policy says "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." Tim Vickers (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Their statement was made in a context of their policy, which is the AMA practice of medicine. A 'myth' in the context of the AMA practice of medicine, yes. But a general myth, no. To omit the context would be a distortion in violation of WP:SYN and WP:NPOV policy, in my opinion. Bear in mind that this also raises a question of global context, and that the American Medical Association is not speaking for global medicine, yet this is a global encyclopedia and a global article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What about "Such ideas are not accepted in mainstream clinical practice, with the American Medical Association saying that the idea that most diseases can be prevented by nutritional interventions is a myth.[10]"? The problem I've faced in finding other mainstream opinions on this form of alternative medicine is that it seems very little-known and most other prominent medical organisations do not discuss it at all. If you can find any other statements by such organisations on this topic I'd me most grateful. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This may be part of a workable solution. It would, however, require that we mention that different countries have medical societies devoted to orthomolecular medicine, some of them with websites. Such as Australia [34], Italy [35], Japan [36], Korea [37], the Netherlands [38], Switzerland [39], the United Kingdom [40], and Canada. The complete list is here [41]. This clearly is a despute between experts, each with their own medical societies, and not between physicians and lay quacks, and if the AMA is invoked, the dissidents must also be. --Alterrabe (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, giving equal weight to "The Institute for Optimum Nutrition" and the AMA would be a clear breach of our policies, please read WP:WEIGHT. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Quoting the AMA to reflect "mainstream" thinking is fine. But if care is not taken, quoting the American Medical Association as an authority, which it is perceived to be by many, without making it clear that physicians who disagree with the AMA's pronouncements have their own medical associations (and obviously have doctors who have taken the time to investigate the claims and stake their reputations to their belief that the AMA is mistaken) is misleading because it doesn't meet the policy of BALANCE.--Alterrabe (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

¹That pushes a highly presupposed POV, Tim - that the statement is right, dominating importance to get this AMA message out about (not) orthomed. Part of the problem is that *your* 1st paragraph lede miscasts this issue, where OMM generally attempts to correct deficiences (e.g. blood, target tissue level or other accessible sample, or presumed due to diagnosis & treated empirically) to an optimal zone or level, irrespective of clinically diagnosed disease and ameliorates symptoms of people with incurable disease.

²The tertiary source itself, the 11 year old "official" webpage of a trade group, uses bad references with *multiple known errors and serious distortions* (WP:V problems) from known extremist partisans (WP:RS, COI). The version of the statement you are pushing needs both better textual sourcing (e.g. "Orthomed...sux") and a more WP:RS source (page) because it miscasts the overall issues, does not directly address orthomed (despite some OR feeling it does), and gives UNDUE weight to partisan opinions that often have *no* experimental basis (mainstream science??? really?) relevant to orthomed, presented to the casual reader as if they were authoritative, including being the final word of the section.

³Further, I feel that this whole effort, initiated by you, represents the equivalent of pre-emptive forum shopping while misframing the question, "Is the AMA a reliable source" (definitely not always, despite the strong reflexive show of support here). ⁴A better route would instead have been exploring the *various* policy issues with the particular AMA webpage for that quote, finding a better reference, or acknowledge that such a glittering generality implies that AMA is suspicious of the (missing) accused and supports something like " A controversial field deprecated by some critics,[12] many medical commentators...".

⁵For my part, I am willing to provide the references (this weekend) to support "my" version of the 1st three sentences^{(1st paragraph)}, with its crucial distinctions for accurate rendering. The second paragraph currently remains COATRACK hijacked by spurious content from known partisans, not adequate WP:RS. ⁶I strongly suggest that you review proposed version (3c) for the end of the lede's second paragraph and try to collaborate from there.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not altogether sure what you mean by "represents the equivalent of pre-emptive forum shopping", this is the correct place to get wider community input on your repeated assertions that the AMA citation fails to meet the reliable sources guideline. In addition, your reference to the opinions of the editors who have chosen to comment as simply a "strong reflexive show of support" is rather rude and dismissive. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You've ignored my positive suggestions,^4,6 above,^dif as well as most points^1,2,5. My "reflexive"³ comment simply refers to the facts that they apparently are not looking at, such as its political nature[42], the AMA's "infallible" credibility for sale (eg. cigarette ads^{(1933-1953 ads after 1932 cancer link)} & the 1997 Sunbeam scandal(1997)^{contemporaneous to AMA reference}), or the specific AMA webpage's *known* bias, errors & falsehoods in the underlying references. One problem is that as long as this old AMA committee report, and its adversarial references that fail factchecking (WP:V), are treated as WP:RS asserting it "true" in the lead, the factual situation on WP:V is much like Hillary brazening out her Bosnian tale despite repeated challenges, expecting to be carried on PR capital and TV coverage despite the long documented facts until just blown away by the visuals, at last.

You have been overstating text with undue weight and dismissive to me^{[43],[44][45]} since beginning this, moving too fast to advertise for the more numerous "skeptics" in various ways rather than discuss fairly, collaboratively, or "scientifically" to develop accurate, encyclopedic text in the first place,³ heavily pushing a conclusion with a poor quality reference.--TheNautilus (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning margin and trying for clarity

May I suggest that saying "the AMA" is too broad a term to judge RS? Offhand, I can think of several levels of reliability/verifiability:

• Peer-reviewed research report in a major journal such as Journal of the AMA or Annals of Internal Medicine
• Review article or consensus committee report published in a major journal, with all members required to disclose any conflicts of interest
• Report on an external committee (e.g., NIH consensus, FDA advisory) with disclosures and appointment to the committee by scientific, not political reasons
• Single-author editorial in a journal
• Resolution of the Board of Trustees or other group not organized around scientific criteria
• Report of an external politically-appointed group

I would suggest that the first is reliable, and in all probability the second. The third and fourth are more questionable, although some journals are very careful about #4, such as the (non-AMA) New England Journal of Medicine, where an editorial is almost always supplementing original research reports in the same journal issue.

The last two are indeed questionable. Going back to the more reliable sources, there are research reports that are more or less strong in their methodology. For example, a randomized controlled trial, with double blinding, crossover, and a statistically significant population is pretty much the platinum standard. Meta-analyses that purely compare other original studies can be meaningful, but have to be read much more carefully.

A report that challenges the methodology of another study may indeed point out deficiencies in that study, but that doesn't mean that the position of the challenger is RS and V -- only that the challenge is RS and V.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This depends on what a source is used to support. This source is used to support a statement about current consensus within the medical community, in particular the position of the AMA as a prominent medical organisation. Other sources, such as the ones you mention, are better to support statements such as "vitamin supplementation may be harmful in smokers", but this is a statement of the opinion of a notable group, not a simple statement of fact. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Howard. One of the references in the 1997 AMA report, Saul Green's 1992 JAMA article has multiple factual errors that are not even repeated in the subsequent ca 1994 QW/NCAHF webpages attacking a physician scientist despite the QW/NCAHF webpages on the specific MD-PhD still being considered at least recklessly erroneous & misrepresentative by independent 3rd parties (e.g. prize winning investigative reporter with Stanford degrees ). Even where NCAHF dodged state registration renewal for several years after losing another lawsuit and not paying. Incorporating the highly flawed 1992 JAMA reference in 1997, after others' corrections for the public record in 1992-4, is a serious bias problem for the AMA report, and WP:V, WP:RS failure.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim, properly referenced discussion in the body is fine. Projecting obsolete, flawed work based on biased, some non-refereed, references, and unnamed attribution to orthomed, as authoritiative in the lede isn't. "Nutrition" is very broad & many sided with fault lines and divergences all over, imputing orthomed as the AMA referenced "nutrition" is OR.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim, very few things in medicine are unambiguous "fact". Quite a few people say they practice medicine in the hope of eventually getting it right.

If I were looking for sources on the validity of the orthomolecular approach, I'd be looking first for consensus conferences, probably at NIH or another nation's equivalent, rather than a professional organization as large as the AMA. More specialized professional associations are apt to be better focused. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources dealing with the medical and scientific consensus on the validity of orthomolecular/megavitamin therapy are in the previous sentence of the lead, this sentence and source deals with the level of acceptance of such ideas in mainstream clinical medicine. Since you seem interested in dealing with these wider issues, I'd encourage you to comment in the RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither Jukes' or Jarvis' articles really support the "Less temperate critics..." sentence's "mega-nega"(tive) sound bites on orthomolecular medicine in general and especially in the lede. We still need a *matching* RS source for that "less temperate..." sentence, but I think that single POVish sound bites are poor summaries here instead of summaries that describe a calm, reasoned, notable group's average temper that reflects current science, current medical opinions, not POVish medical opinion from 15-30 years ago that has been shown to be biased, and on the deficient side of right, or deplores & ignores plausible scientific and medical research as "faddism" ad nauseum.--TheNautilus (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nautilus, I am not sure if I am understanding you correctly, but I must say that the current wording of the article,

"Less temperate critics have even classed orthomolecular medicine as food faddism or quackery."

is inappropriate since the "less temperate" is a editorial rather than a factual description of the critical articles (unless we have sources who call these critics, less temperate). We should simply state what these sources are and what they said, and leave it to the reader to judge whether the statements are temperate, or not. So I would suggest that the sentence we reworded as:

"Some review articles on orthomolecular medicine even classed it as food faddism or quackery."

Abecedare (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Less temperate..." was Shoemaker's choice, I am for *summarizing* that there *are* critics without tilting the table by using some (partisan) individual's hottest slag that is prejudicial & very misleading. Quotes would be unbalanced in the tight real estate of the lede. That would replace this particular sentence that is not a direct quote about orthomed, with something closer to this [46] version's 2nd paragraph.--TheNautilus (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've more discussion noted on the slagging of the Orthomed Lede using old, unreliable "RS" personal attack references.--TheNautilus (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also Aaronson's Cancer Medicine Chapter 6 is asserted as a reliable source on Orthomolecular medicine, the paragraphs' major points are not correct. It is shown[47] through source text comparison and fact checking to clearly be a combination of error and misrepresentation, however conventional such counterfactual opinons may be.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I added this Table to summarize some relative weight criteria, and to link discussions, to the different references that concern the Lede.--TheNautilus (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

more recent (J)AMA reliability & credibility issues

Beyond the adversarial, non-scientific way JAMA has allowed its authors to treat not-so-pharmaceutically-oriented orthomolecular medicine or nutritionally-oriented doctors, let's look at more recent criticism of JAMA in the last 10 years.

New York Times Magazine, 1998 on JAMA, and others:
JAMA's (then) editor-in-chief on an example of JAMA's declining Journal standards in response to wide criticism on an article by Quackwatch and NCAHF authors: While admitting that five years ago the article "wouldn't have made it into peer review"

NYTM on partiality and conflict of interest: Medical journals represent scholarship, of course, but they are also businesses, and most are beholden to drug makers for their economic viability. N.E.J.M. and JAMA had display advertising revenues last year of $19 million and $21.4 million respectively, the vast bulk of it from drug companies. and ...JAMA has yet to shed completely its poor-cousin status, or its eagerness to please.

NYTM on authors' fears:...JAMA has also adopted this policy, albeit selectively, as have other journals, with the practical effect that the journals enjoy an exclusive franchise on the medical information they purvey. As a result, many scientists are loath to speak publicly of their work for fear of jeopardizing their chances of publication.

Certainly this article suggests a problem: Richard Smith (former editor of BMJ). "Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies." PLoS Med 2005;2: e138 The evidence is strong that companies are getting the results they want, and this is especially worrisome because between two-thirds and three-quarters of the trials published in the major journals—Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine—are funded by the industry

Also this 2005 BMJ editorial implies that JAMA seems to think that there have been previous problems with JAMA's own reliablity (and credibility) "Extra scrutiny for industry funded trials" editors at JAMA have recognised the potential for a problem—perhaps bias, fraud, or shoddy work—in submissions funded by industry. Interesting that BMJ with an even higher percentage of ad revenue thinks JAMA's late found reforms are a too "draconian solution".

"In Search of the Truth or Jerry Springer", Nursing Forum Vol 33, No 2, April-June, 1998 Controversial issues must be presented fairly, without animosity. When authors include bias of personal opinions or prejudiced language, editorial reviewers usually red-flag these indiscretions. In fact, this style of writing often raises questions of the research validity to reviewers. Should authors’ bias be overlooked, however, by reviewers, in-house JAMA editorial staff most certainly would remove inflammatory and biased words. When a journal as prestigious as JAMA publishes a research article ...Was the usual review process of JAMA bypassed, or were reviewers’ concerns ignored? Inflammatory language on the “Jerry Springer” show serves to ignite an audience-the show’s exclusive motive. What was JAMAs motive?

Of course, most recently in the 16 April 2008 NY Times: JAMA itself published one of the Vioxx studies that was cited in Dr. Ross’s article...in 2002, ...the journal’s editor..."I consider that being scammed" and "Journal editors also bear some of the responsibility for enabling companies to manipulate publications." Especially some predecessors.

Seems JAMA, and others, may have some serious house cleaning to catch up on.[48][49] We need to try carefully consider WP:V, NPOV, BALANCE, WEIGHT, FACTCHECKING and RS. Biases, of many flavors have been shown, where AMA and the journals (including JAMA) are still struggling with them today, much less the fallout from in their past.--TheNautilus (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)^{updated 24 April 2008}

What a source says

Is it possible to ask here for help about what a source says if one editor says it says green and the other says it says yellow? (If you see what I mean). I have tried 3PO but they can't help and the Psychology Project is pretty moribund. Fainites ^barley 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we might help. What's the source? --Haemo (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! One minute and I'll go and get it. Fainites ^barley 11:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Its Michael Rutter, "Clinical Implications of Attachment Concepts: Retrospect and Prospect" (1995). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 36: 549-571.

Question - do the "4 main changes that have taken place over the years" listed on p551 refer in the article to changes in attachment theory or differences between attachment theory and maternal deprivation, or is it hopelessly ambivalent and therefore useless as a source. (I realise it might seem like a small point but its one that has been repeatedly put in a number of articles, to the exclusion of other information, so help in resolving this point would be much appreciated.) Fainites ^barley 17:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely Rutter is assuming that attachment theory is the continuation under another name and with conceptual development of maternal deprivation theory? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? You've lost me slightly there. Do you mean maternal deprivation is the original concept and then attachment theory is the theoretical development? Fainites ^barley 19:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about the dodgy grammar. I'm saying that in Rutter's view attachment theory is the logical development of the maternal deprivation thesis. As a parallel: "natural history" underwent changes and in that process it morphed into "biology". Itsmejudith (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. Sorry to sound anal, but the specific 4 elements he describes as "4 main changes" - are they changes to attachment theory between 1969 and 1995, or changes from maternal deprivation to attachment theory (bearing in mind that there is no mention of monotropy, or imprinting in 'maternal deprivation'). Fainites ^barley 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for missing your post. They are changes to what he believes to be a single theoretical approach originally called "maternal deprivation" later called "attachment theory". That is my reading of the material. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you would like another opinion (not that the one already given is not correct, but just to give a bit more consensus to any emerging view), I'd be happy to give it the once over if a copy of the paper could be sent to me: I used to subscribe to that journal, but stopped and donated my copies to an overseas institution when I retired, and I worked as a research advisor and consultant within Child Psychiatry and Psychology for many years, which involved critically reading sources like that (I can provide some back up to show this if required). My email address works if that is convenient.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! Fainites ^barley 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Herald (Zimbabwe)

This newspaper is owned by the Zimbabwe government, how much should it be used in the Zimbabwean presidential election, 2008 article? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not exclusively. When quoted, it should be attributed, and the first time it is attributed, "state-owned" should be prefixed. This is the general procedure that used to be followed in China articles, though it has broken down in recent months as co-ordinated editing from within the PRC has emerged on some articles. --Relata refero (disp.)

Agree with Relata. Given the current government there may or may not be legitimate we should try for uninvolved and neutral sources. Lawrence § t/e 21:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Rundata

Resolved

Before I even embark on trying to get some rune stone articles up for FA or GA, I should perhaps verify whether the Rundata database qualifies as a reliable source per WP:RS. Having observed the GA discussion on Talk:Sif, I noticed that page numbers appear to be required by at least one evaluator. Rundata is a freely downloadable database in both English and Swedish where some of the world's leading runologists at Uppsala University have added information souch as provenance, runestone style, dating, etc. It is not possible to refer to Rundata by adding page numbers, but I think that the runic inscription IDs (e.g. U 123, DK 123 or N 123) provide sufficient verifiability in themselves. Any opinions?--Berig (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be OK, especially if there is not likely to be any controversy. Page numbers are not required for web sources or where the source does not carry page numbers. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, --Berig (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

TalkOrigins Archive

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

TalkOrigins Archive should nowhere be considered less reliable than a self-published source, with the authority of individual authors determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus on article talkpages, per suggestions by Stephan Schultz at 12:28, 6 April 2008, Filll at 14:12, 7 April 2008 among others.

---

Over at Darwin's Black Box I got into a bit of a disagreement over the use of a review cited to the above website. As the name implies, the website hosts the archives of talk.origins, the usenet newsgroup that discussed issues related to evolution and abiogenesis.

I am a supporter of the use of newsgroups by and large, especially for those areas, such as speculative fiction and anti-Scientology protest, where they were significant sources of information and major props of the community at through the 1990s. Consensus is consistently against me on this at WT:RS, and particularly when it comes to negative or contentious materials about living persons.

The item I removed was a 1996 posting at talk.origins and preserved at the archive, written by a then-grad student in biochemistry at Harvard who now works at a start-up. I was reverted with the argument that the archive is itself not usenet, and that it has received multiple website awards and some nice writeups elsewhere. I'm bringing it here for overview. Note the entire talkorigins.com website does not consist of an archive of usenet postings; I am not claiming that all that it holds would fail RS.

As I see it, the question is simple: are usenet postings by non-authorities, even if archived elsewhere, considered reliable? --Relata refero (disp.) 11:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero is misrepresenting this. The source is not "a 1996 posting at talk.origins", but a review published on TalkOrigins Archive, in which the author mentions that he originally posted some of the material on talk.origins. The author in question was at the time a Harvard scientist who had published in Nature (journal). Oh and the correct name of the book is "Darwin's Black Box" not "Darwin's Black Book". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm misrepresenting it? I never misrepresent. Right at the top it says "Last Update: December 11, 1996." Its the same article with responses to Behe's response added. It has received no additional revew, nor does it have an editorial board standing behind it. I clearly laid out the author's background above. That he was published should not come as a surprise, most grad students are at some point.

The point remains: this is a usenet post. Are we saying its acceptable now? Because I have a few more I'd like to add. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say WP:SPS applies. That is, a Usenet article is acceptable under the same conditions as a blog post or a self-published book: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The talk.origins archive is not really an archive of talk.origins, but rather a collection of material, some of which has been produced from the newsgroup. There is at least some editorial oversight, so I'd be willing to accept at least some of the material there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. I wouldn't agree to removing parts of the FAQ, for example. I too think WP:SPS applies here; I note that in the past WP:SPS has traditionally not applied to usenet postings because of the possibility of spoofing, but I don't think it is rational to extend that too far. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has taken place repeatedly here. The result has always been that this is a reliable source.--Filll (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So you say. Link it, and I'll review it, and point out how either I am wrong now or how the earlier participants are wrong then. Or have it again. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Relata refero has not established how much of this review was directly published as a usenet post. He is merely surmising.
   1. Even if the entire review was previously published on usenet, that does not taint its reliability if it is published elsewhere, and sourced to that secondary publication. The question is therefore is TalkOrigins Archive, not usenet, a WP:RS?
2. Relata refero has not established that Keith Robison was "a then-grad student in biochemistry at Harvard". Given that two years previously he'd been the lead-author of this article in the prestigious Nature (journal), he must have been an exceptionally precocious grad-student.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear God, all this for one out of what are thousands of negative reviews of a creationist book!

Right, one-by-one:

1. Even if the entire review was a usenet post, if it is "sourced to that secondary publication". Yes, except the secondary publication is partly a usenet archive! You might know this, its in the name.
2. Keith walked in the April '97 commencement at Harvard. This I know personally. Whether he got his PhD that year or earlier, I admit I don't know, I assumed. I can check right now, but I don't know if the information will be publicly linkable. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Keith Robison" of the "Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Harvard University" published in Nature (journal) in 1996, and a "K Robison" shows up as co-author with the co-authors of that paper in a number of other papers in the mid 1990s. It is therefore highly unlikely that this Keith Robison was a simple grad student at the time. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Per "except the secondary publication is partly a usenet archive", I refer you to Stephan Schulz's comment above: "The talk.origins archive is not really an archive of talk.origins, but rather a collection of material, some of which has been produced from the newsgroup. There is at least some editorial oversight, so I'd be willing to accept at least some of the material there." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, See also my response to Stephen, agreeing with him. You see, some of it is produced and has oversight and some of TalkOrigins archive is an archive of talk.origins. As I agree, nobody things we should remove the FAQ portion, which is mostly what is linked throughout WP. What we are trying to determine is what makes something that is essentially a usenet post written by a grad student into a source reliable enough for negative contentious information about living persons. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are we required to accept your personal assertions of anything ? Do you have a reliable source showing Keith walking in the April 1997 commencement ceremony?--Filll (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No you aren't, which is why I said I was checking, right?

And you can tone down the rhetoric, you know. Not everyone who has a momentary disagreement with you is a dotty POV-pusher. This is the kind of thing that turns well-disposed people into people who chime in with "Endorsed" at AN/I when blocks for incivility come up. (Not that I would do that.)

Since you don't take my personal recollection as a reliable source, which is deeply personally distressing to me: does this open for everyone? If it does, scroll to the bibliography and note the date of Robison's thesis in bioinformatics. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is such an unreliable source, why do academics typically use TalkOrigins as a source? Why is this very review quoted by academics? For example, look at this article in RNCSE [50].--Filll (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also cited in this article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology: [51]. Hmm...--Filll (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure Reports of the National Center for Science Education count, and the JTB uses it how? --Relata refero (disp.) 12:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise the JTB link was Thornhill-Ussery. I'm amused that you use that example, as that, IIRC is the only article in a peer-reviewed journal to take irreducible complexity seriously (if only to refute it) and was thus justifiably grumbled about for using unreliable sources... --Relata refero (disp.) 13:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even being discussed? This topic has been vetted at least a dozen tmes over nearly every single article involving evolution/creationism/ID. And every single time, without fail, the result has been that it is a reliable source. Why does this editor want to continue his disruption? Baegis (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Can we please have someone who is not a veteran of this particular set of battles weigh in, please? I have never participated in that area, and if I did there's no doubt that I come down on the anti-fringe side. All I ask is that the simple questions raised above are answered. If that is disruption, I'm afraid you have a surprisingly low bar. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The interesting argument here is the claim that a review, published in a respected source by a graduate with expertise in the subject, is unsuitable as reviews by "non-authorities" are deemed by Relata to be unacceptable. That seems a very shaky argument, and note well that this graduate with a much better publication record than Behe has revised the original review and not found it wanting, while others with expertise in both science and creationism have accepted it as a suitable review to be included in TOA, a source which demands much higher standards of science writing than, say, a newspaper reviewing a creationist book aimed at the general public. .. dave souza, talk 21:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A very valid point, but could you respond to the quote from the TOA FAQ about its own "review" process below? Note also the fact that this reviewer is several hundred times more reliable than the person he is reviewing isn't really relevant....

--Relata refero (disp.) 13:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A "usenet post"?

Relata refero repeatedly, and to my mind fallaciously, refers to the Robison review as "a usenet post". As to the specifics of this accusation, can Relata refero demonstrate that the review in its entirety was posted on usenet? If not, then it is not "a usenet post", but merely material that is in part based upon material previously submitted to usenet by the author (of both the original posts and the review). I see no reason under WP:RS why this (purely historical footnote) should be problematical. Per Relata refero's other caveats, it would seem to be highly unlikely that this material has been "spoofed" and it is in fact part of the FAQ (which Relata refero has explicitly assented to), specifically the FAQ on Behe.

As far as Robison being a grad student at the time, I present his publication record at that time as evidence that he is qualified to review Behe:

• Cloning and sequencing of thiol-specific antioxidant from mammalian brain: alkyl hydroperoxide... -- HZ Chae, K Robison, LB Poole, G Church, G Storz, … - Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. US A, 1994
• Large scale bacterial gene discovery by similarity search -- K Robison, W Gilbert, GM Church - Nature Genetics, 1994 - nature.com
• Discovery of Amphibian Tc1-like Transposon Families -- WL Lam, P Seo, K Robison, S Virk, W Gilbert - Journal of Molecular Biology, 1996
• Novel Gq alpha isoform is a candidate transducer of rhodopsin signaling in a Drosophila testes -- C Alvarez, K Robison, W Gilbert - Proc Natl Acad Sci US A, 1996

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So you accept he was a grad student at the time of the posting. Several grad students have publications. We do not necessarily believe that such grad students are authorities in their field yet.

Here is the original posting. I think we can see for ourselves that it is practically identical, particularly the section quoted in the article, with a couple of interpolations that are from later postings in which he replied to Behe's criticisms. So I don't think that that dog hunts.

I agree about the unlikeliness of spoofing, and said it did not apply here.

What remains is a usenet posting, substantially unaltered, hosted on a web archive of such postings that also hosts material subject to editorial control, (being used, I may add, not to as a source for useful scientific information about flaws, but as a source for a relatively petty and unencyclopaedic one-liner about a living person, of the sort that almost certainly wouldn't be considered necessary or appropriate in an academic forum, where the criticism would be more direct and less flippant.) I repeat, I'd like some eyes on whether that's considered appropriate now. As I said, I'd be happy if it was, as I have been arguing for certain reputable, moderated usenet groups as a source for some time.--Relata refero (disp.) 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nobody has accepted that Robison was a grad student, although I think it quite likely from the information presented. As you point out, "we do not necessarily believe that such grad students are authorities", but then that is not what is required by WP:SPS. What is required is that they are experts. There can be little doubt that someone with 4 publications in high-class scientific journals is an expert. Also, the fact that something was posted to Usenet has no bearing whatsoever on its status as a reliable source. I can post a couple of papers tonight - does that magically make them unreliable? Of course something only available via Usenet may have problems, but that is not the case here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the attached pdf and the date of his thesis.

Different fields have different standards for publication. There are undergraduates in computer science who have more than four publications. Which is not relevant to my main point.

This particular posting is available only on usenet and, in a minimally modified form, on a usenet archive. Explain to me how that is the same as me posting a peer-reviewed article on usenet tonight. Relata refero (disp.) 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the attached pdf and the date of his thesis.

Why? Doctoral degrees do not confer expert status or knowledge, although they hopefully demonstrate it.

It may well be possible that in computer science there are undergrads with four publications. In my experience, this is exceedingly rare however. And if these four publications are real research papers in high-class journals, I'd gladly grant expert status to the student in question. Robison was the lead author of a paper in Nature, not of some low-key workshop paper.

"This particular posting" is available from talkorigins.org, and, since it has been modified after its original posting, is not a simple archived Usenet post. For one, it is verifiably attributable to the author. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I find this entire episode bewildering. We can of course mount a very large defense of this review. The review is cited repeatedly in assorted academic sources, and by notable experts in the field. We can extinguish these incredibly silly attempts at disruption quite handily; that is very clear. For example:

• It is basically irrelevant if the reviewer was a postdoc, or a graduate student, or faculty or on the research staff when he wrote the review. This review was cited over and over by other notable and reputable sources, so it cannot be of so little value or so easily dismissed.
• It is exceedingly clear that TalkOrigins is a reliable source; it has been cited in academic journals repeatedly and is used in academic coursework.
• Relata refero has yet to produce clear and convincing evidence from policy that (1) we are violating BLP by citing this review and (2) that this review itself constitutes some BLP violation or attack on Behe personally.
• His attempts to besmirch and dismiss the RNCSE and Journal of Theoretical Biology border on the comical.
• His assorted sniping at other editors in connection with this campaign of his is completely puzzling; what is it to him whether we cite one out of thousands of negative reviews of this long discredited work of Behe or not? --Filll (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please, let us by all means examine the occasions when it was cited, and how it was cited, and what parts of it were cited. Note I have done so with some examples above and found it wanting.
• The discussion need not extend to all of talk.origins archive, merely the section that is the archive of talk.origins.
• The BLP problem is irrelevant to this board, it is only the reason I brought it up. In due course, if this is ruled as unnecessary, I will point out how BLP is involved. I have in fact already done so elsewhere, but weary of repeating myself.
• The RNSCE is not an academic forum, but the newsletter of an advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education, which I have no desire to besmirch, as I pay $30 annually for membership. (I'm certain of this, as I'm doing my taxes right now.)
• The JTB article is an exception to the rule, as I mention above. I notice this point is avoided.
• What sniping? I was bitten by article owners. It isn't the first time. I am aware that civility is at a premium in this area, and I think that all concerned would be wise to start paying more attention to it. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to continue down this path if you want to find out what biting is.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

!!?! --Relata refero (disp.) 14:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at Talk Origins past history

Let's examine the use of Talk Origins Archive (TOA), to better understand this matter.

It is used as an EL and a ref (3x) on the ID article, which by the way, is a featured article.

It is used as an EL and otherwise talked about on the Creationism Article. It is even featured as an important organization in that same article.

It is used as a ref (2x) on the Evolution article, which is a featured article.

It is used as a ref (2x) on the Evolution as theory and fact article.

It is used as an EL and a ref (2x) on the Introduction to Evolution article, which is also an FA.

It is used as an EL on the Theistic evolution article.

It is used as an EL and ref (4x) on the Flood Geology article.

It is a ref or cited work (10x) for the Creation-evolution controversy article.

It is a used as an EL and a ref (7x) on the Creation Science article.

Now onto BLP's. It is used as a ref (4x) on the Kent Hovind article. Kent Hovind is a noted YEC.

It is used as a ref (4x) on the Walt Brown article. He is also a noted YEC.

It is used as a ref (5x) on the Duane Gish article. Also a noted YEC. The use of TOA is discussed here with the conclusion being that, on the whole, it is a vital resource.

It is used as a ref (2x) and an EL for the Ken Ham article. Ham is the founder of Answers in Genesis, a YEC apologist group.

It is used as a ref (3x) on the Henry M. Morris article. While no longer living, Morris was the founder of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) and generally acknowledged as the father of creation science.

So, as you can plainly see, TOA has been used many, many times over as both a reference and an external link on a wide variety of articles relating to evolution, creationism, and ID. It has been used for both Featured Articles and BLP's, with no problems. This is an open and shut case here, folks. Baegis (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It has been used on Wikipedia. So has MySpace. Please make arguments as to how it is reliable. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's used on 3 featured articles! 3! Each of those articles passed a strenious review in order to qualify for their status. Should we just not use any sources that do not support your personal views, Relata? It's reliability is reinforced by it's use on those articles. My God, I thought you had been around here for a bit and actually understood how WP operates. Baegis (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly been around long enough to know how FAC operates. If you're interested, see my comments on the weak sourcing that is let by at FAC that focused strenuously on MoS issues at an ongoing featured article removal candidate, Golden Plates. In fact, I was whining about this very same point earlier today at User talk:Risker.

I note also that I make the point above that any objections cannot apply to the whole website. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please also be open to the possibility that when some people are concerned about a source, they are concerned about a source regardless of my POV on the underlying issue. Above I have made the most open declaration of POV on any subject I ever have, and it stands in somewhat direct opposition to your assumption .... --Relata refero (disp.) 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

TOA has numerous rewards and accolades. Looking at our article on TOA (which I helped write) TalkOrigins Archive " In August 2002 Scientific American recognized Talkorigins.org for its "detailed discussions (some of which may be too sophisticated for casual readers) and bibliographies relating to virtually any objection to evolution that creationists might raise."" and we have other awards and recognition listed as well. The Archive is edited and reviewed by scientists with expertise in the relevant areas. It is easily a reliable source. Enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've linked that page in my first post a little earlier. I merely point out, repeatedly, something that has not yet been responded to: What parts of the archive are edited? Who are the reviewers?

What does Talk:archive itself say on the subject? While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves. While anyone can decide to ignore our materials, the Archive has been recognized as a valuable online resource by many well-known groups, magazines, and individuals. Further, a number of college courses have chosen to use materials from the Archive in their coursework. See: Awards, Honors, and Favorable Notices for The Talk.Origins Archive.

Nowhere do they make the claim that there is any formal review other than the cycles of commentary available on usenet; in fact they specifically deny there is any such review. Why should we not consider this a self-published source?

Note: this does not mean that it cannot be used extensively in our best articles if the individual cited is himself or herself considered an expert. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well let's see. Either a PhD candidate from Harvard, or a PhD at Harvard, either way someone who is a Harvard employee. Someone who has published extensively in the best journals. Someone who writes a review that is cited repeatedly in peer-reviewed journals. And the question is, even if this review is viewed as a WP:SPS, can we use it as a WP:RS? I think the answer is pretty obvious, except for someone who is engaged in WP:DE and WP:TE.--Filll (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the "cited repeatedly in peer-reviewed journals", which is not correct as far as I can see, I don't think there's much incorrect in what you say. This is pretty much exactly how usenet posts conclusively connected to a RWI are to be used: as a self-published source, usable based on a determination of the eminence or authority of the author. Please read WP:V and WP:RS for how self-published sources are subject to certain restrictions in their use, one of which was what set this unnecessatily overblown dramafest off in the first place.

(As a participant, under a previous account, in the framing of WP:DE, I'm glad you find it useful, though I think you need to brush up on its applicability.) --Relata refero (disp.) 14:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement that "materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review" in no way detracts from the usage in the article. Reviews of popular books are not normally subjected to formal peer-review. Darwin's Black Box#Reception in the scientific community explicitly states that this is "A review on the pro-evolution website talk.origins", and as such gives fair representation of the views of that section of the scientific community at the time of publication of the book. Accepting points made above, the author was then a graduate, eminently well qualified to discuss the subject. The review has subsequently been published in TalkOrigins Archive, which has widespread recognition as a reliable source. The review is not represented as the ultimate truth on the matter or as the work of a famous scientist, but as a noteworthy review which has since been published by a respected source at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html. As far as I'm concerned, it's a reliable source for the usage in question. Note also that it's a book review, not "negative or contentious materials about living persons". The statements from the review included in the article have been well supported at every level up to the relevant federal court case, and it appears tendentious in the extreme to claim that WP:BLP prohibits reference to this book review. . . 16:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree in that the review of a popular science book can be self-published by a notable authority. I still don't see why a grad student who subsequently left academia is a notable authority, but that is not worth an argument.

If we agree that this is a self-published work from a source that can be considered an authority based on editorial judgment, we can largely declare this resolved; that is largely the position I have advocated for, in any case.

About whether this is an issue about living persons, please note that in my opinion the "quote" from the review says Behe is ignorant, and that Behe is meddling beyond his understanding. This is true. It is also a statement about Behe, rather than his arguments, and is certainly contentious - Behe himself contends it. The question of whether I am mistaken is something that can be settled peacefully on the relevant talkpage, but I'd prefer that you stopped calling me tendentious now. You haven't the slightest justification for that. I've made two mainspace edits in this subject, and have participated in discussion about it only for the past twenty-four hours in my five years on wikipedia, much of which has been spent trying to keep fringe theories and political advocacy off the project.

Note to all disinterested editors: Don't try touching an evolution/creationism article without a giant sign across your talkpage insisting that you aren't a creationist. The most charitable explanation is that they don't want well-meaning outsiders blundering around there. Keep out, people, if you don't want this sort of sustained attack. How we expect to attract experts is beyond me. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Way to get that last personal attack as you resign in defeat. That is truly a professional way to leave this issue. Good riddance, though. I doubt we will miss you on any of those articles. Baegis (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Point out the personal attack I made and I'll redact it instantly, OK? This is truly extraordinary. Relata refero (disp.) 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How about "Note to all disinterested editors: Don't try touching an evolution/creationism article without a giant sign across your talkpage insisting that you aren't a creationist. The most charitable explanation is that they don't want well-meaning outsiders blundering around there. Keep out, people, if you don't want this sort of sustained attack. How we expect to attract experts is beyond me". Not only are you implying that the editors of these articles are some sort of obsessive group of individuals who refuse to let others edit these articles (they aren't) but that we also attack other editors until they run out of the room! And then you go off and blame us, the ones who have led the recent charge to get the problem of editing by experts fixed, as the reason that no experts will edit? My God, you have some brass ones! Baegis (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, which part of it is an attack precisely? I was waiting to refactor it. You perhaps you might want to take this to my talkpage. Though how you intend to argue that the extraordinary level of drama, accusations of bias, tendentiousness, misrepresentation and disruption, complaints spread across several noticeboards and talkpages, accusations of lack of professionalism - whatever that means on an amateur project! - predictions that I am yet to "find out what biting is", that my behavior "is violating all precepts of the new politically correct requirements which have been placed on Wikipedia", that I have made "vague threats and allusions", I have demonstrated "an abusive set of behaviors and disruption", that an edit summary of "OMG DRAMAZ" requires "administrative sanctions", that "over-react much?" is a "snide, sarcastic personal attack" that requires -you guessed it - "administrative sanctions" and a final "good riddance" after only two mainspace edits and in twenty-four hours is not sufficient evidence for my good-faith and remarkably polite conclusion that you would prefer not to have new editors blundering around, I can't imagine. What else do you expect a reasonable human being to think?

I, and pretty much everyone else, have made the point fairly often that an unwelcoming atmosphere of this sort turns away new editors, or slightly experienced ones looking to make fresh edits in areas where they might have some expertise. It runs directly contrary to what we are supposed to be as a project. Whatever "charge" you think you're leading will not solve the problem of minimal expertise all over this project if it doesn't involve changing this behaviour.

And believe me, if I had big brass balls I would have taken this evidence of a systemic problem to WP:DRAMA or WP:WQA or something similar. Instead, because all of you have effectively made me question what the fuck I'm doing here giving myself ulcers instead of preparing to teach the people who actually pay for my internet, I'd say big brass balls is exactly what I lack.

I'm tagging this entire sorry heap of pointlessness as "resolved", which it was the moment that Stephan and I posted somewhere towards the top of the first sub-section. If you want to continue this, take it to my talkpage. Its inappropriate anywhere, but particularly on this noticeboard. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

reliability check por favor

An editor has used http://www.metalstorm.ee for sourcing, asking whether it's reliable or not. It's not my cuppa, and I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, can somebody please vet? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you give us a bit more information... exactly what are they trying to source with the site? Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The genre of an album; "Caught in a Mosh" from the album Among the Living. I've included the genre (which the site lists under "style") for now, but with a comment that I'm having WP:RSN evaluate the source. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Anybody? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Book, Private Guns, Public Health by David Hemenway.

In this diff[52] I have been question whether the book Hemenway, David (2006). Private Guns, Public Health.[53]Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press, pgs 197-207. ISBN 0-472-03162-7. Per the edit summary: "source unreliable. please stop.. ". Does this book meet reliable sourcing policy standards for a cite as to the tense "has" versus "had" in the Gun politics in the United States? Third opinions welcome on this difference of opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Published by a university press, the book most certainly meets the common sourcing standards. The problem seems to arise from the use of the book, rather than a problem with the source itself. Claims regarding current gun politics, such as what you are citing, should probably be placed under the section "Early 21st century gun politics". Besides the topical divisions, it's also most likely inappropriate to use one source to alter the cited claims of another. Vassyana (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Monthly Review reliable source on facts or opinions?

• Note I beefed up the Monthly Review article recently myself including 3rd party info and refs and removed POV wording, to make it clear it is an independent (not organizationally tied) Marxist socialist publication with notable contributors.
• User:Zeq wrote: My expsriance froma personal angle: CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts. Is this generally a distinction one can draw? i.e. OK to cite more political publications like these if just on opinions?
• Would this be considered an "extremist" publication? Ie more so than Frontpage.org or Antiwar.com or Political Research Assoc?

Carol Moore 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Nothing about this publication says "extremist". It takes a strong political stance and if it is cited great care should be taken to ensure balance. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Marxist views are extreme, and this is no exception. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you substantiate that? Passe perhaps, but Marxism considered "extreme" in this day and age? Try to tell a political economist, a conflict sociologist or a literary critic that Marxism is "extreme." Marxist isn't just some synonym for being a "pinko" you know, Marxist thought has made a pretty substantial impact across the social sciences and the humanities.PelleSmith (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to use a Monthly Review quote in an article where Jayjg doesn't want me to use it, claiming this publication is "extremist". While there certainly are extremist pubs this one has published over 60 odd years a bunch of academics and high profile writers. FYI. Carol Moore 02:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think its up to Jayjg to do more than just resort to "Marxism is defacto extremist," because that's not necessarily true. Like all such statements this one needs to be substantiated. From what I can see this publication is far from "extreme."PelleSmith (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It has quite high academic standards, and an impressive legacy of influential authors who have written there over the years. People like Andre Gunder Frank, Immanuel Wallerstein, Harry Braverman, etc. have made significant impacts on their fields.BernardL (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Monthly Review is an academic journal. The fact that its contributors employ Marxian analytical methods, many of them quite notable thinkers on the left within their field of specialty, is not relevant to its high academic standards. Those who call it "extremist" simply reveal their own political bias, and quite frankly, ignorance on the influence of Marxist thought within the mainstream in this day and age. In many fields its like saying someone who accepts and applies "Einstien's"theories, an extremist. Historical materialism, in its non-crude form, is quite accepted among the mainstream. Nothing extreme about that. Its political views are well within the mainstream of the anti-capitalist left, and come in various schools of thought. In my view those who call this publication "extremists" are in fact the real extremistGiovanni33 (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Einstein's theories weren't political (or politically motivated). That's a particularly weak analogy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Monthly Review may be small-m marxist, but that doesn't mean that it is "extremist" in terms of academic work. Just another way in which dastardly pinkos continue to close the American mind. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, how would you characterize Marxism? Centrist? Right-wing? Left-wing? Extreme right? Extreme left? I'm voting for extreme left. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and familiarize yourself with Marxism. Maybe then you'll understand that it is not only some hyperbolic vestige of the extreme political left but also a highly influential orientation in the social sciences and humanities. Marx's theories were not all simply "political" either in the fashion that you are utilizing the term, and this is exactly the problem with your claims. Bring something substantive to the table here to back the idea that Marxism is de facto extremist. It would be much more appreciated than these empty statements.PelleSmith (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL. Maybe then you'll understand that is the purpose of this board is to discuss sources, not editors. Now, where on the political spectrum would you place Marxism? Towards the center, or towards the extreme ends? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you call it when someone comes back to a discussion over and over repeating the same empty point without substantiating it? What do you make of the various answers you've gotten above about the very mainstream nature of fundamental Marxist theories within academia? Coming back as if this hasn't been clarified already, and/or as if you're not capable of reading up on the breadth of Marxism outside of the narrow idea of Marxism as a political orientation synonymous with communism, is rather astounding. We're all big kids here, there is no need to invoke WP:CIVIL just because someone isn't dressing their retorts up with sugar and spice and everything nice. The basic point remains a valid one.PelleSmith (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

PelleSmith, the fact that you claim someone else is making "empty points" doesn't make it so, and the "various answers" and "clarifications" I have gotten have been, in fact, unsourced claims, nothing more. It's ironic, and rather amusing, that you accuse me of the exact things you are doing yourself, but in any event, Marxist publications have a specific and strong polemical orientation, and Marxism is on the far left of the political spectrum - a point which you rather tellingly fail to acknowledge or address. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing extremist about many Marxist contributions. Please see "Ideology," "Historical materialism," and "Political economy" for a start. Also take a look at his foundational work in furthering the concept of socio-economic class. When you are done feel free to take a look at the various different Marxist schools of thought. You may wish to pay particular attention to some rather seminal thinkers listed here like Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse, Jean-Paul Sartre and Louis Althusser. You will also see mention of movements like the Frankfurt school's "critical theory." But the list of social and cultural theorists whose theorizing has been significantly influenced to varying degrees by strands of Marxism is much longer and includes names like Jürgen Habermas, Raymond Williams, and Pierre Bourdieu. The point, Jay, is that seminal ideas from Marxist philosophy are now entirely mainstream in academic disciplines that deal with social and cultural theory (feel free to look up Karl Marx in any current general sociology text book), not to mention even broader cultural arenas (where no one denies the workings of economy in determining class and distributing power--even if the scale of determination is contested). It may be important to note a basic distinction made in the entry Marxism, between "Marxist school of thought," and "Marxism as a political practice. You could have discovered most if not all of this had you simply gone to Marxism to do some good faith reading, as I suggested. Within the political cultures of the United States and Europe, Marxism, as a political practice may be considered as existing on the extreme left end of the political spectrum. Americans equating any Marxist political practice with Communism, will clearly call Marxism "extremist," again as a political practice they know only through our own anti-communist ideologues. These people have no grasp of differentiating between Soviet Era "communism" and various contemporary strands of political Marxism. In Europe, especially on the continent in former "Western" Europe, this isn't even true. While Marxism may occupy the left end of the spectrum it certainly is not considered "extremist," even as a political practice. As a school of thought, influential throughout the academy and to varying degrees other social institutions and cultural spheres, Marxism is not remotely extremist. As a political practice it is at best, in certain contexts, "extreme." Either way, the Monthly review is an academic journal, and it includes writers from across the spectrum of Marxist thought. If the contributers are respected academics in their fields, then their factual statements should be considered just as reliable as any other. By the way, other than the insinuation we may infer about your equation of all Marxist thought with the anti-communist tunnel vision of Western citizens (to varying degrees) you have yet to produce any semblance of a substantiation that Marxism is de facto "extremist." PelleSmith (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you imagine I need to read about these things, as if you are somehow vastly more informed on the subject, and that my reading them will somehow miraculously shift Marxism to the political center. The popularity of Marxism among academics, and your continued protestations regarding Marxism and Marxist thought are all very well, but it hardly changes where one finds Marxist thought on the political spectrum. And, rest assured, it is not in the center - nowhere close, in fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Marxism is not "popular" amongst academics as a political affiliation (this isn't the 1960's). On the other hand aspects of Marxist thought have been highly influential in the development of social theory, which is what everyone here has been telling you. I very naively imagined that you would want to get up to speed about these things instead of wasting everyone's time with opinionated and uniformed commentary. Please feel free to read all the other commentary here concerning you extremism claim.PelleSmith (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Marxism, and Marxist thought, is in Western academe, vastly more popular than it is among the general population. And if you are "naively imagining" anything, it is that I need to "get up to speed" on these matters. I do note, however, the irony of you claiming I am "wasting everyone's time with opinionated and uniformed commentary"; a neat bit of psychological projection. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, if you're turning into one of those people whining about how all academics are biased and don't reflect the sturdy, commonsensical view of the American population, and so reliable sources that don't reflect that view are POV, you need to take a step back, perhaps. NPOV doesn't care what the "general population" thinks. It cares what the best sources think, or 80% of our evolution article would be about how its a vicious atheist hoax. You really need to stop beating this horse, which died some time ago. Monthly Review is fine. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tut tut, RR, we've talked before about straw man arguments and civility. This board is about sources, not about me. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes we did, Jay, and it breaks my heart to see you learnt nothing at that time. To recap: if you believe that all academia is biased, blah, blah, blah, this entire discussion ceases to be about sources and becomes about you, as you're the one with the problem, not the sources. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RR, I'm quite serious. I've made no such claim, your straw man arguments are not mine, and discuss sources, not editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Marxism, and Marxist thought, is in Western academe, vastly more popular than it is among the general population." What is that, precisely? Again. NPOV does not reflect what the "general population" feels. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What is that? A statement of obvious fact, I would think. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother, Relata. Jay has always had an idiosyncratic notion of what a strawman argument is; it includes any paraphrase, extrapolation, etc. of his stated position, no matter how warranted, no matter how responsibly and transparently performed, if it's part of an attempt to discredit that position. In other words, just about any attempt to argue with Jay will result in what he calls a "strawman argument," insofar as it will involve, as all intelligent disputes do, reframing your opponent's position in order to reveal its weakness. If Jay were a senator introducing a "tax relief" bill that dramatically reduced government revenue, and you criticized it as "a proposal for increased deficit spending precisely when we can least afford it," Senator Jayjg would call that a strawman argument, because he didn't say "deficit spending," he said "tax relief." Down that rabbit-hole Humpty Dumpty awaits you.--G-Dett (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How astonishing, G-Dett. You've [[WP:STALK|followed me to a third page. Do you imagine that by claiming I abuse the concept of a straw man argument, you have suddenly become "immunized", and can now present them on my behalf with impunity? Rest assured that is not the case. Jayjg ^{<fontcolor="DarkGreen">(talk)} 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you've accused someone of breaching policy again instead of addressing any of their points. Astonishing.PelleSmith (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Jay, marxist theories are central to much mainstream academic work. There is absolutely no way that well-known, academic, peer-reviewed journals that are known to have marxist theories in their makeup can be ruled out as unreliable; it is a misreading of "extremist". Relata refero (disp.) 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that most editors agree with me. I'm a libertarian but I'm still able to differentiate between mainstream/RS and extremist marxist pubs, just like I can do with libertarian ones.

Second question - also does any author published in the publication automatically become a RS? Or more specifically: Allen Ruff described in the article in question as: "historian and long-time Madison political activist, author, staff member at Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative and radio voice on WORT (89.9fm, Madison), is a founding member of US Out Now, the Madison Area Peace Coalition, Jews for Equal Justice, and a member of Solidarity." Or do I have to research and find out how many academic degrees he has. Thanks. Carol Moore 13:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

What the answers above point to is that the publication should not be considered extremist, and that it can be a reliable source for facts. This does not mean that anything included therein is a reliable source for any and/or all types of facts. I don't think the author you mention has any degrees of note, and by the looks of his myspace page he's more of a novelist than a "historian." That's not to say he's incapable of writing accurate historical essays or books. Could you tell us what piece from the Monthly Review you want to use, and what content you are using it to cite. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done some looking around and I suspect this is the link in question, which is a book review. It is being used for the following statement: What sets Petras' work apart, first off, is his dropping or blurring of distinctions. The terms "Jewish lobby," "Israel lobby," and "Zionist lobby" are used interchangeably. Others, at least on the Left, have worked to mark the important distinction between Jews, as Jews, regardless of their differing ideologies, and those supporters of Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike, who actively promote and support Israel's racist and expansionist practices. Petras facilely drops that distinction in the article titled "Jewish lobby". I don't see any prima facie reason why he isn't quotable here. I note that Chip Berlet has quoted Ruff in the past on the subject of antisemitism in extremist political movements, so I would think he seems to be a reliable source. Wikipedia certainly does trust Berlet extensively on the subject. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that quote of Ruff from Berlet was removed, on the basis that he was "non-notable" or "unknown" or something. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? That's pretty disappointing Jay, I'd expect more than that, and for the record, as concerns that edit, there is nothing in this thread that suggests Emmanuel Branch is notable.PelleSmith (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappointing? How so? As for that edit, Branch doesn't have to be, as long as Ruff is. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappointing because it shows beyond a reasonable doubt that your concern is not with the reliability of a particular source but only with pushing a POV, however you can slice it. That is disappointing in general, but even more so here, on the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard."PelleSmith (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, no, that's utter nonsense, however you slice it. The fact that someone decided to remove Ruff from that article a week and a half after this discussion started was an unexpected bit of luck really: I didn't even realize he had been cited there, but it certainly showed beyond a reasonable doubt that people here (including you) want to have it both ways, so they can push whatever POV they prefer. Ruff is reliable and notable when it suits them (and you), and not so when it suits them. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WTF? "People here"? Do you mind being a little more direct instead of insinuating things in this unpleasant, indirect manner? Who, for example, is arguing in favour of retaining Ruff in one article and removing him from another similar one, apparently on the basis of POV? It sounds like its just you. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? When does it "suit me" Jay? Please do enlighten. My problem was with your claim that a particular publication was de facto extremist because it is Marxist, and not with its particular contributors. You have not raised any concerns with my other later commentary, about the actual use of Ruff in Carol's case (see below). You may infer what so ever you wish about my hypothetical opinion regarding the validity of using Ruff in other instances when it suits you, but the fact remains that I have yet to offer such an opinion. So let the record be unequivocally straight that I do not in fact wish to use Ruff for anything, nor have I offered any guidance on using him for anything with the exception of what you see below. Mindboggling I know, but I think if you pay attention it might turn out pretty clear.PelleSmith (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I pay attention to everything worth paying attention to. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking down quote in question - amusing response. If more specific is better here, will do :-) Carol Moore 19:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Yeah I can't see a reliability issue here at all. Correct me if I'm wrong but Ruff's review problematizes the way that Petras actually uses the term in his book. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the we are having this discussion since the publication in question is quite clearly not extremist, but how was this ever an issue of RS?PelleSmith (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The complaining editor wrote: "Ruff's claim to be a historian rests on his book about "Charles H. Kerr & Company", a socialist publisher, not about the topic of this article." Carol Moore 12:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

For the purposes at hand in the entry I don't think Ruff's status as a "historian" actually matters, and I don't think it relates to reliability either. From a notable Marxist publication, that publishes notable Marxist academics and intellectuals, we have the critical review of a book in which the critic takes issue with (as part of a larger argument) the author's use of the term at hand, "Jewish lobby." The fact that the critic is an essayist published by this journal is absolutely fine for this purpose unless I'm missing something. I could see Ruff's status (or alleged status) as a historian, and his known area of expertise, brought up in regards to reliability only if he is being cited on factual historical claims. This is simply a critical opinion published in a journal.PelleSmith (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pelle is correct, both about this final point and about the distinction between Marxist scholarship and Marxist politics, a distinction the complaining editor – who would presumably argue that Eric Hobsbawm is not a reliable source – is ignorant of.--G-Dett (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, it's really best not to presume about "the complaining editor", or even discuss him, per WP:CIVIL. Discuss the sources. Now, regarding your argument, I wasn't aware that Marxist scholarship and Marxist politics were unrelated concepts. Presumably Marxist politics are based on the political theories of Karl Marx. On what, then, is Marxist scholarship based; the political theories of Groucho Marx? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Harpo would have been the best Marx of all to respond to this nonsense, as no words are needed – just a toy horn blown in your face and a fish dropped down your trousers. But you are there and I am here, alas, so words will have to do. Political Marxism holds that workers will come to control the means of production and supports revolutionary movements directed toward that end. Marxist scholarship is a different thing. It offers rigorously materialist accounts of history, literature, art, etc., is skeptical of grand meta-narratives (often, oddly enough, including the meta-narratives of Karl Marx), and emphasizes the role of systems and institutions over that of great leaders, artists, geniuses, etc. Both have genealogies tracing back to Karl Marx, yes, but those genealogies are as separate as yours and the orangutan's are to the ancestor you have in common. No offense.

Example: When commentators describe HBO's hit show The Wire as Marxist or "neo-Marxist" [54] [55]they don't mean the show or its producers are subtly advocating a workers' revolution, or even garden-variety wealth distribution, or indeed any kind of political program at all. They don't even mean it's liberal. They mean this:

The Wire is a Marxist’s dream of a series, actually, precisely because of the emphasis on exteriority you identify here: it’s not that the characters don’t have psychologies, but that that’s not what Simon is currently interested in. He wants us to pay attention to the systems of the city, and so he shifts attention away from the individual psychologies of the people involved...

Sometimes one kind of Marxist is also the other, sometimes not. Much as a psychoanalytic literary critic should not be confused with an advocate of Freudian psychotherapy and leather-couch talking cures. Nor should it be assumed that a Nietzschean philosopher (say, Richard Rorty) believes in a race of supermen to whom ordinary morality does not apply (he certainly does not). Ideas evolve, Jay. Sometimes they evolve dramatically, and yet are still known by the name of the "ancestor" whose intervention made them possible. The process is known as dialectic. It's the main intellectual engine of something called the Western tradition. You might want to look into some of these things before posting your next scandalized omigod it's Marxism! Call the cops type of response.--G-Dett (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I've already written and then erased three responses to the above statement, each as dry as possible, and decided that all of them, while covered and protected by WP:SPADE, would also be extremely hurtful to you. The simple truth is that you don't appear to know very much here, so perhaps you should do a bit of reading first. May I suggest the introduction to the five-volume Routledge Historiography series, which quite clearly lays out the differences between Marxism and marxism, and the degree to which the latter is part of mainstream thinking. As for that nebulous area called "critical theory", which has influenced and lies behind so much of sociology, anthropology, literary criticism and the humanities in general - well, some people view it as a subset of marxism, some as a bastard stepchild that run away from home, whatever. The point is that I think you aren't making very much sense, and are arguing past the point of rationality. Perhaps if you don't believe me, you should try and check yourself. for nobody else will agree with you. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RR, we are here to discuss sources, not editors. This is not about me, and never will be, because this is the Reliable source Noticeboard, not the "Discuss Jayjg board". I can't be any plainer. I've removed the personal attack from your recent comment. Stick to sources. Please explain, in your view, why "Marxism" is something completely different from "marxism". Jayjg ^(talk) 11:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, it is clear to me that you don't know what you're talking about, or you wouldn't have asked the question. It would be equally clear to anybody else with any experience of the humanities - and my experience is hardly as deep as those of some other people on this board. There isn't anything wrong with not knowing, only in an expectation that if it were true, you would know - the sort of expectation that leads you to read a bald statement of fact (a repetition of something you yourself have said) as a personal attack. Both PelleSmith and I have first explained it; then directed you to reading that would help you discover it for yourself, if you're unwilling to extend us a minimal amount of good faith; what else do you expect us to do? We aren't here to re-teach the history of modern critical theory for you. Still, since you are apparently require "soundbites" - as rudra would put it - here are Sil and Doherty: "in the 20th century, the Marxist legacy itself became somewhat bifurcated: as its call to action became appropriated by Leninism and then..by totalitarian Stalinism, Marxist thought in the west survived in nontraditional circles through a focus on its analytical dimensions.... in this form alone - the Communist Manifesto as theory - does Marxism survive in many mainstream academic departments." Andrew Abbott: "..academicization brought Marxism into the mainstream. Once the serious academicization of Marxism began.. Marxists joined, indeed often led, the large-scale social scientific swing towards the cultural and the immaterial we observe today". (Obviously, this is limited to certain fields: in economics, in particular, the Paul Sweezys of the world have long disappeared.) Right, hope that helps. The check's due at the registrar's office next week. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RR, I'm going to have discussions with editors who are better able to stick to the purpose of this board, discussing sources, not editors. Hope you don't mind. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, you haven't actually "discussed" the reliability of sources, instead you have trolled the discussion others are having with what amounts to this--Marxism is de facto extremist, and should you divert attention from this claim with substantive argumentation I will either repeat myself or when possible throw policy at you. There have been several good faith efforts to help you understand "the differences between Marxism and marxism," but you have told us that it is naive to think that you "need to get up to speed" on anything while making us believe that these efforts were perhaps not "worth paying attention to" in the first place. Regarding your policy diversions, quit playing the victim, its getting really boring.PelleSmith (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If Monthly Review isn't RS then New Left Review, a UK journal that is pretty much equivalent, may not be either. And NLR is cited on the Ludwig Wittgenstein page and probably on dozens of others too. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The absurdity of this discussion, and the ignorance behind it, can be seen in the earlier comments about Albert Einstein. Jayjg is evidently blithely unaware that Einstein submitted an article to the very first issue of Monthly Review and it was dutifully published in the May 1949 issue[56]. I suppose in Jayjg's cosmology this makes Einstein an "extremist". The fact is, outside of the United States, Marxism has been a mainstream movement in much of the world for most of the 20th century. The German Social Democratic Party considered itself Marxist until the late 1950s as did many social democratic parties in Europe (Marxist as opposed to Marxist-Leninist - Jayjg may be unaware of the fact that there is a difference). Jayjg may also be interested to learn that the Mapai party in Israel, its forerunners, and many of its leaders including David Ben Gurion also called themselves "Marxist". According to Jayjg's worldview, this makes them all extremists. Jay, the Cold War is over and Joe McCarthy is dead. Your attempt to stigmatize "Marxism" as "extremist" and dismiss any Marxist source as unreliable doesn't belong in a serious encyclopedia. Time to take off those ideological blinkers. 207.245.2.34 (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Einstein's expertise lay in physics, not in social theory or politics - and what he writes on matters of political theory has essentially nothing to do with his writings on physics. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just came across the discussion on Talk:Enclosure where someone distinguishes "marxist, Marxist and neo-Marxist" historians. Seriously, the encyclopedia would not be able to cover the transition from feudalism to capitalism in English history if we were banned from using the work of academic historians in these categories. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to see this discussion, since at the Talk Page on the 1929 Hebron Massacre we were told that "JewsAgainstZionism" were extremist - but repeated requests for evidence produced nothing whatsoever. The problem appears to be that JAZ carried an eye-witness account (from a Rabbi who later founded a respectable school in the US) blaming the Zionists for the 1929 Hebron massacre. All reference to this account has been ruthlessly edit-warred out of the article, even from external links. (The article on the JAZ itself was later deleted, despite it being a much, much bigger and more notable group than many of which we have articles, far more credible than eg the cheating CAMERA, and is generally stuffed with useful references). Knowing what we do about editors who set out to cheat, and who have held up editors in this discussion as being admirable, it might be worth revisiting many of these articles. PR^talk 09:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Great non sequitur, PR. Is your point that The Monthly Review is as reliable as the anonymous "JewsAgainstZionism" website, or that Marixsm is no more radical than anti-Zionist haredi philosophy? Either way, I don't think you're making the point you intend to. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The question of what happened to the page on JAZ is not one for this noticeboard, but I will have a look at it as there does not appear to have been a merge discussion before the redirect. As for whether it is a reliable source, please note that the case is very different from that of Monthly Review. Monthly Review carries articles by academics and by political commentators who are also published by other serious publishers. JAZ is an advocacy group and its website is not likely in itself to be a reliable source. Such websites are sometimes used as convenience links, however, so it would be useful to work out if it is extremist or not. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A comment like 'Marxism is extremist' is a non-argument, based on philosophical ignorance (Marxism refers to a great variety of movements, from Salon-Marxismus to lumpenintelligenstia fringe rants, from refined analysis to revolutionary activism), and thus evinces lack of familiarity with the Western intellectual tradition, in short, it is nothing more than a personal opinion reflecting a popular cliché, pushed as though it were a consensual historical verdict, and confusing in that it muddles politial history with analytical tradition. I think this has been amply demonstrated by many editors here. If the point need further hammering home, look at Ernest Gellner's work, one of the finest polymaths of modern times, intensely liberal in his outlook, yet in constant dialogue with Soviet analytical traditions derived from Marxism, in his own chosen field of anthropology. In Soviet anthropology, society is 'submitted under the concepts, terms, and ideas of Marxism', he writes, and follows up:-

'But what kind of Marxism? Here, once again, the visitor from the West is liable to get a surrise - an agreeable surprose as far as the present visitor is concerned. . .The Marxism of Soviet anthropologists is entirely and refreshingly clear, and it is about real things, namely societies and their organization, and not about cloud-cuckooland. . . What it says about society and social forms, from primitive communism via patriarchal clans, slave society, feudalism, and capitalism to socialism and communism . .it is not obvious at all that there is nothing to learn from Marxism, or that no plausible anthropology can be erected within the dframework of these doctrines. Indeed, the Marxist five-stage typology seems to me rather comparable, in logical status, to functionalism. . .I have offered a tentative defence of the Marxist typology - it gives a coherent theoretical approach, where the rival vision has none.' Ernest Gellner, State and Society in Soviet Thought, Basi Blackwell, Oxford 1988 pp.4-6

What of Leszek Kolakowski's indispensable trilogy? Kolakowski is a life-long opponent of Communism and a historian of the intellectual traditions that make up Marxism. At the conclusion of his work he remarks, nonetheless,

'Marxism as an interpretation of past history must be distinguished from Marxism as a political ideology. No reasonable person (please take note User:Jayjg) would deny that the doctrine of historical materialism has been a valuable addition to our intellectual equipment and has enriched our understanding of the past. . . If Marxism has led towards a better understanding of the economics and civilization of past ages, this is no doubt connected with the fact that Marx at times enunciated his theory in extreme, dogmatic, and unacceptable forms. If his views has been hedged round with all the restriuctions and reservations that are usual in rational thought, they would have had less influence and might have gone unnoticed altogether . .From this point of view, the role of Marxism may be compared to that of psychoanalysis or behaviourism in the social sciences. By expressing their theories in extreme forms, Freud and Watson succeeding in bringing real problems to general notice and opening up valuable fields of exploration; this they could probably not have done if they had qualified their views with scrupulous reservations and so deprived them of clear-cut outlines and polemical force.' Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents in Marxism 3 vols. Oxford University Press, vol 3 (1978) 1981 p.524

One might add that most of our ethics come from extremisms, in that all religious cultures, from Judaism, Christianity and Islam, to Buddhism, can be traced to orginative contexts that marked them as extremist. Most people who read books know this. I don't know why one has to frig round arguing the point. One should edit pages whose subject matter one knows well, and not bring to bear on them formal objections based on finicky rule-waving and generic clichés about what are often intricately nuanced topics in academic literature Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Kowalski's quote is kind of interesting. He basically says "Marx's theories were ridiculous, but he was so loud and stubborn about them, that the people refuting them were able to actually write something valuable". Anyway, is Allen Ruff's book review an "interpretation of past history" or is it written from the POV of "Marxism as a political ideology"? Given the fact that he quite openly writes from a political agenda (he discusses terminology in terms of whether or not it "serves any progressive purpose", and insists that the view that "Jewish-American opinion is monolithic in support of Israel... is precisely one of the falsehoods that the Left needs to demystify") and concludes by stating that the book he is reviewing "should be examined as a case study of what happens when even a prominent left intellectual abandons a clear class-based, anti-imperialist understanding of politics," I think it would be obvious that it's the latter. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Book written for students

Can I use Criminology: The Core as RS. The book is written for students, so I am confused if it can be considered RS or not per WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If the fact that a book is written "for students" makes it an unreliable source then our system of higher education is in serious trouble.  :).PelleSmith (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not understand what you are saying. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, I was trying to be clever. The fact that a book was written for students is not a problem at all, but if it were a problem we'd be saying that students are usually given unreliable sources in their classes (get it?) The fact that it is published by a respectable publishing house and written by an authority in the field makes it reliable. The fact that it is a text book also means its unlikely to include anything too controversial (I don't know the book so I can't say it doesn't but its less likely in any event.) Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The book is written by Larry J. Siegel who is a professor of criminology in University of Massachusetts Lowell and has written several books in the field of criminology. My only confusion is that since this book is basically student oriented, it can be considered RS or not. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Textbooks written by academics for students are usually excellent sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will then use it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Post-secondary textbooks are not only acceptable, they are often useful for providing a broad overview of a subject. This is quite nice when making short summary overviews (like wiki articles) and helps in determining the balance of NPOV (by providing a "lay of the land"). Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There may be no fully general solution. I believe books from reputable publishers are often thoroughly fact-checked; I've both authored and fact-checked several such books. Unfortunately, I finally took a Wikibreak from the computer networking project, after getting totally frustrated, every few weeks, of correcting editors that were citing the same erroneous information from one popular textbook.

I think the last straw was when I cited a peer-reviewed article of which I was a coauthor, and told I was wrong because the book said so. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

checking in worldCat, the book is in over 700 libraries. It is apparently widely used. I agree that it can be used for general statements , but specific points that are controverted may need more professional statements. It is the nature of a 1st level textbook to oversimplify. (And it is unfortunately quite usual to write them without indicating to what extent issues may be disputed). DGG (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"The book is written by Larry J. Siegel who is a professor of criminology in University of Massachusetts Lowell" If true, then this book should be reliable in my opinion. There can be exceptions to the "professor" rule but I don't see any here.Bless sins (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

David Rohl article - subject using mailing list as a reference

We have an interesting situation on the David Rohl article, where David has added an edit using a mailing list in which he particpates are a reference. It seems to be the only source for what is a crucial statement by the archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen. I've no axe to grind - they're both wrong :-) - I'm just interested in the issue itself. Is there any leeway here?Doug Weller (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yuk. No. Best leave out. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

that entire article needs much better sourcing, both for the views supporting him and the views opposing. The article as written is essentially OR, trying to settle itself the disputed issues. It's not even based on primary sources, for it doesnt cite them either. DGG (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So then how on earth do you report on a public event witnessed by many and filmed? Are you saying that crap written on a web site is more valid than a notice published in a discussion group? Why? What makes a web site more authoritative? Your rules are extraordinary. You allow hearsay and opinion without evidencial support but a clear public statement is not permitted. Something is very wrong here with Wikipedia and its policies. David Rohl. 22:05, 20 April 2008.

Neobyzantine website

Byzantine Empire has as an external link Byzantine Glory — the mosaic of Byzantine History and Culture which seems to be a movement to more or less restore an expanded Byzantine empire (peacefully it says) "from Adriatic sea to Korea, and from Sinai desert to the North Sea.. With millions of churches all over.. " Before I remoeve it and maybe get involved in an edit war, is there any way in which this meets Wikipedia criteria? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I was bold and removed it. As a parallel, FA Islam doesn't link to movements that want to restore the caliphate. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a movement that wants to restore the Byzantine Empire? Party like it's 999... - Merzbow (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Press Only Showing

This edit summary was used in the Doctor Who article Press-Only showing fails WP:V, still needs WP:RS [57].

Since when has that been the situation in Film,TV,Books articles because wouldn't that exclude the use of pre-release reviews of such material which I have seen used in various articles .Garda40 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's in reference to the addition of the paragraph about the three former companions reprising their roles on the current series? If so, I don't see a source at all used to support that claim. Perhaps the claim isn't that it was press only, but that the claim was completely unsupported by a reliable source at all? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the source may be at the beginning "SFX" but that's not really my concern here ( I'm not trying to add the information ) ."SFX" magazine and other magazines of a similar type are used for many citations in this and similar articles and I'm fairly certain that claim is what it says "Press Only".

The reason I am concerned is that in the past BLP has been used to remove information about a possible actor appearing in the programme rather than the fact that the source may have been unreliable and this just seems to be a case again of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut .Garda40 (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If a particular source meets the reliable source standards in general, then it would meet those same standards for a "Press only viewing". Splitting hairs to say a reliable source isn't reliable in a particular situation is generally not something that is Wikipedia does at an encyclopedia level, but I have seen editors on a particular article agree to not use a reliable source for various reasons before. If no argument has been reached about not using a particular source on an article (or in a particular situation), then what could be done is to attribute the source explicitly in the text, so "According to SFX, at a press only viewing..." That way it is not Wikipedia saying it, but SFX. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Movie Credits in the InfoBox

Resolved

It seems there is ample evidence and support for using a Films credits as a Reliable source for the credits on the Infobox. Does it make any difference if we can link directly to the official version of the film itself to use the films credits for verifiability?
Can a Primary source officially and certifiably accessible on the Internet be used for this or must we always use a secondary source?75.57.178.110 (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There really should be explicit guidelines regarding cinema - it does seem to be a frequent topic. I'm really having difficulty with overcoming resistance to the basic concept that simple statements of fact; Director, Editor, etc. as listed in a movies credits are allowed to even consider using the film itself as a Reliable Source. To me, it appears "unique" that this would be prohibited. This is what I am being told:

• Now, I think it is important to point out that your personal viewing of the credits constitutes primary sourcing, and is therefore not usable here in Wikipedia. ... Until something citable comes up ...
• The crux of my argument is that you need a single reliable, verifiable, notable citation that clearly identifies the director of the film ... Without it, you cannot include it, as it is synthesis.
• Yes, but you cannot be a source of information. Dude, find a source that lists the director...
• No citations, no inclusion. This isn't my rule; its Wikipedia's.

- User:Arcayne

I think you get the picture. It's nothing about content - It's a question regarding the admissibility of a films credits as source with regards to an encyclopedic record of it. Is this a Prohibited Act? 75.57.186.159 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The basic film credits, like the plot, can be sourced from the film itself as it is the primary source. There is not prohibition against using the primary source every, only in sole reliance on and any use that involves interpretation. There is on interpretation in reading the credits on the screen. Primary sources can not, however, establish notability which is a different ball of wax.Collectonian (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not citing yourself... you are citing the film credits. Film credits are printed material that anyone can read and verify... just like text in a book. The only difference is that the print appears on film and not on paper. In other words, film credits are quite reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I think the anon user is forum-shopping here without providing the actual background. In point of fact, article in question is Fitna , and the observed name the anon is referring to was the identification of the director (etc.) as "Scarlet Pimpernel". Later, a citation was found that clearly identified (and named) the nom de guerre as being code name given to the a production company that made the film to protect it from Dutch Muslim reprisal. The citation specifically names "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions". The abbreviation in the film was likely done in the same vein that in films, credits will often use 'ILM' for Industrial Light and Magic, or that catering was done by 'FeedMe' (leaving off the 'catering' and 'inc' part).

Again, my apologies that you were not provided the full background of the question before tendering an opinion. The anon hasn't been very successful in forcing the others in the discussion to see his point of view. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. In that case, the information about the code name would go into the production section, with the proper citation(s) explaining why. It doesn't negate the credits of the film, but certainly is a notable topic for explaining in the prose why its listed that way. Collectonian (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no citation stating that the Director, Writer or Editor are anyone other than a person named Scarlet Pimpernel. That a production company is named Scarlet Pimpernel Productions is incidental. The "Others" in the discussion are in universal agreement. Only Arcayne insists that the Films Credits are inadmissible. The question was simple are movie credits a Reliable Source? No one was asked for a relative opinion on the content and no deception was made. Arcayne's comments are nonsense and obstructionist, he is Trolling with off-topic content remarks in a simple discussion about the RS utility of Movie Credits.

Am I correct in my understanding, that a Films Credit's are a Reliable Source? 75.57.186.159 (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity, as I am stunned and amazed that the Troll has so easily derailed still another simple discussion, I will repeat the exact question I asked in my first post: "It's a question regarding the admissibility of a films credits as source with regards to an encyclopedic record of it. Is this a Prohibited Act? "75.57.186.159 (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer stays the same. The film credits are a perfectly acceptable source for film articles, and should be the preferred source for listing in the infobox. If, and only if, there is a reliable source backing up the Scarlet Pimpernel = Scarlet Pimpernel Productions should that information be added to the PROSE but not the infobox. Collectonian (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concise and reasonable guidance.75.57.186.159 (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a moment, hoss - that doesn't seem correct. Forget the obvious personality disagreements presented. We wouldn't lit ILM by its shortened form even if it appeared in the credits as such, and we certainly wouldn't list Skippy's ChuckWagon without noting its a catering service. Please indicate any instance where the shortened form of a title appears anywhere in an FA film article. Yes, we discuss the happenstance behind the assignation of the title, but we don't ignore it, especially when we have citable proof as to the proper name. We are an encyclopedia, not a visual guide for a play-by-play of the film from soup to nuts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop - it is a settled issue here and at the article with a clear overwhelming consensus. Secondly do not make things up - you have no "citable proof" naming the Director, Writer or Editor as anyone other than the pseudonym. That's just a fact. Stop now, you're wasting the good peoples time. Or cite. 75.58.40.232 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, anon - you haven;t the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Maybe you've forgotten where the discussion took place, but we aren't here to discuss what you do or don't know. The citation is in the Fitna discussion. It is identified as a production company, and you have since been reported for your rather unfriendly behavior. I think you're done here. Take your little vendettas elsewhere, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And because of the rather preposterous and bad faith claim that the production company reference doesn't exist, allow me to provide the citation with translation (as performed and verified within the article discussion):

"Katz [lawyer of Wilders] meldde overigens dat niet Wilders zelf, maar de stichting Vrienden van de PVV de opdrachtgever is van de film. Die heeft de opdracht gegund aan ‘Scarlet Pimpernel Production', de bedachte naam voor de productiemaatschappij die niet met de echte naam naar buiten wil." (Lit. quote of Volkskrant 7-04-2008)

Translation:

"Wilders lawyer Katz reported that not Wlders himself, but the foundation 'Friends of the PVV' has commissioned the film. The foundation has given the assignment to 'Scarlet Pimpernel Productions', de name which was made up for the production company, that does not want to be mentioned by its real name."

I think having the right info is helpful in disagreements. It was important to cite as, later on in this article that this anonymous production company is the cause of the incorrect and inflammatory imagery. As this is an encyclopedia, its probably important to simply note that its a production company, despite the pretty short form they use in the credits. We as viewers are not citable. Someone talking about the credits in a reliable, citable format is. Hopefully, we are done here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been clearly and concisely stated, in no uncertain terms, with no ambiguity. The Films Credits are a reliable source. Your assertion, stated above, "We as viewers are not citable." Is not a correct interpretation, it is the film itself that is effectively cited. We do not make up names for Directors, Writers and Editors based upon incidental names for Production company's. In point of fact, production company's often take the name of the principals involved - not vis-versa. To create names from thin air is neither correct nor citable. 75.58.40.232 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We as viewers are not "citable" but the film's movie credits are the source, not the viewer, and as it is the primary source, it is the main one that is used. Again, as noted above, the infobox should use the name officially used in the credits, which is also the name that will appear on official registration documents, et al. In the prose, it can be stated that, "according to Patrice Katz, "Scarlet Pimpernel" is a doing business as name for "Friends of the PVV", which did not want its real name attached to the film." The use of another name for a production company is quite common, particularly among Japanese anime productions which often create Production companies named after the series that is made up of multiple companies. We list them by that production company name because it is the name they chose to do business as. We don't ignore their choice in name. Collectonian (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This, bordering on absurd, argument is actually playing out only over the term "Productions." The film credits say "Scarlet Pimpernel" and Arcayne, as per his other source claims the full name is "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions." While I'm not sure exactly what the big deal is I would like to point out that we do not in fact know what the exact legal doing business as name is ... that is whether or not it has the term "Productions" in it. In the end I think this is a relatively pointless discussion, since we can all agree that Scarlet Pimpernel (Productions) is not some individual with that legal name. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On that we are agreed. No difference either way, really, though the source Arcayne listed actually says SP (SPP) is another name for Friends of the PVV, which would be different. The whole thing is a confusing mess, really. Collectonian (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of that we are quite likely all agreed. It is quite a mess. However, I am not sure I understand what the problem is with preferring to list the term in the infobox (which is supposed to contain the most concise info for the movie, a la at a glance) from a Primary source to that of a Secondary source (the one calling it Productions). For the same reason we cannot list an observable phenomena ()the laughter of children during the end credits of the film Children of Men. Observable phenomena cannot replace citation.

That said, I am willing to strike the alternative of listing it as "Scarlet Pimpernel (Productions)", which would seem to seem to bury the dead horse some folk insist on beating into mush. Will that work as a compromise? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Compromise? "which would seem to seem to bury the dead horse some folk insist on beating into mush"? We have an accepted principle on Wikipedia that a films credits are acceptable as a reliable source. Wikipedia also has a preferred standard that the Infobox correctly reflect the films credits. And we do that no matter what the pseudonym is, be it a standard stage name Ice T, Alan Smithee[58][59], Walter Plinge, Georgina Spelvin or whomever.

Further we have no citation to correct the credits with - no where is there any statement that anyone other than the pseudonym has taken the credit. That a production company bears the same name is incidental. Clarity is required. 75.58.40.232 (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, could I trouble you to learn how to indent your posts? Don't get me wrong, i am pleased as punch you've set aside that silly ego sig of putting a spade at the top of your sig, and also that you've taken to signing your posts more often (even though your IP address has changed virtually every day). Indenting your posts allows you to indicate when you are responding to another's post. Take a look at the edit screen for this page - everyone else does it, so give it a whirl yourself.

As for the other matter, I believe you haven't really read my post or the accompanying posts to the policy links I generously supplied you. Might I trouble you to re-read my post and craft a response based upon that? Comments like "that a production company bears the same name is incidental" do not do you service. Please read the actual policies as they are, and not as you wish they were. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a simple question, "Are a Movies Credits a Reliable Source?". It received a simple, clear answer: 'A Movies Credits are the preferred source for the info box'. Yet Arcayne has dictated that this be marked as "UnResolved"?? I should add that the User Arcayne has a history of failing to accept any answer but the one he demands to hear, this is from the same topic, different subject: "Re-added them myself, the discussion is over, no-one else agrees with you Arcayne." I don't know how much clearer anyone could make it, but a Resolved Tag would be appreciated. 75.58.39.148 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am quite sure you would appreciate it, anon. Unfortunately, the bs personality conflict you keep tossing into the discussion tends to muddy the waters. How about you restrain your posting and let an actual established editor weigh in on the actual points of the discussion? I'd like to get a few folk's feedback, if that's quite all right with you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record... I agree with listing "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions" (cited to the credits) in the info box and discussing the tie to "Friends of the PVV" (cited to the other source) in the text. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree listings in the Infobox are allowed to be sourced from the Film and cited to the credits. Just for clarification do you support the listing of Director, Writer and Editor as Scarlet Pimpernel, as listed in the credits and of which no citation exists crediting anyone else, or are you suggesting that the appendage "Productions" be added to the Credits in the InfoBox where they do not occur in the credits and where no source supports the usage? (I never, and no one else has, opposed the very proper and cited mention of SPP. It was a Red Herring.)75.57.196.81 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in this case my first choice would be to simply omit listing the Director, Writer and Editor completely. But if that is not possible, as a second choice I could see listing "Scarlet Pimpernel" (including the quotes - to indicate that this is an obvious pseudonym - I might even include a statement to that effect in a foot note or as part of the citation). The point is to make it clear to any readers that the film was made anonimously, and does not actually list the people involved. And, of course, if a reliable source, disclosing the individual(s) involved, is located... that should be discussed and cited in the text. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a source that notes Scarlet Pimpernel as a production company. For informational sake, we want people to know it isn't an individual, but an alias. I would even propose making it "Scarlet Pimpernel" Productions, which would accomplish this task. However, if there is solid citation for us to ignore this, maybe a follow-up providing the policy/guideline that nixes the idea would be good to have. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So there is no basis on which to add "Production" to the credit? When listing the credits in the Infobox one must follow either the Films Credits or a sourced reliable citation?

It has been taken by Arcayne to WP:OR notice board, has been discussed in two different Wiki article talk pages, in three sections here, marked as Resolved and archived four times in the articles Talk page and fully entered into the article only to be reverted by Arcayne at least Ten times.

I'm marking this as: Resolved: A Films Credits are a Reliable Source and are the preferred citation for the Movies InfoBox. There is no reason to drag this on any further - it has community consensus - Blueboar did not state to change the names, no one but you has.

As this has been marked UnResolved without comment and no reason has been given I will mark it as Resolved again shortly.75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you (finally) using discussion to suggest a ouse of action. As I consider discussion to still be ongoing (note the unanswered question above), I am letting you know that I would oppose marking an unfinished discussion as resolved. Sometimes, being patient is going to be a far more effective editing tool for you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, this has near universal consensus, and has been the supported usage of, at a minimum:

• Arnoutf (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• MantisEars (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Huon (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Face 14:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Avb 11:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Fullstop (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Collectonian (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Myself

It has been taken by Arcayne to WP:OR notice board, has been discussed in two different Wiki article talk pages, in three sections here, marked as Resolved and archived four times in the articles Talk page and fully entered into the article only to be reverted by Arcayne at least Ten times.

The sole voice opposing this is Arcayne. It is Resolved and enjoys community consensus. There is nothing left to discuss, your own comments even go no further than just a desire to "discuss" - but you don't even pretend to offer reason or support for this. It was never a contentious issue, you are and have been, the sole resistance. Consensus does not mean unanimity and you do not possess the Wiki veto.75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I don't see all those folk's post here. I am trying to retain AGF, but that seems a tad suspicious, anon. I have supported my view with policy and guidelines. Your pov is to seek an interpretation of CIMDB that exists nowhere else. You have specifically misrepresented the argument.

This is a dead issue - you have failed to enlist a single voice in support of your effort to overturn community consensus, it has been discussed in the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the Fitna Article, five[60][61][62] [63]different sections here still on this page, taken before WP:OR, on numerous user talk pages, it has been marked as resolved and archived four times in Fitna:Talk, edited into the Infobox and Reverted by you on Ten Separate Occasions and now you've opened still another front in the campaign, The Wiki Manual of Style![64]

It is Resolved. It is the Community's Consensus. Even you must agree that there is not now, and never has been, any support for your effort.

Please await the end of discussion. Be patient. Building consensus is like building Rome - it isn't done in a day. If you disagree, sit back and wait a while. If there is - as you say, no consensus, then there wont be one in a few days from now. There is no hurry. Relax. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd. This is a dead issue - you have failed to enlist a single voice in support of your effort to overturn community consensus, it has been discussed in the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the Fitna Article, five[65][66][67][68] [69]different sections on WP:RS, taken before WP:OR, on numerous user talk pages, it has been marked as resolved and archived four times in Fitna:Talk, edited into the Infobox by numerous editors and Reverted by you on Ten Separate Occasions and now you've opened still another front in the campaign, The Wiki Manual of Style!WP:MOS[70]]

It's been more than two weeks. You're engaging in a campaign, and not a good faith effort to reach and respect consensus. 75.58.39.201 (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

By returning the dispute from the far-ranging noticeboard and policy discussion pages (I won't call it forum-shopping) to the article discussion (the source of the dispute) page, compromise was reached by all of the editors concerned. Couching Scarlet Pimpernel in scare quotes will serve to note SP as a pseudonym, and further detail about it being a production company will be noted in the text. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Movie Credits in the InfoBox - arbitrary break

Resolved

(matter resolved at discussion source)

The argument is as follows: do observational details outweigh citation? The argument posed by the anonymous editor is that the nom de guerre 'Scarlet Pimpernel' desperately needs to be in the infobox all by itself, since he saw it in the credits of the film, Fitna. Currently, the article the credit as 'Scarlet Productions.' The anon seeks to have the word 'Production' removed fromt he infobox.

He rejects any compromise ("Scarlet Pimpernel" Productions being the most reasonable) that notes the existence of the citation that identifies the alias as a production company. For lack of ambiguity's sake, it seem important - not to mention encyclopedic - to note that 'Scarlet Pimpernel' in the infobox is not an individual, or a real name - we have reliable citation that specifically identifies that it is not, but rather a pseudonym to protect the actual production company, which goes by another name. New thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The film credits state that the film is "a Scarlet Pimpernel Production"... so including the word "Productions" in the box for producer is correct. For other box categories (director, writer, etc.) the film credits simply list "Scarlet Pimpernel" as if this was a person. So Scarlet Pimpernel (without the word productions) is what should go in the boxes for those categories. I have no problem with using scare quotes around the name to indicate that this is a pseudonym. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The matter appears to have finally found a resolution/compromise at the article discussion. The term Scarlet Pimpernel will be changed to Scarlet Pimpernel, which notes the name as a pseudonym as determined by citation.

Ernst and Canter

In April 2006, Ernst and Canter authored a review of systematic reviews and published in the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine. This would usually be considered a reliable source that meets MEDRS. However, in August of 2006, an article was published in Chiropractic and Osteopathy (doi:10.1186/1746-1340-14-14), that refutes the conclusions by Ernst and Canter.

The conclusions of the second article were "The conclusions by Ernst and Canter were definitely not based on an acceptable quality review of systematic reviews and should be interpreted very critically by the scientific community, clinicians, patients, and health policy makers."

Would the original article still be considered a reliable source? DigitalC (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would have to be presented as a "a review by Chiropractic & Osteopathy, the official journal of the Chiropractic & Osteopathic College of Australasia (COCA) stated ..." Since the whole review is available open access at the above doi, people can judge the extent to which is may show bias. I don;t think it would invalidate the original source, given the likely POV. It could be however used as a comment on it. DGG (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Conference proceedings RS?

Are conference proceedings RS? Are they peer-reviewed? I'm wondering because I have seen some people use powerpoint slides from a conference/workshop talk as a ref in FAs. My university has hosted a few conferences etc where some PhD students have given some talks on things that did not get published in journals until a while later and were pretty informal in nature and and not really much more polished than the weekly departmental seminar. For instance this paper was the transcript of a talk and was used as a ref. There are a pile of spelling errors and some very bad grammar mistakes, including a grammar error in the title. I can't see this ever passing a journal review or a book publisher, so I wonder whether something like this can be a RS (or even notable anaylsis/POV). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on mostly who did it. If it is a professor I'd accept it with caution. PhD student? Probably not. Also, it goes without saying that proceedings would have had to be published somehow. You can't attend a conference and then quote it (without any publsihed material on it). References need to be verifiable.Bless sins (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the source is a link to his slides, as I have included. I don't know why something can be accepted simply if a prof said it. If there was no review process from a reference, he could have just said some nonsense. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's still doing his masters. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, it depends on the conference. In my field, conference papers for most conferences are definitely formally reviewed, then discussed by the program committee, and, if accepted, are published by a reputable scientific publisher (Springer, AAAI, ...). Publications at Conference on Automated Deduction, IJCAI/ECAI or LICS are certainly RS. However, you would cite the paper in the proceedings, not the slides. There are also less reputable conferences, either organized by fringe groups or by commercial entities, either for CV building or for tax-deductible vacations ("come to Hawaii and present your paper...it's only US$XXX conference fee, and we publish it on a CD!"). And there are less formal gatherings like Workshops, which range from "reputable conference in all but name" to "some guys meeting over beer and pizza. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Conference proceedings and some speaker's notes or slides are two completely different things. Proceedings are usually a collection of papers (not just notes or slides) containing the talks given. If the proceedings are reviewed (most reputable conferences do this) and published by a reliable publisher such as Springer Verlag, Oxford University Press or any others that are referenced by the Institute for Scientific Information, then they definitely are WP:RS, as any other academic paper would be.

If, however, they are not reviewed and published, then they are not WP:RS.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 11.04.2008 10:02

To add to the previous comments: The reliability depends upon (1) the field of study and (2) the particular conference. For instance, (painting with a broad brush) conferences in pure sciences are seldom regarded very highly and the paper/abstract is often reviewed only for topicality and to keep out blatant nonsense (comparable to wikipedia's speedy delete criterion :) ). On the other hand, many conferences in engineering are more selective and the submissions receive a more thorough peer review; in fact in computer science a few conferences are considered as or even more prestigious than journals (see [71] or [72] or this site for a good rule of thumb). Another good way to judge the notability of conferences is to check if the proceedings are archived by many libraries and/or academic databases. Abecedare (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the most important first thing to establish is whether they are published or unpublished conference proceedings. If they are published, especially with a major publisher, then there may well be a note about the peer-reviewing process. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Already extensively discussed at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive 17#Should academic conference papers be considered reliable sources?. The discussion there brings up other variables that must be considered, including whether the conference is sponsored (by a tobacco company? a political pressure group?); also that online conference papers are usually not the peer-reviewed versions; also that they usually explicitly fail REDFLAG. There are some broad guidelines: Computer science, the hard physical sciences usually more reliable than economics working papers/conference summaries, which are usually much more reliable than humanities conference papers. Math papers are apparently only copy-edited. (!) --Relata refero (disp.) 13:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty urgent help needed on Genuki and two others - Please!

I have used Genuki http://www.genuki.org.uk as a reference for an article currently at GAC, but its reliability has been questioned. Can anyone help me with some guidance? Is there a list of reliable sources - and is this one of them?

The Wikipedia page on Genuki says: GENUKI is a genealogy web portal, run as a charitable trust. Its aim is "to serve as a "virtual reference library" of genealogical information that is of particular relevance to the UK & Ireland". The name derives from "GENealogy of the UK and Ireland". It hosts a large collection of pages with genealogical information covering England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Also, I have used http://www.raybeckham.co.uk/village_map.html as a source of village information. One editor has said they feel it is a comercial site, but you can see from the page that the web editor gives away his pics for charitable donations. The guy who runs the site is a local historian, so I valued his input - but I need to know if that makes it reliable.

Lastly, the reliabity of this site http://www.templarmechanics.com/main.asp has been called into question too. How can I tell if a site is reliable or not?

Thanks--seahamlass 09:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I recommended that you take your questions to RSN, I guess at least I should provide my perspective on the sources:

• Genuki: Can you specify what exactly you are trying to source from the geneological database ? The site has many types of information and links and they may have varying reliability.
• RayBeckham: This is, as far as I can see, a site run by the village photographer/videographer. A personal web-site may be considered a reliable source under two circumstances (1) it is used as a source for a wikipedia article on the subject, (2) the author is a acknowledged expert on the subject, for example he has written books or articles that were published by respected publishers (even then we have to be careful!). I don't think either of these circumstances apply in this case, and therefore the website would not be considered a reliable source for wikipedia. Can't you find a "official" source for the village map ?
• Templar Mechanics: IMO this is a clear case of a unreliable website. Firstly, we know nothing about the author of the website content; there is no hint of editorial control; and the subject is a fringe topic, which means that as per redflag, we need impeccable sourcing. The website definitely cannot be used as a source for "facts", but if it is notable enough in the Templar/Pentagrams/ ... circles it may be ok to use it as a source of what some people think - although, even then, we would prefer a secondary source quoting the website.

Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources at Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination‎

Could someone take a quick look at the sources used to backup the straw polls over on Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination‎? I've been going back and forth with John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) on this and I would appreciate a little outside input as to what constitutes a WP:RS for the purposes of reporting the results of political actions. Burzmali (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

One should not be sourcing straw poll results to Ron Paul's website. Ron Paul's site has made claims (like delegate count, etc) which are at odds with what reliable sources state, so I don't think they are acceptable. Free Market News Network... maybe. --Haemo (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Haemo, I agree that no candidate should be the primary source for a result. (The delegate count issue is not so clear-cut, of course.) The article is in the midst of revamping according to the concerns Burzmali has stated, so there is some work cut out for me yet; but right now Paul's site is only referenced at two places, one at the WP map to link RP's map as illustrative (that might be cut), and one to back up a second incomplete source for a single poll. We also have a Huckabee blog back up the official result in another poll, and a few links that look very Thompson-favorable, and the like. My general rule has been to use the best sources possible for every poll that can be independently proven to have been held, and to use involved sources only when there is no disagreement about the results. This could result in either a primary source, a secondary source, source-based research, or a less reliable source when reporting noncontroversially (and often against interest). I had tried to limit the article to one source per poll, but Burzmali has made clear that backup sources will be often necessary. I have also asked at talk for anyone who disagrees with my rules to propose others, but nobody has.

In general, this article was created because Paul's campaign was clearly giving partial results, for example, starting their results list in Jun after Paul had hit his stride. The purpose is an independent list that reports all results impartially and in accord with commonsense rules, and Southern Texas and I both think the main article (both parties) will be presentable for FL sometime soon. We have been open for discussion since the article premiered! JJB 16:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just the RP websites that I am concerned about, there were plenty of blogs and forums used as sources as well. I'll wait until you complete your rework to bust out the hedge trimmer. Burzmali (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Individual distinct sources for what will be large amounts of text

User:Dank55 suggested I post this here, after having done so at WT:CITE. So, here it is

In my sandbox, I'm working on Western Washington Vikings, the first of hopefully a lot of DII sports articles. There are histories on the university's official athletic site for all fourteen current (and one former) varsity sport. Together, they comprise well over one hundred pages of information, which surely is enough to write at least a serviceable draft.

Anyway, can I put a cite in the end of each section (I think I'm probably going to do one for each sport), or do I need to throw in a million <ref name=samesource/> tags? Or do I need to find other sources simply for the sake of having them? I have a few others; not many. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If everything in a paragraph or section is cited to the same source, there is no need to cite every sentence. Once is enough. However, I would strongly suggest that you look for other sources to supplement the one you have... especially since that source is directly connected to the article topic (and thus a Self Published Source) (See: WP:SPS). Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You can put a named source at the end of each paragraph unless another source is used within the paragraph, then you'll need to put in front of the sentences before the part sourced from reference 3, and then at the end. Per section would not be acceptable if you intend to eventually go for GA or FA. ALso, I also agree with Blueboar's suggestion on looking for other sources that are unconnected as sourcing an entire article from one source is far too heavy a reliance on one source and would call to question the topic's notability at all. If it has received no significant coverage outside of itself, including its history, it will not meet WP:N.Collectonian (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It meets the notability requirements, beyond question. The reason I don't have a whole lot of other sources is because I simply haven't sought them, given the exhaustiveness of the histories on WWU's website. So, are you telling me I need to find other sources just for the sake of having them? That's...okay, I suppose. They're out there, I have no doubt. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Free Life Commentary

Free Life Commentary[73] is an internet-only self-published "journal" which appears to only carry the "papers" of one man, Sean Gabb, the leader of a fringe UK-based thinktank called the Libertarian Alliance. Gabb describes himself as an academic, although he doesn't obviously have a position at any UK or overseas university. Gibb has appeared infrequently in the media as a spokesperson for Libertarianism, although I can't find any work by him in the serious mainstream media (all of this is from brief research done today, I had never even heard of him until a couple of hours ago). FLC is in effect little more than a blog; there is also a newsletter-style publication produced by the Libertarian Alliance called Free Life Magazine with which is not to be confused, although I stuggle to see how even that comes anywhere near being an RS except in the most unusual of contexts. His own autobiographical contributions toward his wiki entry (Sean Gabb, see e.g. here) include such illuminatory and modest gems as:

[Gabb is] "...a controversial figure within the British and indeed the general libertarian movement. He is an extreme cultural reactionary..."

"Many conservatives believe that his [Gabb's, speaking in the third-person] cultural tastes are a cover for an extreme ideological radicalism."

and:

"What makes Gabb somewhat more than a fringe eccentric is that he is a very clear and prolific writer..."

Material by Gibb from FLC (two separate blogs) is currently being used in Elgin Marbles to support the position that 1) there is no continuity between ancient and modern Greece; 2) as a general racist diatribe against Greeks ("I had come to despise the modern Greeks—a shifty, disreputable people, like a beggar in the street holding up their often self-inflicted sores for pity. Their constant whining about the Elgin Marbles...") (and it goes on...). There has been some civil and sensible discussion on talk between User:Xenovatis, who contends that these are reliable sources per WP:RS, that they are both relevant to the topic, and that there is no evidence that these are not mainstream viewpoints (see WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT,WP:FRINGE, etc.) and thus they should be included (of course the inverse of that applies- there's no positive evidence that there are mainstream viewpoints (of course they are not, that barely needs to be said)). We agreed that it would be sensible to come here for an opinion on the relibility and use of the sources in question, and all comments are appreciated. Links to the material in context on Elgin Marbles available here. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to remark that there were previous efforts by others to get Seannie's self published and self-promoting article (Sean Gabb based entirely on FLC articles), removed which were rebuffed on the rationale that FLC is WP:RS and that he is not fringe. The same goes for another publication I consider equally problematic, The Occidental Quarterly and author James Russell who also has a WP page.Xenovatis (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Blogs written by Sean Gabb are clearly reliable sources in a discussion of Sean Gabb's views. That does not make them reliable sources across the board (see WP:SELFPUB for an explanation of how the use of sources can change according to context).

Can you point to the discussions or AfD's that you are referring to in each case if possible, sounds like potentially useful discussion. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I POSTED THIS ON THE ELGIN MARBLES TALK PAGE REGARDING THIS SUBJECT:

The things that make Gabb's comments relevant or not is whether they are based on fact or are just his opinion. The comments about Modern day Greeks being no more related to the builders of the Acropolis than the current British being related to the builders of Stonehenge, suggests that claims based on national heritage of individual groups of people are invalid- ie the Greeks do not have a valid claim to the marbles as it was not their ancestors that built them. Whether this is true or not, I do not know- that is just how I interpret that statement- and as such, if it is true, I think is relevant. In contrast- Gabb's personal views of the current day Greeks is only a personal opinion of them- which he is entitled to. But they remain that- an opinion of just one person about the Greeks and, as such, are irrelevant to the topic. I think there are far more people saying that those comments should not be here than those saying it should (only one person explicitly defending their place, with four, maybe 5 saying that they shouldn't be here) D666D (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two questions here, relevance and reliability. Like you, I originally thought that the Stonehenge comment was relevant and hence retained it, but that was before I did my research properly and ascertained that "Free Life Commentary" is not in any way a serious academic journal. It is a blog. There are millions of bloggers in the world. If I were to update my blog this afternoon to include some stupid rant about the Elgin Marbles, I would not expect it to appear as a supposedly reliable source tomorrow on Wikipedia. We have standards, those standards are important, and this doesn't meet them. The whole of the Sean Gabb material should automatically go unless better sources can be found- in which case we should indeed start discussing relevance and weighting per WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE etc. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is a blog-style publication, then yes, good bye (I hope it is!)D666D (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what anyone wants or doesn't want. There are objective rules for what is a reliable source and this doesn't meet them. If the Stonehenge comment or something similar can be found in a reliable source then it should be put back in, if consensus so approves, since it actually does seem to pertain to the issue of the marbles. Gabb's racist opinion of Greeks is however irrelevant to the issue of the Elgin Marbles and should be excised completely (or perhaps moved to Sean Gabb regardless. Yes, it is a blog in everything but name. Badgerpatrol (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE:Both D666D and Badgerpatrol were involved in this dispute long before it was placed in this page. The point of placing it here was to get some 3rd party perspective not rehash the same arguments. I don't see the point of the above and I would hope some uninvoles users would care to offer their opinion instead.Xenovatis (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that wholeheartedly. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As, I think, the maybe fifth person calling for its removal perhaps I should add something. Gabb has a minor talent for being provocative (obnoxious would be a less kind way of putting it, when you have fringe political views I guess you need to generate all the attention you can get), but the point being made here - that there is little or no cultural continuity between ancient and modern Greece, that Greeks have added little to the dialogue of humanity in the last 2000 years and that the marbles belong to humanity and not to any particular nation state - is not uniquely Gabb's. Indeed these points were, broadly, made in this Guardian article [74] last year. If you don't like Gabb's esprit then quote from someone else, but it is an argument (not opinion) that ought to be represented.Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a far better source that makes the same point. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Then that source should be used but the argument maust be made. Preferably in a separate subsection, moral claims or some such. Once that is done I will remove objections to deleting Gabb.Xenovatis (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion: are all Chinese sources to be branded unreliable?

This matter occurred in the course of discussion at Talk:Amdo. The discussion concerned two sources:

• 史海钩沉：羌人是青海最早的土著居民 (The Qiang were the earliest indigenous inhabitants of Qinghai), Xinhua Net, 2006-03-23

• Li, Shifa. (2004) 青海史话 (History of Qinghai). China Wenlian Press. ISBN: 7-5059-2905-4

Both of these are Chinese language sources. The first is a history article about the Qiang people published in the Qinghai portal of the website of the Xinhua News Agency, China's official news agency.

The second is an academic book written by a historian.

In the course of discussion, another user asserted that, quote: "Both of these sources are published in China. Since only things that conform with PRC policy are allowed in China, it's meaningless." This seems to be arguing that all sources published in China are "meaningless" - but I think he meant to say they are unreliable due to China's media policy?

I don't see how this stands. That sources published in a certain country might lean towards a certain point of view make them potentially biased, not unreliable. WP:NPOV would mean that any alternative views should also be presented. So, for example, knowing that US sources tend to be pro-American does not mean we exclude all American sources. This is especialy so, as here, where the topic is about history and geography, not modern politics.

Even if you argue that a government mouthpiece is inherenly unreliable (which I do not think it is) -- there seems to be no reason to assume, prima facie, that an academic work is inherently unreliable simply because of the country of its publication?

Your opinions would be appreciated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement that they are "meaningless" is obviously untrue: they may be biased; they may not have a WP:NPOV, they may be censured; they may not be true, or they may be unreliable; but they are certainly not "meaningless". The blanket condemnation of all particular sources should only happen as a result of careful study and critical thinking about them. This statement does not appear to have arisen out of any process of critical enquiry as far as one can see, and, although one could ask the editor who made the assertion for any reasoned sources that allow one to come to that conclusion, I think one can simplify the matter by recognising it as being at great risk of being itself WP:BIASed and not displaying a WP:NPOV. Instead, let each source be individually assessed using the normal criteria one would use for Wikipedia, and evaluated in terms of reliability based on the specific evidence that emerges by the same kind of criteria.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Ruling out everything published in China is patently absurd. Every source, about everything, published everywhere, needs to be assessed individually on its own merits. Badgerpatrol (talk)

• Press freedom indices should be a factor in evaluating articles that impinge on political issues and history is politicized. From that perspective I can understand reservations on the use of Xinhua, although see below too.
• Are there any specific laws that would entail prosecution if the authors published an opinion other than what they do publish? If so this would obviously disqualify them. For example under Article 301 of the Turkish penal code reporters can be sued and jailed for suggesting that the Turkish state had commited acts of genocide, are there similar laws on the relevant issue in China? Why is this particular issue contentious?
• For the academic works what is the world ranking of the university to which the author is attached? Are there EL sources on this subject from equal or better institutions? If so why aren't these used instead? If there aren't then FL sources may be used.
• Since the material has been challenged the original chinese language text and an english translation should be provided as per WP:VUE but otherwise the source can still be used.
• In any event you can always report on the fact that "Xinhua said this and that" and let it speak for itself. By qualifying who said what you are reporting a fact.Xenovatis (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that not all Chinese sources are unreliable all the time. BXenovatis asks why is this particular issue contentious. I note that the Qiang people are thought to be 'related' to Tibetans. Someone with more knowledge of this subject would need to comment, but I would think there could easily be a political dimension to this that needs considering.--Slp1 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And indeed the questioning of the sources occur on Amdo, "a traditional province of Tibet" according to WP. I would sincerely question the appropriateness of these references, given the situation. --Slp1 (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand... if phrased as an opinion, to reflect the Chinese POV, they could well be quite appropriate and reliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree: if appropriate phrasing is used, any political bias present in any direction in any sources can be taken into account without compromising the NPOV of the article. However, care must be taken to evaluate the source so as not to attribute bias unfairly.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions, and I agree with the general consensus in principle. Normally, if it is a statement about recent history, I would not use a Chinese source as fact. However, the statement in question says "Amdo was traditionally inhabited by the Qiang people." In context, this statement is about the situation before the 3rd century AD. The following sentence says "From the 3rd century AD, the area was controlled by the Tuyuhun Kingdom", a statement that is not challenged -- nor should it be, as it is a historical fact with no significant objections.

Now, the way in which the objecting user has framed the issue, I think, is that the issue becomes political because the first statement says that the primary inhabitants of the area were not Tibetan at the time. However, I don't see how this is controversial, because as the content of the article reveals, the Tibetans did not assimilate the indigenous Qiangs for another three centuries.

So my question as to sources is: does it matter whether the issue is controversial? There seems to me no reliable sources that object to the content of that statement.

However, from this discussion I think I understand better why these sources might be seen as unreliable (note: I don't think NPOV comes into it since no contrary view points have been documented) -- so I might see if I can dig up any English-language sources on the matter. Thanks --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The objecting editor was certainly engaging in excessive hyperbole. Since there's a dispute, you may as well check other, independent sources to verify, but unless there are conflicting statements from other sources, it does seem a little bit... silly for a fairly uncontroversial point. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

tommy2.net

Just covering my ass here. This doesn't look like it stands a chance of meeting WP:RS, so I've been reverting editors that have been using it as a source for the album title of Vanessa Hudgens's latest album. Opinions welcome.Kww (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably say borderline on this one. While they've obviously got some legitimacy based on their interviews, the site looks awful lean and thin for one that's been around so long. Might just be a high-end fan site, but its hard to tell. You can probably flip a coin on this one in general. For non-controversial stuff it's probably fine, but should be replaced for a better source if one turns up. Lawrence § t/e 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Alvin and the chipmunks

Resolved

Hey, I keep removing a sequel section on Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) because the only reference we have is is a blog. Is this blog an acceptable source? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this fits one of the exceptions to the "No blogs" rule... it isn't a "personal blog". MTV has editorial oversight, so it is similar to the blogs hosted by reliable news outlets. I would say that if there is doubt as to the accuracy of the information, attribute it as the opinion of the author. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Thanks. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tenacious D - Reliability check

I am working on finishing off the Tenacious D article in order to get it promoted to FA, and have a couple of queries relating to reliability.

• Is EveryHit.com reliable for chart information?
• Is Box Office Mojo reliable for box office results information (particularly here)?
• Is moviehole.net reliable? I have an interview that alone has some particularly useful info here Also, the same interview has been mirrored in a variety of sites (here, here, here and here). Are any of these reliable?
• Is LiveDaily reliable? This in particular.

I know thats a lot, but I'm trying to be thorough. Thanks, Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't answer for the rest, but yes, Box Office Mojo is considered a reliable source, and is one of the preferred ones for getting box office information for film articles. Collectonian (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You can usully find a clue by searching around in the website. For example: "everyHit.com is simply an online database of my family's record collection." Click around in each site looking for information about ownership, fact-checking, editorial oversight. If you can't find it, the burden is on you at FAC to demonstrate what makes the site reliable and why it's being used. For example, where do you find anything establishing reliability for moviehole.net? I can't find anything, so we shouldn't use them. Etecetera ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help so far. I've struck out the stuff that is done. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Paper That Uses Non-RS?

Is the specific paper "Of Otaku and Fansubs: A Critical Look at Anime Online in Light of Current Issues in Copyright Law",[75] by Jordan Hatcher on the Social Science Research Network considered a reliable source for making a claim IF the source he cites for that claim completely fails WP:RS? Specifically, he claims that Geneon Entertainment only licensed the anime series Fushigi Yūgi because of its popularity in fansubs, however the source he cites for this is a fansub distribution site and a non-RS anime site that does not specifically make such a claim, but only says that distributors "should" look at fansub downloading when deciding to license a series. This would seem to invalidate the paper as a reliable source and I'm not sure it should be used to add that claim to the Fushigi Yūgi article. Collectonian (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

May I add that Sequential Tart, one of the sites the paper uses as a source, describes itself as a women's comic industry web magazine, which has run since 1998. -Malkinann (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's been published in a verifiable publication then it's reliable. What the author chooses to source is not relevant to verfiability. --neonwhite user page talk 05:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, so then I guess the question is is Social Science Research Network considered a reliable source? Collectonian (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the actual journal it's published in (SSRN seems to be a journal-searching service), it says the article's been peer-reviewed. -Malkinann (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A follow up question, and semi-related, is the "Sequential Tart" website linked above considered a reliable source? Collectonian (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Both sources meet the relevant policy's criteria, so they are reliable sources. Still, if you think the referenced statement is controversial, all you have to do is attributing it, so to make it clear that it is that source's take on the issue, and not a general fact. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sequential Tart appears to be a reliable source. As for the other question, of what to do if an RS uses something that isn't an RS, that's a seperate possible can of worms that may be beyond us to answer. For example, what if a newspaper that is otherwise reliable uses as a source someone who we feel is unreliable? Do we have the authority to devalue the article in question? That would open the door to making questionable calls based on our own personal bias rather than neutrality. Tricky. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bostom and Prometheus books

Is either Andrew Bostom or Premotheus books a reliable source? Although currently I'm discussing the reliability of

Bostom, Andrew, ed. (2005). The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. Prometeus Books.

I would like to reach a consensus on the sources in general.

Prometheus books has published many books that are critical of/biased against Islam. Examples include:

• Why I Am Not A Muslim by Ibn Warraq
  • The book is described as a "sledgehammer to the task of demolishing Islam," and says "Islam is flatly incompatible with the establishment and maintenance of the equal individual rights."[76] For those who read the book will find that it says that the Qur'an is a fabrication, a fraud.
• Women and the Koran by Anwar Hekmat
  • The book says this about Islam: [77]
    • "Anwar Hekmat tells us of the brutality inflicted on women in the Islam religion",
    • "Mohammed is also depicted with insatiable sexual appetites that knew little boundaries",
    • "Hekmat argues...the Muslim religion created by Mohammed is a barbaric tradition",
    • "Much of the Islamic religion, claims Hekmat, is clever propaganda simply created to allow Mohammed to do as he pleased."

Bostom himself has a similar record:

• An Apology for Koranic Antisemitism?
  • "...Koran 3:112/2:61, and their virulently antisemitic contents."
  • "As a central anti-Jewish motif, the Koran decrees an eternal curse upon the Jews..."
• Sufi Jihad?
  • Calls Wahhabism "evil".
• Islam Without Camouflage
  • "...Islamic doctrines that threaten all of humanity—including Muslims themselves."
  • Bostom gives a quote: "THE ESSENCE OF HIS [i.e. Muhammad's ] DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE." Bostom calls this one of the "quintessential truths regarding Islam".

I leave the reader to judge whether the above sources are reliable or not.Bless sins (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No. The publication is not academic like University Presses (that practice blind peer-reviewing) nor does Bosom have any degree in Islamic studies. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Collections are not peer-reviewed; they are at best checked for accuracy (of reproduction; besides, of course, permissions). rudra (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bostom is the editor. The book is a collection of articles and translations. WP:RS applies to these sources. rudra (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The book has also been reviewed. rudra (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, a review by itself isn't much.

Some of the articles have been previously printed elsewhere, notably the one by C. E. Dufourcq - which isn't representative of his work, as far as I can tell, but still. I don't think any of the citations are from those articles but from the translations that Bostom considers significant. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Part 3 of the book. I don't think the credentials of the translators need be questioned. The issue would be the "Muslim Theologians and Jurists" so translated: why are they "primary" and not secondary, since they themselves are traditionally cast as interpreters of "the law" rather than originators? Or does every translation have to be further interpreted by an English language functionary in order to satisfy some notion of "secondary source"? rudra (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Augustine merely "interpreted" Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned, but I strongly doubt he could be considered anything but a primary source on original sin. I don't see the difference to this case.

More to the point, why are we looking at Bostom's choices of hadith? If those hadith have not been considered significant by any real modern authority, we shouldn't be quoting them at all. That's why every discussion of a twelfth century source damn well needs someone telling us which the important bits are, because picking the important bits is precisely what a bunch of academics quarrel about, and us doing their job is pretty much the definition of original research. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between Christian theology and Islamic law, not to mention the traditional (and I dare say justifiable) pride in the precision of the Arabic in fiqh texts by reputable scholars, and the systemic horror of bida. And this is the first I'm hearing of hadith. Where did that come from? rudra (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, too many near-identical arguments simultaneously.

The world of difference between Christian theology and Islamic law, or for that matter American jurisprudence, does not concern us in determining what we consider an acceptable form of research. We set up our rules of research to ensure that those who wish to skew articles towards the unreliable and the original cannot do so; in order to do that, we cannot permit them to quote-mine or misinterpret sources that are the correct subject of the article. We do not, for example, have a structure in place on-WP that can separate a fuqaha with greater authority from one with lesser; if someone wishes to propose such a system in the future, it would be helpful, but till then we must filter them through the systems we already have of reliability. Similarly, the question of whether Augustine or Grotius or Kant was more "reliable" on the subject of the rules of jus ad bellum is nonsensical; we use our structures of reliability and modern secondary sourcing to makes sense of what is central in what they say and what is not. The same is actually true of Supreme Court rulings. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like wikilawyering to me. Al-Ghazzali as "primary", especially when the book concerned was the very essence of a "secondary" effort (a compendium of Shafi'i law), is simply absurd. There is simply no question that Al-Ghazzali is himself a reliable source on Shafi'i jurisprudence. The rest is just handwaving to wish away what has suddenly (i.e. in modern times) been found indigestible. When Al-Ghazzali is found to say something, ah, palatable, naturally the wikilawyering will go full tilt the other way, fighting tooth and nail to cite him. rudra (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Come to me and complain when that happens. An eleventh-century scholar can be called "secondary" when we want every idiot amateur adding his opinions on everything to this encyclopaedia, not before. What is handwaving is "essence of secondary". Bollocks. That's like claiming Bagehot is a secondary source on the British constitution. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The BC is unwritten, by convention (which, of course, has been the cause of much histrionics). The jizya procedure according to the Shafi'i school has been written down multiple times, I'm sure, and scholars in training are no doubt obliged to bone up. I grant that it would be interesting if someone has shown that the procedure itself was subject to serious dispute within the Shafi'i school. It's possible; I don't know, but I see no reason to assume that. But if it wasn't disputed, then Al-Ghazzali is as good a source as any other leading light of that school. It's pretty cut and dried. rudra (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we need to know is that the procedure was not subject to dispute. Whichever source says that will serve as the required secondary source. The default position is not that we can assume it was not; nor can we assume it was. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While I would phrase things differently, I agree in substance. Documents that are several hundred years old are not secondary sources in the modern sense used in Wikipedia. Their interpretation needs expert knowledge, which is why we have history departments and anthropology departments and even religious studies departments at universities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bostom has no credentials in Islamic studies, he is a medical doctor by profession. Prometheus books is a well known publisher, but it's not academic, scholarly, nor does it have any sort of pedigree in the field of Islamic studies. Additionally, its books on Islam are often received negatively by the experts, such as Fred Donner's or Asma Asfaruddin's scathing attacks on Ibn Warraq's works for example. ITAQALLAH 12:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I had this issue with another person who was presented as Dr John Shea and an expert on anthropology when infact he was a medical doctor with a partisan agenda a mile wide. Since it is published by a notable publishing house I am afraid it is admissible under WP:RS and WP:Verifiable but it should be made clear that: (1) this person is a medical doctor and not an expert or a scholar on Islam (2) he is an Islamophobe, given the amount of crap he seems to have produced obtaining a reference to that effect should not be too problematic (3) any criticism of his drivel by normal people should also be included with references. I am pretty sure the issue must have come up before with the racist work of this Bat Yor person who doesn't even have a history degree. PS: Obviously any references to this kind of stuff should be in the form "Bostom, a medical doctor and noted Islamophobe says this and that". It must never be presented as unqualified fact since that would be severly misleading.Xenovatis (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"I am afraid it is admissible under WP:RS and WP:Verifiable" Great, now we should modify the Islam article to include the claims that it is a "barbaric tradition", and "propaganda". But you may want to ask yourself one thing before this: how many people will take wikipedia seriously if it did such a thing?Bless sins (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You on the other hand may want to pay a visit to the links I pointed you to, namely WP:SOURCES, a policy, and actually read them.Xenovatis (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read those links many times. In particular I fail to see how Bostom of Prometheus books satisfies the following:

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers...Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications."

Bostom has no qualifications in Islam that have been recognized by an institution (actually he has not qualifications period). Prometheus books can't be considered "mainstream" (let alone "academic") mostly because of the type of authors it attracts. And it certainly isn't "respected".

My above post was simply to point at the horrendous consequences that would result if either of the two sources are considered "admissible under WP:RS and WP:Verifiable."Bless sins (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What "horrendous consequences" (and "horrendous" to whom)? Proper attribution, as Xenovatis points out, is the answer to that "problem". rudra (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling 1/5 of mankind to be "barbaric" is not horrendous to you? Claiming that one of the major world religions and civilizations is "doctrine of violence and lust" doesn't sound ludicrous to you?Bless sins (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. There is no lack of academic sources and certainly no lack of much more reliable books or papers. If any of this information is non-controversial, one would expect it should be produced in other secondary source. But let's take Bosom out of the picture and avoid using primary sources directly. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For a mainstream academic topic like Islam, many hundreds of scholarly books and many thousands of peer-reviewed articles in recognized journals are available. While it make sense to use high-level introductory books for an overview, there is no reason to go to borderline sources on anything remotely controversial. This is not a fringe topic where we must be thankful for any scrap of material. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is a "fringe" topic, in that current "mainstream" work tends not to look into it. In any event, what the classical texts say about dhimma and jizya is conspicuous by its absence, for reasons that aren't hard to understand. rudra (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Stephan and Aminz (who make similar points).Bless sins (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Benton, Tennessee

A user named "toddyvol" is continuously making edits to Benton, Tennessee, claiming it's a "speed trap" without providing a reliable source. Several users have reverted his edits, but we're all maxing out our 3-reverts.

This user cited the "Speed Trap Exchange," which is not a reliable source, and pretty names every city in the southeast a "speed trap." Bms4880 (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Toddyvol that he/she is in violation of WP:3rr and can be blocked if he/she continues to edit war over this. I agree that the information needs to be sourced. Do you have a link to (or can you discribe) the "Speed Trap Exchange" so we can see why you think it is not reliable? Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS for Oscars

I've only just discovered this noticboard exists, and I already have a question for it.

I need to source some unsourced assertions about the Academy Award nominations for a film. The assertions look correct, I just need to check and source them. Is there anywhere that is:

• online,
• free to access,
• fairly detailed, and
• considered WP:RS? AndyJones (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For your information, this noticeboard is generally used to ask other editors whether a particular source is reliable or not, per "Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable" in the heading, and not to ask people to help find sources :-) But anyway, how about this? [78] --Slp1 (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But that's a good one. Thanks for your help. AndyJones (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Gokturk Source

I was pointed here due to a dispute on the Gokturk page. The flag is unsourced, and a certain user keeps reverting my edits to remove the unsourced flag. The only site given is this one: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2003/11/07/yazar/dundar.html I cannot read Turkish, so I was wondering if someone who can read it could verify that this is a credible source. Rcduggan (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I can not read turkish either, but from the format it seems to be a personal website/blog ... as such it would not be reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dsmurat has posted a second source: http://www.cankaya.gov.tr/eng_html/gunes.htm

However, it is just a picture of a few flags, which do not prove the flag was actually used. Therefore it still does not belong. Rcduggan (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of "Dean Swift"

An editor has recently questioned to reliability of a 1910 work called Dean Swift written by Sophie Smith. Her work was published by Metheun, a company that produced textbooks, histories, religious works, and a large "literature" collection. The work has an extensive Bibliography of five printed pages, which uses 94 sources, including a contemporary history (Lecky's Leaders of Irish Public Opinions) which another scholar, A. Goodwin states:"nor does it [his paper] challenge the accepted accounts of Lecky" (Goodwin, A.. "Woods Halfpence". The English Historical Review LI (1936): pp. 647-674.) Goodwin's work was the starting point for analyzing Swift's Drapier's Letters in the historic context for many later scholars and his work is very mainstream. She also uses many primary sources used by Goodwin and by later scholars, such as Ferguson and Ehrenpreis. Although she states that she "cannot vouch for [the primary source's] authenticity", no one can. However, part of history is accepting primary accounts until there is proof against it, and then rationalizing the account itself. Hence why historians try to use primary accounts from both sides. Regardless, this was a wide spread and popular work. It had 4 reprints and is included in many academic facilities according to "worldcat". Please respond so we can settle this matter. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems, then, to have been a serious biography from a leading publisher. The most striking thing about it is that it is very out of date. If there is more recent scholarship that contradicts its findings then that must be an important consideration. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For future reference - Its inclusion was from it being the only biography that looks through Swift's history as Dean, as opposed to Ferguson (Swift as Irish), or Ehrenpreis (Swift as a political writer). It is limitedly used on The Drapier's Letters 5 times out of over 100 citations. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it used for anything controversial? Are you sure that there is no more recent work (could be a scholarly article rather than a book) that covers the same ground? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have argued that Sophie Smith's work is not the most reliable source because modern literary critical methods and historiographical methods have changed since 1910. What would be considered legitimate primary source material and the methods of interpreting that material have changed substantially in the last 100 years. The standard biography of Swift is Ehrenpreis, something that this editor has admitted. This issue has received a lot of discussion, albeit in a fragmented way, at Talk:The Drapier's Letters#Questions on sources). Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the statements sourced to this work that I feel could be challenged and deserve sourcing to a more reputable source:

• The Drapier's Letters are the most important of Swift's "Irish tracts", and are a politically important part of Swift's writings along with Gulliver's Travels (1726), A Tale of a Tub (1704), and A Modest Proposal (1729). Above all, the Drapier's Letters are a primary reason why Swift is seen as a hero to many Irish people, for he was one of the earliest writers to defy England's control over the Irish nation.
• Jonathan Swift, then Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin, was already known for his concern for the Irish people and for writing several political pamphlets. One of these, Proposal for the Universal use of Irish Manufacture (1720), had so inflamed the English authorities that the printer, John Harding, was prosecuted, although the pamphlet had done little more than recommend that the Irish use the materials they produce rather than export them to England
• Although Swift knew that the Duchess of Kendal was responsible for selling the patent to Wood, he rarely mentions this fact in the Letters. Instead, his first three letters emphasize how Wood was the mastermind behind the patent. Although the Drapier constantly asserts his loyalty to the King, his words did not prevent claims of treason from being leveled against him in response to the third and fourth letters.
• Some residents of Dublin placed banners and signs in the city to recognize Swift's deeds as the Drapier, and images from the letters, such as the Drapier comparing his campaign to David fighting Goliath, became themes in popular literature. Awadewit (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Those comments are all in regard to the research Smith performed in finding out Swift's parish's reaction to his actions and deeds. She is the only one that I have found that have done more than just allude to the actions of the people in regard to Swift, but actually quotes and documents primary sources that are reacting to the people's involvement. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If Smith is the only writer to mention this material, that raises even further questions of its validity. If no modern literary critic or historian repeats this information or endorses Smith's claims, that makes me even more skeptical of them. Awadewit (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia suggests that the original writer of the idea, and not those who follow up and agree with it, are the ones that deserve priority to being sourced. This is also the understanding that I have from most of the academic circles that I am part of. Furthermore, academic work is supposed to be original, and unless someone is writing to say that these claims are wrong, then people would not bring them up, except anecdotally. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You must also know that if an idea is accepted within academic circles, it is frequently repeated and made reference to. That is how one establishes that it is an "important" or "significant" idea within a body of scholarship. Awadewit (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia prefers the original. 2. That is not necessarily true, since there are more teachers on a subject than writers on the specific point in the academic community. 3. Rarely, rarely, do academics ever duplicate information unless its necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what academic field you are a part of, but in literary studies and history, academics repeat a great deal of information. Most books contain large sections of "this is what is important that has been said before" - a brief survey of the scholarly literature on the topic - as well as references to the works that the author is responding to. Anyone working in these fields would know this. Unfortunately, the only way to prove this is to read large numbers of books. However, if the editors trying to help us resolve this dispute want to take the time to read through a large cache of notes that would demonstrate this, they can look at User:Simmaren/Sandbox/Jane Austen/Collaboration Work Page. This page of notes is the result of reading the major works of literary criticism on Jane Austen. It will amply demonstrate how important ideas are frequently repeated and how authors refer back to works that are significant. Awadewit (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You can say that all you want, however, you are patently false. There are rules against copyright infringement, and duplicating research is not only illegal, its extremely academically dishonest. Academics only publish works when they have a new view point or something worth contributing. They do not regurgitate old information. Your stubborn refusal to seek and listen to advice from the community on the issue is unwarranted. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am obviously referring to properly sourced scholarship, scholarship which acknowledges its sources. All scholarship builds on previous works and acknowledges that (hence the extensive bibliographies, footnotes, and quotations). To act as if every iota of a every new work of published scholarship is original research is absurd. Anyone who has ever read a series of works produced in an academic field will know that this is a ridiculous assertion. I have even provided notes that disprove your claim from the scholarship on Jane Austen. I have continued this discussion in good faith at the article talk page and at this noticeboard to find a consensus. However, your obvious strawmen arguments, bizarre claims regarding academic scholarship, and refusal to address the legitimate points raised here and on the article talk page by myself and others, force me to conclude that this is a hopeless discussion. Awadewit (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are ignoring how actual academia works. 1. You cannot just regurgitate information, unless you are writing an Education Doctoral dissertation (that is the only acceptable academic work that can just be a reciting of previous information) 2. All academic works require original thought. Anything else is not a reflection of real academia. 3. The only one refusing to do anything is you, and you refuse to accept the consensus in favor of the work. Your constant continuance on the issue is troubling. This is the last response you will have from me. It seems that you do not understand what Wikipedia is, and that you would rather argue over things that aren't an issue. Good bye. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I might have to do a little hunting to find specific sources, but at least the first 3 of them are critical commonplaces, and will be in every later discussion of his oeuvre. If any of these are challenged as wrong , the sources can be added. But this seems asserts at least some notability, so this seems a simple case of using the first convenient source. It should be supplemented or replaced ideally, but I don';t see it as worth much fighting. DGG (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to object to the assumption that just because something is old it is automatically unreliable, especially when it comes to History. Some old sources are still considered the seminal work on a given topic. Others may have had specific points corrected by modern scholarship, but are still highly reguarded.

That said, in this particular case, while it may not be the seminal source on Swift... it certainly should be considered a reliable source. Where Smith's scholarship has been corrected or questioned by more modern sources, I would certainly point this out in the article... and if Smith's scholarship is now considered incorrect by the majority of historians I would not hesitate to say drop Smith entirely, but it does not sound like this is the case. Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is now being considered for FAC and this is why questions over its sources have arisen. The problem is, unfortunately, not limited to this source. I know that some older works are seminal, but that is not the case here, as Ottava Rima acknowledges on the talk page at Talk:The Drapier's Letters. I'm not sure why this work should be considered reliable since it has been supplanted in the field - for Swift scholars, this work is no longer important. Ottava Rima has not made the argument that Swift scholars find this work reliable and use it. WP:V and WP:RS emphasize that a work must be considered reliable within its context - that must be considered here as well. If Swift scholars don't use this work, why should we? Aren't we supposed to be following the experts? I would like to point out that the Norton Writings of Jonathan Swift, published in 1973, makes no mention of this work in its "Bibliography", but does mention two nineteenth-century biographies (this was before the publication of Ehrenpreis). If the work were regarded as reliable, it would have been listed here. Awadewit (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the only one with a problem over the source is you, and your failure to recognize proper community procedure over such leaves much to be desired. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not responded to my argument or evidence provided above. Awadewit (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Melody Amber

Directed here from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts [79]; confirming reliability first may be a good idea even though there was already consensus on the article's talk page.

Text of my alert:

Harassment and vandalism on Melody Amber. User is of the conviction that every mention of my name should be eliminated from the internet and does not care about guidelines. I could use some help, not sure where to go with this. Spillover from nl:Wikipedia where user and user:JacobH have been stalking me for over six months, risk of further escalation if more troops are called in. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For your information: NL.wiki arbcom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder for self promotion. We have determined the unimportance of his work. GijsvdL (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_this_3RR.3F and various places as in Special:Contributions/Guido_den_Broeder. Aleichem (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this is a total and complete lie by GijsvdL, and part of the harassment that had even spread off-wiki. But, also once more, completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Anybody may visit NL.wiki IRC to verify. You're now blocked at NL.wiki for the same behaviour. GijsvdL (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, keep on lying. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks, according to log - GijsvdL (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's being dealt with. Some of this mob are indeed admins ('moderators'). Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oscar, the moderator who blocked you, is your mentor. He also used to be member of the WMF Board of Trustees, he is not just someone who happened to become moderator. GijsvdL (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear that he is no longer a board member. But no, he is not my mentor. His claim that he is does not make it so, there are laws that even Wikipedia has to follow. To those interested: I was blocked two weeks for archiving. This Oscar guy insists that I am only allowed to archive on the last day of the month. He then continued to vandalize my user space. I'm sure that I need say no more. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Copyright questions. Apart from the unpleasant feeling of some WP:FORUMSHOP going on, WP:RSN is probably the right place to discuss this. The "copyright question" would be a red herring at best I suppose.

At WP:VPP#Copyright questions Guido makes this remarkable reasoning:

Amber tournament has a WP article → Amber tournament is notable → the sources on the tournament are notable → the sources on the tournament are reliable.

Guido, note, this is the inversion of how it works at en.wikipedia:

There are multiple reliable sources on a topic → the topic has "notability" (per WP:N) if some other requirements are met too (e.g. sources are "non-trivial" etc.) → apart from some exceptional circumstances this usually means that a Wikipedia article using such reliable sources can be written.

Note that there is no implication for "other" sources on the same topic to become at once "reliable" by the fact that an article is written on the topic.

Re. Guido's contention "these are the official publications on behalf of the organization". Possibly. Use the article's talk page to find consensus on such contention, I mean on both contentions that this is a fact and outdoes the "self-published" characteristic of the sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My statement was not questioned by anyone, so WP:AGF applies. You could, however, contact the organizer, if you wish to be sure. Or you could check the books themselves. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I questioned it, as a result of this being brought to WP:RSN (and WP:VPP). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of a source furthermore follows from the reliability of the publisher and the author. Also, if you google, you will find that these books can be found mentioned, and they have been discussed in many chess magazines. And nobody is denying that. User merely wishes to see my name disappear. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Show the references, you may be able to convince some people. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't show them, since they are on paper. I can only list them, which would take quite a while. Not going to, therefore; if anyone doubts it it's up to them to make the first effort. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's up to you, but if you want to list some of the sources here then we might agree with you that they are reliable. Just give the author, title, publisher and date of publication. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the google references, I quote user Thoth at nl:Wikipedia: "(ik... snap niet dat ik al die google hits heb kunnen missen" (I... don't understand how I missed all those google hits). [80] Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm user Thoth on the Dutch Wikipedia and I do not support this user in his quest for selfpromotion, nor do I appreciate being selectively quoted by this user. In my opinion, he will do anything to see his name on a Wikipedia. He tried and is stil trying on the Dutch Wikipedia and he tried it on the German Wikipedia. I think this user is one of the worst kind Wikipedia has. Jorrit-H (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Another one-purpose account, one of the mob. Expect two or three more.

I do not have an account on ge:Wikipedia, never visited it even.

On nl:Wikipedia, I have contributed to hundreds of articles. About five of them contain one or more references to my work as a leading scientist in my field. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources noticeboard. Someone lists a source, editors comment. Please confine your posts on this page to the purpose. Don't forget that you also have dispute resolution methods open to you. A request for comment might be appropriate at this stage. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

One purpose account? no, this account was made for making an article on request. btw, you started to use me as a refrence so don't whine when I have something to say about it, you named me so you got me here. and if we check out de:Benutzer:Rubi64 it aint you right? :P don't make me laugh anymore than you already did... Jorrit-H (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting an IP check. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor changes to WP:RS

I've made a couple minor changes to WP:RS. In short - I added a couple notes to WP:RS#Scholarship. Basically: a single, small study is not considered the final word in science, and in complex fields like medicine, small studies have a decent chance of later being shown wrong. And, oh yeah. Not everything that claims to be a peer-reviewed journal is reliable, because some fringe theorists decided to publish their own journals, reviewed by peers who are fanatically devoted to the fringe theory. Secondly, I revised the extremist sources section, basing it a bit more closely off of WP:V, and adding a little bit on fringe sources based on WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, and checking WP:FRINGE to confirm my interpretation of what that meant re: sourcing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly a good thing to move the guideline closer to what the policies say (especially WP:V). This guideline has a tendancy to attract instruction creap, and often ends up in direct contradition with Policy. We have to clear it out from time to time. When doing so, we must be careful not to inadvertantly end up conflicting with one policy in an attempt to clear up a conflict with another. In this case, I don't think you did so... Just wanted to go on record with the caution. Blueboar (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a note to WP:RS#Scholarship on the publishers of academic or purported academic journals, a criterion I feel could be more widely used in the assessment of RS. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

the language needed some adjustment, & I & others have been adjusting it to sound less contentious. DGG (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this. 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Raleigh, North Carolina population

Before someone points to this and tells me case closed, I'd like to know if this 2008 estimate from the Raleigh government website is considered reliable. The website links to the Population Estimate Methodology which states "The City’s population estimate is based on factual information available regarding population growth since the decennial Census in April 2000...housing units and group quarters counts." The estimate is not from the Chamber of Commerce. I've seen CoC stats cited in other city articles and I know they have commercial reasons for inflating the population. It's from a goverment website and the methodology used to obtain the population estimate is the same as the United States Census 2006 estimates that are cited in various city articles. The reason I think using the 2008 estimate (374,320) is important comes from the fact Raleigh is the 15th fastest growing U.S. city and we should keep up with current and government-sourced information for readers. Look at the change in population from 2000 to 2008. IMHO, common sense tells me if a government website and other sources think this 2008 estimate is legitimate, then so should we. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Census figure first, then the new estimate attributed clearly to the source. Only the census figure in the infobox (for consistency across articles). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

James Randi

Is James Randi's An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural a suitable source for a description of a meditation technique? It was originally published by St. Martin's Press, a, large and well-established publisher, and co-written with Arthur C. Clarke the science fiction writer. Randi has won several awards, induding a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant". He has published many books. I believe he's considered a living authority on paranormal and spiritual phenomenon. This is inspired by a dispute at Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat#Randi. (I searched for this in the noticeboard archives and I don't think it's been asked before.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the central issue here is whether the article Teachings of Prem Rawat is part of the biography of the living person, Prem Rawat, and therefore requires the exceptionally good sources stipulated by biographies of living persons. User:Will Beback does not believe so. Rumiton (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A) I think that this book may qualify as an exceptionally good source. B) I don't think that "Teachings of Prem Rawat" is a BLP, and certainly not in this context. That article is mostly material merged from "Techniques of Knowledge"[81], which is a meditation system dating back to 1780. The material from Randi is not about Prem Rawat and doesn't mention his name. It's solely about the meditation technique. C) The BLP aspect isn't really relevant on this noticeboard. Let's resolve the reliability issue first and if there are still disputes then we can visit other noticeboards as need be. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Randi may be an known stage magician and skeptic, but that is not the issue at hand. Will omits the fact that the few paragraphs in that book that want to be used as a source in a BLP, contains numerous factual inaccuracies, such as wrong dates, wrong information about aspects that are well documented by scholarly sources, etc, and that the proposal is to omit mentioning these and cherry pick one short sentence from these paragraphs. Well, we cannot do that: either the source is accurate or it is not (as it compares to the many scholarly sources available on the subject) So, again, the issue at hand is the quality of a source and not a blanket statement about if a source is reliable or not. There are other considerations as well: We ought to use the best sources available to us: Per Wikipedia:NPOV#A_vital_component:_good_research: (my highlight) Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available.' Try the library for 'reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little ground work can save a lot of time justifying a point later. An entry on that book that is so peppered with factual errors, is not the best "reputable authoritative source". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(btw the book was not co-written by A C Clark. He just wrote a foreword) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this, this is a fairly borderline-notable subject - it peaked in the 70s, so finding articles is going to start to become a problem, since proponents of a view have a habit of keeping track of sources they like, but the skeptical views tend to be forgotten as there's noone who has an interest in recording them. Hence, I think that Randi's views are fine to include as criticism, if properly attributed to him. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Randi is a reputable source on yogic techniques. In the Teachings of Prem Rawat article, he was quoted in the Reception section, so one could have some sympathy for his presence there, but I feel it's still not enough. One of the methods he comments on, in a very dismissive and sneering way, is Khecarī mudrā, a centuries-old method used in the Indian subcontinent. Needless to say, Randi's comment does not appear in the Khecarī mudrā article, nor is it ever likely to, even if that article were brought to FA status.

To transpose this sort of issue to another field, Richard Wagner is reported by the New York Times to have written that Hegel's work is "rubbish". The New York Times is a reputable source. However, this does not mean that we should now all flock to the article on Hegel and insert a sentence like "The notable composer Richard Wagner thought that Hegel's work only appeared profound, but was in fact empty nonsense and rubbish". Wagner's views of Hegel simply do not have encyclopedic relevance, even though they are published and many people would agree with him. The same goes for Randi's views of yogic methods. Jayen466 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That argument has nothing to do with whether Randi is a Reliable Source. You asked whether we thought Randi was a reliable source for this. I think he is. Is he one you want to include on this page? That's for consensus over there, but I don't think that policy gives you an automatic win on this argument. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayen that this material covers an old meditative technique, and is not about a living person. I'd also add that Randi is apparently used as a source for hundreds of WP articles, including BLPs.[82] He is also cited by numerous scholars, [83], and this particualr book is also cited.[84] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The book may be cited, but if you look at where and by whom it is cited, none of these citations appear to be in anything remotely approaching this field: [85]. Wagner's letters, I am sure, are cited too; that does not make him a noted authority on Hegel. Jayen466 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Randi is a reliable, although opinionated, source, for claims of the paranormal or transcendent. Because he's approaching things from the "debunking" side, it may generally be appropriate to qualify his remarks as "according to noted skeptic James Randi...", however, his opinion is worth mentioning. <eleland/talkedits> 21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Eleland, though where Randi's critiques align closely with the scientific rationalization of the subject, they may not need attribution within the text (as opposed to when he, for example, calls people names.) Remember too, WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree also. Attribution is necessary, but his work can be used. - Merzbow (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Parity of sources is relevant and part of the reason for my objection to Randi as a source in this article; we have numerous texts by scholars of religion available, covering a full spectrum of opinion, and Randi sticks out like a sore thumb. Jayen466 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but the fact that Randi's text (which is only a few paragraphs) is full of factual errors makes this a less desirable source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see how saying "We have a lot of religious sources" means "We shouldn't use non-religous sources". Wikipedia seeks to cover all the views in existence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, we don't cover all the views in existance... we cover all significant views. The question is whether Randi's views on this should be considered significant. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Randi is a well-known and award-winning investigator of spiritual and paranormal activities. The article already contains the views of followers, and the skeptical view is unrepresented. For those reasons it appears to be a significant viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the background is useful to know here. Will Beback, Jossi, Rumiton, Jayen466 and I have been actively editing the various Prem Rawat pages. On the actual BLP page, Randi was one of the very few critical sources present. While I felt he was more snide than I would like for a BLP, I also strongly felt that supporters of Prem Rawat were trying to remove all criticism for POV reasons. I called for Randi critics to provide an alternate, better source for criticism, to move forward in good faith, but none was forthcoming.

On a non-BLP page, I think the non-involved editors here have it right -- Randi's opinionated and that should be noted, but he is not unreasonable or irresponsible. I think he clearly represents a notable and significant viewpoint. I also think there are way more pages on Prem Rawat-related topics than his notability justifies, but that's a whole other discussion. Msalt (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but where are Randi's views on Christianity, Jesus or the Virgin birth of Jesus in those articles? To quote Randi,

"For example, they told me, some 2,000 years ago a mid-East virgin was impregnated by a ghost of some sort, and as a result produced a son who could walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine, and multiply loaves of bread and fishes. All that was in addition to tossing out demons. He expected and accepted a brutal, sadistic, death — and then he rose from the dead. There was much, much, more. Adam and Eve, they said, were the original humans, plunked down in a garden to start our species going. But I didn't understand, and still don't, that they had only two children, both sons — and one of them killed the other — yet somehow they produced enough people to populate the Earth, without incest, which was a big no-no! Then some prophet or other made the Earth stop turning, an army blew horns until a wall fell down, a guy named Moses made the Red Sea divide in two, and made frogs fall out of the sky…. I needn't go on. And that's only a small start on one religion! The Wizard of Oz is more believable. And more fun."

No, this is simply minority-bashing; it has nothing to do with Randi's notability or the encyclopedic relevance of his views (many of which I have some degree of sympathy for, incidentally). If I am wrong and this is a good-faith effort to reflect the views of a significant commentator on religious matters in Wikipedia, please see to it that his views are reflected in the articles mentioned above. Upon successful completion of that task I shall then entertain the idea that his views are of wider importance than I have hitherto believed. Jayen466 15:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is the Reliable Sources noticeboard. It is a reliable source. That doesn't mean it has to be included, or that you can't go and edit it in elsewehere. But you can't just try and get something declared not a reliable source because you dislike it. Take it to WP:NPOV/N or WP:FTN if you want it looked at on those grounds, but I don't think it's going to be found to violate any actual policy, and you must instead actually build consensus not to include it. You know, WP:CONSENSUS. That other part of Wikipedia policy that so often gets ignored in these disputes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While the factual reliability of the account has been questioned as well, that was not the issue here. The question asked above was whether it was a suitable source for the description of a meditation technique. Otherwise, I have no objection to dealing with this as per WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. Jayen466 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no dispute that this book from Randi can be considered a usable source in certain contexts, and a case can be made that it is not usable in other contexts. The real discussion about suitability and appropriateness for inclusion needs to be had at the specific article. All sources, have to be assessed in the context of other policies as well, such as NPOV#UNDUE, for example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This just isn't a reliable sources issue, it's a consensus issue, and the effect of using this noticeboard in this manner, sidestepping consensus, would be inappropriate. (Obviously, that does not mean that it was the intent of the original posters.) This needs sorted out at the article, with reference to WP:NPOV and perhaps WP:NPOV/FAQ for more guidance. Remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored, however. That said, perhaps you could work out a compromise, say, paraphrase Randi's somewhat inflammatory language into something more neutral. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ihro.in

Since past few days, User:Singh6 has been adding references from ihro.in to a number of articles.

Does http://www.ihro.in classifies as a reliable source? The website supposedly belongs to "International Human Rights Organisation", but surprsingly the activities of this "International Human Rights Organisation" are limited to the Punjab insurgency. This seems to be more of a Khalistani propaganda site. The "Discussion board" of this "international" organization is situated on Yahoo groups.

While there were undoubtedly human rights violations during the Punjab insurgency, this site greatly exaggerates them. Surprisingly, inspite of being a "Human Rights Organisation", it does not talk about atroicities committed by religious militants during the Punjab insurgeny. It only criticises the Indian government, while glorifying the fanatic religous militants.

There are many neutral sources on the Khalistan crisis and this site doesn't seem to be one of them.

According to whois information, the domain is registered by an individual Tanveer Singh, not some international NGO.--202.54.176.51 (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it doesn't seem to be an independent human rights body. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Extremist source, probably. See this, if anything remains of it after I take out the copyvios. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Site- Respected Wikipedia community, as per my analysis, IHRO is not Khalistani Propaganda Site. Being normal humans, we also have a responsibility to keep the true history intact. We should not let our national affiliation over-ride our unbiased reporting. It appears that Punjab Police and other Indian security forces had simply crushed the Khalistan Movement, but it is not true. Thousands of Boys were killed in fake encounters and then cremated secretely. Even innocent family members of militants and others were tortured and killed by Govt of India. "Human Rights watch" has indicated that even world famous "Amnesty International" was not allowed to visit state of Punjab by Government of India. Please note that the related news always appeared on "The Tribune", one of north-Indian newspapers and Ajit, a regional newspaper of India etc. Since The Tribune (a 125 years old newspaper group) did not have online editions prior to 2001 and Ajit didn’t have any online editions untill very recently, hence eliminating the very few NPOV available sources will be equivalent to murdering history as well. Yes! we are proud Indian citizens, but while suppressing information about thousands of murder and rape victims, we should not forget that the victims idintified by www.ihro.in were also citizens of our respected nation. Please throughly read "Amnesty International", "Amnesty International, "Human Rights watch" where it says that "Thousands of mothers await their sons even though some may know that that the oppressor has not spared their sons’ lives on this earth. A mother’s heart is such that even if she sees her son’s dead body, she does not accept that her son has left her. And those mothers who have not even seen their children’s dead bodies, they were asking us: at least find out, is our son alive or not?" and "ENSAAF". I beg you, please do not murder history by suppressing the already extremely less availibility of online sources of information regarding Punjab. I will never add any Khalistani propaganda sites as references, but I have personally seen the crimes committed by govt security forces and I strongly beleive that IHRO is not biased.Singh6 (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously, a person who believes that gun-weilding religious extremist terrorists are "martyrs"[86][87][88][89][90] will find IHRO unbiased. But apart from your belief, what proof do you have that IHRO is really a respected international organization that can be used as a reliable source, and not just some Khalistani propaganda site? 202.54.176.51 (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Politico.com

In the article George Soros a new source that I hadn't heard of the Politico or politico.com is being used as a source for the supposed fact that Soros is funding a political attack campaign against John McCain, e.g. "Brock described that the plan intends to raise $40 million to run political attack advertisements."

Since the tone doesn't seem like a neutral reportage of facts, and since I'd never heard of it, I'd think it's not a reliable source. Rather than get into an edit war about it, I thought all you reliable source experts might be able to chip in.

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to be a reliable source, although there may be issues of NPOV inherent in the manner in which it is cited. Since it's a fairly new media outlet and may not have built up a reputation for accuracy, I would generally prefer to cite it as "According to the tabloid politico.com... whatever". <eleland/talkedits> 21:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but if it is a tabloid (in the sense of content or style, rather than printing format), then it shouldn't be in a BLP. Does anybody have info with whether this is a reliable source? Smallbones (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its wise until its built up a reputation. I note, however, that the "story", such as it is, has been picked up by Fox News, so there's a supposedly more reliable source on it. I wouldn't think that it was encyclopaedic until the ads actually appear, though. By which point the NYT and such like will probably be covering them. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

school newspapers

Are school newspapers for colleges considered reliable? (for example, [91]); I don't need them to prove the notability of the subject, but they are a good source for information and opinions on the subject, as the subject is college-oriented. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that particular link is an op-ed in a student newspaper. Op-eds are usually on the bleeding edge of reliable sources, as are student papers. Combine the two, and I'm not confident at all. If it's a goofy subject like "Zombie apocalypse" we might as well include the opinion, but in a mainstream article I would be quite leery of it. <eleland/talkedits> 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I read the link as a letter to the editor, in which case it would have to be "not reliable." (Maybe a letter to the NY Times from a notable person would be reliable). In general, I would think that a well established student run college newspaper, at a well established college or university addressing general news topics would still be borderline, but if they were addressing a university topic it would be reliable (i.e. more or less agree with Eleland here). Smallbones (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, bad example for the op-ed, but in terms of general use of school newspapers, it's ok? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

They're on the edge of reliability. If it's a novel and controversial claim, or if it's outside the general area of the newspaper's competence (ie, campus affairs,) I would wish to attribute it in the text as the report of a student newspaper. Without knowing more about the specific dispute, it's difficult to give a more helpful opinion. <eleland/talkedits> 01:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Some collegiate newpapers are well known for their journalism... others are not. I think this has to be a case by case determination. Blueboar (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The article in question is Humans vs. Zombies. I have a primary source backed up by the Washington Post for the rules of the game, et al, but in terms of the controversy it has caused at college campuses... that is where I would be using some sources from school newspapers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

UrbanBridgez.com

UrbanBridgez.com (abbreviated UBG on their site) is being used as a source here (suspiciously added by a new editor named AriesUBG). Spam issues aside, the reliability of this source seems dubious at best. This seems to be a fairly widespread problem with music articles—sources that, on the surface, appear professional but on closer inspection raise serious doubts to their reliability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Movie Credits: does Wikipedia trust our observations?

Kind of a provocative title, I know, but this subject seems to keep coming up, and I am wondering if it isn't something that we can stem the tide of confusion with by tweaking the policy.
Currently, when writing film summaries (or, I would imagine, book summaries as well) we write from an observational point of view. 'This and this happened', and so on. Sometimes, like in Jackie Chan films, out-takes from stunts play during the credits, and as such, are often included in the articles. As well, in Children of Men, a film about the possible extinction of the human race from infertility, while the credits roll, the sounds of children laughing and shouting are heard throughout. In Fitna, the credits include the alias, 'Scarlet Pimpernel' as the director/editor/etc of the film. In the case of CoM, we don't have a RS citation wherein someone says, 'hey, didja hear dem kids chuckling about?' while in Fitna, we have a very reliable source that states unequivocally that the 'Scarlet Pimpernel' thing is an alias for a production company.
My question is this: when we are faced with unsourced info that is observational (and therefore primary info), do we follow WP:PSTS? If we have a source that clarifies that an observed phenomena (be it laughter of children in CoM or a simple ambiguous usage of the nom de plume Scarlet Pimpernel in Fitna), does it take precedence in how we bring that to the article? Thoughts, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that in movie and TV shows plots a bit of leeway is given as it relates to descriptive aspects of the primary source (i.e. the movie or TV show itself), but caution should be exercise not to indulge beyond making descriptive claims and into analysis or other OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, how would you apply that reasoning to the examples above? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed above... but I will repeat... film credits are text... no different than the text of a book. The fact that this text happens to appear on film and not on paper is irrelevant. When reading film credits we do not use an "observational point of view" the way we would with the rest of the film. Film credits are something we can read and cite... just as we read and cite information that appears in a printed book or on a website. Now... that text is a primary source for that information... so all the cautions discussed at PSTS would apply. We should stick to relating the basic facts listed in the source, and not use it to support analytical or conclusionary statements. For those we need reliable secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Which I believe were presented for the third example, Fitna. The citation notes that the 'Scarlet Pimpernel Productions is an alias for a (Dutch) production company. As the infobox should contain the most concise info, we should note that production company. It is furthermore noted in the body of the article. How would you deal with the CoM example, Blueboar? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I think that the article should list "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions" (cited to the credits) in the info box, and discuss the disclosure that this is really an alias for a dutch production company (cited to your source) in the main text.

As for CoM... I don't think your comparison is quite apt. The fact that one hears the laughter of children while the credits roll in CoM is an observational statement. It is possible for different people to make different observations. Technically, stating this observation is a form of Original Research (however it is an exception to our NOR polcicy). The fact that the credits of Fitna list "Scarlet Pimpernel" does not depend upon observation. It is not Original Research. It is verifiable Fact. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying that noting hte laughter in CoM is an exception to our NOR policy. Might I trouble you to point to where in the page it says that? It would be awesome to memorize that particular nugget.

I guess I should have mentioned that the laughter in CoM is noted in the closed-captioning versions of the French (and presumably the Spanish version as well, as the US/UK version provides for all three, including SDH) and subtitled Japanese versions of this film. Though bootlegging is a monumental problem in China (and subsequently cannot be considered as a reliable source), the Chinese subtitling notes the laughter as well. I am not sure how we deal with subtitling and how they should be interpreted/used in film and tv articles, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Material observed in films is original research, the source being the person who observed it. Personal observations of Wikipedia editors are not considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg... By your logic, we could say that material observed on a website or in a book is OR, the source being the person who observed it. No... the source is the film, not the person who watched the film. Now, since the film is the primary source, any interpretation of the film by our editors is clearly OR... but basic facts about what occures in the film is not. The only hesitation I have about Arcayne's CoM laughter example is that I could see two different editors disagreeing as to whether the sound is actually the laughter of children or not (could it be some other noise... or could it be adults laughing?). In other words there might be interpretation involved in the statement. My guess is that if we were to raise this example at NOR, the consensus would be that it is not OR.

Arcayne... the exemption is not specifically stated in NOR... However, the topic has been discussed numerous times on the talk page and at the NOR/noticeboard. There has been a clear consensus on those pages that stating basic observations (such as the plot) is not OR. I am confident that they would say that stating that one can hear laughter at one point in a film is not much different than stating something about the plot. Feel free to ask on either of those pages if you wish confirmation of this. But to repeat my main point: citing the text of film credits is not the same... as it does not involve "observation". Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the analogy doesn't work. Books can be read and quoted exactly; one cannot do the same for a film. "Basic observations" are indeed OR, as is a claim that one can hear laughter at a point in the film. The fact that so many articles violate the WP:NOR policy is neither here nor there; in the fullness of time they will be brought into line with policy too. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it works quite well; both are observed phenomena, not an evaluative processing of that phenomena.

Using your reasoning, any plot summary is OR, which is just plain silly. Its the reason that observed information that meets a consensus (ie, 'yep, all that happened in the movie') is excluded from the NOR policy by both time and consensus. I would suggest that if you are aware of a new or emerging consensus regarding this, perhaps you could illuminate us as to where it can be found. The film is the explicit and implicit source for the film. So long as we are not evaluating what these observations mean, there is no original research. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

the analogy is off because we are not talking about 'observed" phenomina in this case, but about the printed text of the credits. This is material that can be read and quoted exactly... just like a book. The laughter in the CoM is more analogous to how we deal with plot elements in the movie... we can bluntly state that this laughter occurs, and cite the movie as the primary soruce for this statement, but we can not discuss why the laughter occurs or what it might mean. That would be an analysis that goes beyond simple observation, and for that we would need a secondary source. So while both the apperance of "Scarlet Pimpernel" in the credits of one film, and the sound of laughter in another are both cited to a film... they are really different issues with different levels of reliability and OR. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar on citing the film as a primary source for the laughing children. In case it isn't clear to people not familiar with MOS:FILM, the reason plot sections do not use sources is because they focus only on the most important (such as non-trivial) elelments of the film. This means, that every aspect of a plot section can be sourced in reliable sources. Exceptions to this guideline encourage the use of sources to solve disputes about the plot. The sound effects of children laughing in the credits are supported by primary source references to closed captioning. But there are no secondary sources which support their inclusion. And, since their inclusion is being used to advance an implicit theory about the conclusion of the film, it is OR to include them. I have tried to compromise by including a closing credits section that includes all major elements. Arcayne removed the two most reliably sourced elements (songs whose importance was sourced to the LA Times), and instead chose to focus on the elements he personally believed to be important. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source Questions for the Sega Mega Drive article.

Hello. To whom it may concern, I've been working on the Sega Mega Drive article for a little while now. The article is now being peer reviewed, but the peer reviewer brought up two sources that I used as being questionable. Now, he didn't know whether they were reliable or not. So, I took these sources over to the Video Games wikiproject and once again got an "I don't know" for an answer. Now, I'm bringing these sources here to find out. The first source, http://www.skillreactor.org/cgi-bin/index.pl?megadrv , appears to be a tertiary source, a report somebody compiled about the Mega Drive and cited where they got their information. Although neither the peer reviewer nor the person who looked at the sources from the Video Games project knew whether it would be a reliable source or not, but the information from this source is used very extensively in the article. The second source, http://www.consoledatabase.com/consoleinfo/segamegadrive/index.html , is used less, but still used extensively. I would really appreciate some feedback about these two sources. Thanks for your time. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDB Pro

I know the regular IMDB is not considered a reliable source, but what about its Pro site? Someone is using it as a source for biographical information about a relatively little known actor, but I'm wondering if Pro is somehow reliable where the main site is not. Nothing that I see in their information for pro would seem to indicate it be.Collectonian (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is more reliable. Consider what the following (uncited) statement from the wiki article on Imdb:

In 2002, the IMDb spun off a private, subscription-funded for profit site, IMDbPro, offering the entire content of the database plus additional information for business professionals, such as personnel contact details, titles in development, movie event calendars, and a greater range of industry news.

As well, most information as to the features of ImdbPro are contained within the site itself, which requires a paid membership to access. This would seem to be in opposition to our verification policy - we aren't able to verify the presence of the statement being cited without signing up and paying for the right to verify it. This limits the fact-checking reliability required for inclusion as well as seemingly interrupting the peer-review that adds to a statement's verifiability. Exceptional claims made by such a source cannot be verified as having an exception source through normal means by the average user (even JSTOR is accessible through a local library). Failing our basic policy is reason enough for disinclusion.

I would suggest that the individual of whom you speak read our verifiability and reliability policies not just for the letter of the policy but the spirit of them as well. Free sources are everywhere, and if something is important enough, it usually turns up in more than one place. Wikipedia has a list of free online sources here. Good luck. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was thinking, but figured it would be good to confirm. :) I didn't think Pro actually offered more information beyond the contact stuff and other stuff of no value to Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus at WP:V is that that having to pay to view a source does not affect it verifiability. Anyone could sign up and pay if they wished to do so. It is therefore verifiable. It is analogous to having to pay for a library card to check out a book at a public library. That said, I agree that IMDbPro is probably not reliable, you simply give faulty reasoning for saying so. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• From what I know of IMDb, the main site is a reasonably reliable source, as to the content which is reviewed by editors before going live. (The message boards, plot synopses, parents guides, and other items are not reviewed by editors, but there is still plenty of content that is reviewed.) I'm not sure why there is a common belief that IMDb is not a reliable source. I can't speak to the pro site because I've never seen it, but to the extent that the same information appears on the main site and the pro site, clearly it's just as reliable either way. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting Sources

On the Portsmouth article myself and another editor have conflicting sources, what is the best way to resolve it? is there any precendent between Web and Paper sources?

The best way to deal with conflicting sources is by Attribution. Discuss what both sources have to say in a neutral manner. Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, for simple, minor facts, it may be best to check further sources and use them to help decide. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the newspaper article you are trying to use as a source, it is riddled with inaccuracies which is unsurprising as it is a throwaway piece on a football rivalry (failing to even get the club formation date correct). The London Gazette is a official journal of the government, used to announce statutory notices such as the granting of city status. When two sources conflict like this I would go for the one of greater status. Nuttah (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a very silly content dispute; the anonymous IP editor is attempting to rewrite history by relying on one incorrect newspaper sports report, whereas my source is the government's official journal of record. This dispute is over a simple matter of fact, not opinion; the anon IP's source is quite simply wrong yet the anon IP has repeatedly reinserted the erroneous information. DWaterson (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have updated with a direct link to the original archived article from 1926. Hopefully there can be no dispute now. DWaterson (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Using Organization Newsletters to Source an Article on the Organization

I want to write an article on a Rochester, NY based organization called Metro Justice. I believe that the criterion of notability for this topic is established, due to the fact that they have been a force in the community since their origin in the civil rights era in 1965. They grew out of Saul Alinsky's suggestion that whites organize their own organization to support blacks in Rochester after the race riot in 1964. Over time, they involved into a more general social justice organization, and have fought battles that led them into the courtroom and even to the Supreme Court. They have been very influential in accomplishing a lot of significant change in the Rochester community. I don't want to be too lengthy here, but simply present some of the arguments for notability.

My problem is this: there are limited third party sources which I might cite to write the article. A book was written on the organization by a former member that covers only its early years. There are miscellaneous articles, some of which come from the two major print news sources in Rochester, and others from local print sources such as community newsletters. The most comprehensive source of information I have available is back issues of the Metro Justice newsletter, which summarizes their activities each year and provides the kind of general overview of their work in a chronological fashion that would be most useful in writing the article.

Is it acceptable to use these newsletters as reliable sources?

Thank you.

These are what are called self published sources, and are acceptable in articles about the organization that issued them. See WP:SPS. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

'Map' of Megalithic culture

Image:Megalithic Culture.PNG is an alleged map what the caption says is the "Development of the European Megalithic Culture", which is an obsolete culture (as the article says later, with references). The editor who placed the map there says he took a free map and then, using material from an article by Geoffrey Barraclough in The Times Atlas of World History, created the map in the article. Barraclough died in 1984, so the map is over 23 years old, perhaps a lot older. The editor also says "The problem here, I suspect, is that the word "culture" has a wider meaning in normal English usage than how archaeologists use it. Since we're not writing a paper for an archaeological journal, the use here is legitimate." but that is another issue. My question is whether a handmade map using such old information can be considered a reliable source. Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I am not sure if "source" is the right word for this ... A user created image should not be used as a source in the first place. That would violate WP:NOR. However, such an image might well be usable in an article, to illustrate what is said in reliable sources. The fact that this specific image is based on old information might or might not affect its use as a good illustration. That depends on whether the underlying information is still considered accurate or if more recent research has made it obsolete. That is a determination that is best made at the article level (where, presumably, there are editors who know the subject matter) and not here. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying this, I'm back in dialogue on the talk page about the age of the reference.Doug Weller (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Martha Beall Mitchell Arkansas Times Blog.

Referencing the Martha Beall Mitchell article, and in extenstion, the Martha Logan article, I found a reference from a blog, from the Arkansas Times. The question I have, is this covered by our policy? Th external links policy states that, under links to be avoided: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." My question is, is this source OK to use? The link is is [92] here. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 20:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you're looking to use that blog as a source for biographical information about Martha Mitchell, I would recommend you look elsewhere instead. There are only about two paragraphs of content about Martha Mitchell in that blog post, which was written by someone writing under the pseudonym "Death by Inches" -- which does not make the writer sound like a recognized authority, even if he might actually be one. I suspect that some additional research could yield much more reliable sources about Mitchell in mainstream newspapers and magazines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources for technical facts in computing

The knee-jerk reaction to a link to a forum post seems to be the immediate quoting of the Wikipedia Verifiability policy and the section: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

While I respect the concept that chat forums are not reliable sources, I suggest that a chat forum as a repository for computer source code, that can be immediately compiled and run by anyone, is an exception because it becomes a place to verify the truth of a statement like: computing 6.13 + 3.45 takes longer than computing 6 + 3. (The reason is because floating point operations just take longer.)

This is different because it is *NOT* a statement in a forum that "floating point calculations take longer", it is referencing code that proves this. That is a very different matter.

I suggest that another way in which a website forum can be used as verification is as a basis for historical data pertaining to that website.

In making an argument for the lack of support offered by a small software product, I qouted the number of posts made by support staff in the "official" Powerbasic forum.

Since there are, and most likely never will be any "Reliable sources, like third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." that take an interest in small technical details of minor software compiler, a moderated "offical" company forum that requires posters use their full real name would seem to be a good source when used, as described above, as a repository for computer code.

in the case of Powerbasic, I contend that it is also a good source for statements and actions of the powerbasic staff. Comments welcome. RealWorldExperience (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"These specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment."

Given that there are no published sources of technical computer science details for minor compilers like Powerbasic in this day and age, the companies technical forum IS a source of "reliable" material. The arguments I make are "directly and explicitly supported" by the COMPUTER CODE or SIGNED STATEMENTS on this forum. It is hard to imagine a more reliable source for information on this subject. RealWorldExperience (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As a programmer myself with some familiarity with this subject, I would say that a 'floating-point addition necessarily takes more calculations, in any formal system (because you have to move the point around), and thus more circuitry to get done in the same number of clock cycles, as compared to a fixed-point or integer addition of the same bit width. However, this is far from saying that "computing 6.13 + 3.45 takes longer than computing 6 + 3." as we do not know how complex the circuits are, and we don't know if 6.13 is stored and treated as a floating point number. It may be correct to say, in the reverse, that 6+3 can always be done at least as fast as 6.13 + 3.45 (floating-point or not), because even if for some odd reason floating point is faster on a given integrated circuit, then one could simply do 6+3 as floating point arithmetic and get at least equal speed because you're using the same circuit. The same could be set for software - an algorithm that makes integer arithmetic at least as fast as floating point is always available regardless of the hardware, because if all else fails, an integer can be stored as a floating-point number.

But all of this, however true it may be, constitutes original research. And you really need to cite a book or a paper or something like that. A forum isn't acceptable as a reliable source, as anyone could be responding in the forum. Even if the forum is specifically about that topic - one can assume a little more expertise from the contributors because it's more likely to attract that kind of base. But the same holds true for a wikipedia talk page, and articles don't cite their own talk pages as reliable sources. Kevin Baas^talk 19:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The kinds of forum run by some software houses, where users post questions and technical experts employed by the software house reply, might be RS, but most kinds of forums aren't. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

UCLA-led study

There is a battle going on in the Fox News entry that has caused it to be blocked indefinitely. It has many facets, but a large debate is swirling around this source. Here are two opinions on the source. If you could weigh in I would appreciate it. My main question is, do we really have to sit here for months and come to a consensus on whether every detail of this study was good science or not, or can we just let it be mentioned in the article because it is a reliable source and let the reader examine it as (s)he wishes?

-_-_-_-_ Criticism -_-_-_-_

Regarding the UCLA paper: I strongly object to using this to source anything in the FNC article. It's an analysis from 2005 by one adjunct professor, one professor, and a few graduate students who computed a score based on how many times the network cited the same think tanks as members of congress. That methodology is so unreliable and subjective that I can't begin to explain all of the problems in it. There's no random sample, no measure of quantifiable variables, and think about how many republicans were in office in 2001 to 2005. The study used the composition of congress to determine what is "center", and the congress was a large majority of republicans, then by definition the network that is most biased towards whomever controls congress (republicans) will appear the most centrist. The study was never republished and has been completely ignored by the academic community, and there are several criticisms of the piece; The one that most completely debunks the study is found here. Though blogs are not reliable sources for articles, it raises other serious concerns about the paper which should be considered here.

I don't consider an article that was printed one time in one MIT journal three years ago, and mentioned in one UCLA press release, as a reliable source, especially if you're trying to use it to prove that this has due weight with the other references that are out there. In any case, no one has addressed the flaws I've pointed out; if you truly believe this is a valid study please discuss below. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

-_-_-_-_ Response -_-_-_-_

I will repeat the fact that UCLA states it was published in an academic, peer-reviewed journal.Link. And those are the standards we go by in verifying whether or not a scholarly source is reliable, not whether or not we personally approve of the scientific methodology. (see WP's definition of reliable source) We are editors, not political science statisticians. Our personal conclusions are wholly irrelevant to the question of whether or not this study meets the criteria of "reliable source." If you want to pretend that our opinion of the scientific methodology has any relevance to the question of the reliability of the source, then I'll play along... but the bottom line is WP:RS lists very plainly and simply the criteria for determining if a scholarly work is reliable, and "whether or not wiki editors think its scientific methodology was sound" is just not one of those criteria. I cannot emphasize this enough. Here are some points (please don't break this up when responding, see guidelines at the top of the talk page).

• 1. Concerning how Blaxthos claims the "center" was defined, why don't we actually quote the study? The study says, "In discussing left- or right- wing biases of the media, one should be careful how he or she defines center. We think the most appropriate definition refers to a central voter, as opposed to a central member of Congress. Accordingly, we think that it is more appropriate to compare media scores to the House as opposed to the Senate, since the Senate disproportionately represents small states." The House is about as representative of the nation's voters as it gets. If you personally think that the "centered" voter is too far from you on the political scale... then maybe you just aren't the center! Sure the House fluctuates, but given its large numbers the "center" of it stays much more consistent then the Senate. Even if the "majority" changes it that does not change the "center" by any more then a fractional margin, because the majorities are very, very slim. The center remains by and large extremely consistent, and 7 years is plenty of time to gauge that center.
• 2. A good question to ask concerning the study is, "how would you do it?" Media bias is something very difficult to quantify, and this study did an excellent job at attempting to do just that. It passed muster in peer-review and was published in an academic journal. Period. I am not saying the study's conclusions have to taken as the Word of God and all here must agree that it is true. I am saying the study is a reliable source, by wikipedia's definition, and must be presented in the article so the reader can see it for him or herself. We don't trash whatever reliable sources we wish, pretending we, not the academic journals, are the peer-reviewers. Have some criticized the study? Sure. Every study, even a study about the mating habits of horseflies, is criticized. No study would ever be cited in wikipedia if the standard was that it had no have no criticism. And a study about media bias is especially sure to be criticized. But the point is, this study is a reliable source.
• 3. A good second question to ask is, have other studies come to similar conclusions? This study concluded that most of the media was actually quite liberal. What have other studies said? Again, I quote the study, "Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public. Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections." That is quite a strong indication of liberal views being over-represented in much of the media. I am not aware of any other studies published in peer-reviewed, academic journals that attempted to measure media bias and concluded Fox was biased. If one is out there, by all means include it in this entry as well! I'm not trying to push my POV here... I'm saying our job is to be editors, not political science statisticians. The Pew Research study did in fact indicate that Fox had more conservative viewers then other outlets (which had more democratic viewers). Include that in the article too if you want.
• 4. As far as the "graduate students" criticism, any scholarly work from an academic institution involves the assistance of graduate students. The authors are Ph.D professors at respected institutions. The fact that they have graduate students that help them is obvious and is irrelevant.

It would be a tremendous waste of time to sit here and vet every detail of the UCLA study. To do so is not necessary. The study is what it is... it is a reliable source. Let the reader vet it as (s)he wishes. The bottom line is, the UCLA study is relatively recent (I'm not aware of a more recent study that attempted to quantify bias in the media), is extremely relevant to the controversy section, and is a reliable source according to WP:RS. Accordingly, it must be included in this entry. Jsn9333 (talk)

I, Jsn9333, have posted this information on the notice board. Jsn9333 (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The paper is unquestionably a reliable source. It is correct that editors should not be in the business of trying to prove or disprove reliable sources. However, what should be considered is whether or not it's mention is undue weight to an isolated view. If it's claims are not accepted by other reliable sources and no other reliable references make similar claims, it can be safely said that its views are those of an extreme minority. Vassyana (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jsn9333 writes, in part: "I am saying the study is a reliable source, by wikipedia's definition, and must be presented in the article so the reader can see it for him or herself." I'm sorry, but the bolded part is completely and totally untrue. There is NO such requirement. This is a common misconception of reliable sources. Reliability is a minimum' requirement for inclusion [with exceptions detailed at WP:SELFPUB (the link name is kind of a misnomer), but it doesn't work the other way: There is no requirement that a source be included simply because it is reliable. WP:CONSENSUS WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:NPOV/FAQ, and WP:FRINGE all have a role to play as well.

This is a tpical minor study. It's technically reliable, insofar as it can be used as a source. That does not mean it's unambiguously correct, and WP:RS does not attempt to evaluate correctness. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm not of the position that this source must be cited, but simply that it should be, and I am most definitely not of the opinion that the source is unambiguously correct. I wonder if you can weigh in on the question of undue weight as well? The current version states only the independent POV that fox is biased conservatively, and it cites a cbs article about prominent democrats who have that opinion (CBS) and a Pew Research study that concludes Fox has more republican viewers then channels that have more democratic viewers (PEW) (notice, Pew says not that FNC has more republican viewers then non-republicans, but just that FNC has more republican viewers then channels that have more democratic viewers).

To state the POV of other independent observers (that Fox is balanced and/or objective in its news coverage), and to show that POV has due weight, I have suggested citing the UCLA study (which approached the question even more directly then the Pew Study) along with the following sources which convey the same types of facts the current CBS citation describes (prominent figures who share their opinion of Fox) and comes to the same conclusion as the UCLA study.

• New York Times - This is an article is by a respected journalist, in a respected newspaper, reporting that a prominent figure (the president of the Council on Foreign Relations) thinks Fox has the most objective, balanced news coverage. The piece also states that many of Fox's viewers agree with that assessment.

• Huffington Post- This article is about yet another respected and well known figure's opinion of Fox, the prominent Democratic Penn. governor, one of Hillary Clinton's staunchest supporters, who has been outspoken of his criticisms of bias in the media at large. On March 31st, 2008 he congratulated Fox News on doing "a very balanced job of reporting the news," and for being the most objective outlet.

The reason the FNC entry has been blocked for editing is because every time I add these sources an editor or two immediately edit wars me and claims that I am citing sources that are both not reliable and have undue weight. I and a number of other editors just don't see that to be the case. We are making an intense attempt to reach consensus, and the view of editors who deal with reliable source issues regularly would be greatly appreciated. Do these references (especially the UCLA study) seem to be both reliable and have due weight in the circumstances? It seems to me these are the perfect types of sources to use to bring a neutral point of view into the entry. But I am a relatively new editor. Jsn9333 (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would recommend that the UCLA study be cited in the article but briefly and with a reference to criticism thereof. Instead of saying "A UCLA-led study concluded Fox was one of the most centrist or politically balanced networks with regards to its actual news coverage", I would recommend saying instead "One academic study described Fox as one of the most centrist or politically balanced networks with regards to its actual news coverage", with a citation, followed by "However, the methodology of that study has been questioned", followed by a citation to the most reliable source for criticism of the study. (In particular, I wouldn't say that the study "concluded" that Fox was centrist.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related matter, the Huffington Post, I'm afraid, is, in my opinion, not a reliable source. It has a very, very bad reputation for reliability and accuracy, and is essentially no more reliable than a self-published source. Please DON'T use that one. Do we have a list of sources that the RSN has looked at and found unreliable? If not, why? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this. Can I ask though, what would be a good source to cite for the Governor's claim then? I know for a fact that he said it (the broadcast is on YouTube). Can I just cite the You Tube link itself? It seems like no other major media outlets carried the story (perhaps for the very reason's the Governor speaks of... but that is another debate). Jsn9333 (talk)

After reading through the comments, I realized it was never mentioned that we're discussing the lead. Of course, that has no bearing on whether a reference is a reliable source or not, but some people have been more discursive -- making comments periphery to that question, and I'd like to make sure they understand the context in such cases. Kevin Baas^talk 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit war has resulted in these sources being forced out of the lower sections of the entry too, not just the lead. I brought this question to the notice board to discuss the sources, not whether they should be mentioned in the lead. In fact a consensus is forming about citing no sources at all in the lead, and leaving the source citations to the lower parts of the entry. Jsn9333 (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The study was published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which is out of Harvard-MIT and one of the three most prestigious journals in the field. (The other two are the Journal of Political Economy out of Chicago and Econometrica, of the Econometric Society.) While this study has several flaws - and the journal itself has, in my opinion, not covered itself in glory in the recent past - there is absolutely no doubt that this is as reliable a source as you can possibly get.
• The question of whether to put it in the lead is an editorial one. I note that the paper found that it was significantly to the right of the median member of Congress (but to the left of the median Republican) which seems to be the central point.
• The paper, for all its flaws, which mediamatters has surprisingly detailed reasonably well, is generally cited without comment in the literature. Consider a recent article in the Journal of Public Economics from Baron of NYU, which uncritically adapts the mechanism and introduces persistence. It seems to have become the accepted method in the field for estimating bias. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first point: Firstly, i would classify the bolded part as "hyperbole". Secondly, the first half of the sentence seems to contradicts the "absolutely no doubt" part of the hyperbole, by way of WP:RS:

• In science, single studies are usually considered tentative evidence that can change in the light of further scientific research. How reliable a single study is considered depends on the field, with studies relating to very complex and not entirely-understood fields, such as medicine, being less definitive. If single studies in such fields are used, care should be taken to respect their limits, and not to give undue weight to their results. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews, which combine the results of multiple studies, are preferred (where they exist).
• Peer reviewed scientific journals differ in their standards. Some court controversy, and some have even been created for the specific purpose of promoting fringe theories that depart significantly from the mainstream views in their field. Many of these have been created or sponsored by advocacy groups. Such journals are not reliable sources for anything beyond the views of the minority positions they are associated with.

If the "this study has several flaws - and the journal itself has, in my opinion, not covered itself in glory in the recent past", it would seem that "care should be taken to respect [the] limits" and that there, in fact, is doubt as to the "standards" of the journal, etc. So I was hoping you might be able to expand on the "not covered itself in glory in the recent past", esp. w/respect to these two fifths of WP:RS, scholarship. Kevin Baas^talk 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank each of you who responsed to this query. I'd like to explain what we're faced with when trying to discuss this article.

Relata refero, even though you said "there is absolutely no doubt that this is as reliable a source as you can possibly get," user Blaxthos went back to the talk page of the article and described your response only as "This study has several flaws." Your "absolutely no doubt" was left out for anyone reading that page.

Vassyana, even though you said "The paper is unquestionably a reliable source," Blaxthos reported back to the talk page describing your response only as "If it's claims are not accepted by other reliable sources and no other reliable references make similar claims, it can be safely said that its views are those of an extreme minority." The fact that you called it unquestionably a reliable source was left out.

Metropolitan90, even though you said "I would recommend that the UCLA study be cited in the article but briefly and with a reference to criticism thereof," your response was reported back by Blaxthos only as "I wouldn't say that the study 'concluded' that Fox was centrist."

Shoemaker's Holiday, your response was reported back pretty accurately, as "This is a typical minor study. It's technically reliable, insofar as it can be used as a source. That does not mean it's unambiguously correct." That does seem a fair summation of what you said. However, your statement, "There is no requirement that a source be included simply because it is reliable," was also quoted and set aside with no indication that it came from the same person as your other quote.

This is what we're faced with when trying to talk about this article. You helped with your comments here; and then your comments were instead described back on the talk page as I've just explained. Urzatron (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the statements about the QJE should be taken as my personal opinion, and do by no means represent the general view. As I said, the QJE is one of the three most important and respected journals in economics. Articles published in those journals represent the mainstream view of thinking about a problem. Shoemaker's Holiday, I'm afraid, is extrapolating from other fields to economics; in economics what matters is not "one of many studies", but whether that particular study has used a method that is considered the best estimator of the problem, or the most effective model. That seems to be the case here, given the fact that the model has been picked up and extended. There is absolutely no doubt that the study is reliable. This isn't hyperbole at all. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. For the record, i disagree with most of what you just said. For instance, I don't dispute that the source qualifies as a reliable source on wikipedia, but to insist that there is "absolutely no doubt that this is as reliable a source as you can possibly get." is quite an extraordinary claim. to claim that no source could possibly be more reliable than it is a textbook example of an "extravagant exaggeration", or "hyperbole". and I find shoemaker's holiday's reasoning more sound than yours, from what I've seen on this page, your above reasoning being no exception. Kevin Baas^talk 15:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To disagree is your privilege. However, shoemaker's holiday is quite incorrect in that he is extrapolating from other fields to economics and political science. If something has made it to the QJE, the JPE or Econometrica, it is not "one study among many", it is the theoretical and empirical exercise on the subject. If you discuss bias in the article, and exclude it, that would be an unacceptable violation of NPOV. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Relata, would you care to explain why the definitive study on the subject of "media bias" would be published in one of the three most definitive journals in the field of "economics?" According to what you wrote, publication in this capacity means that the "mainstream" view of economists is represented by this study. Great, but since when is the "mainstream" view of economists on "media bias" of such high esteem? What happened to the fields of media studies, communications, and in this case specifically perhaps, political science? While I wont (and cant) disagree with your generalizations about this journal within the field of economics I remain perplexed as to why this matters so much, and why the mainstream view of economists should be given so much weight. Could you please elucidate. I'm not an economist, or a media studies person for that matter, but instead someone with a decidedly more qualitative and less quantitative social science background, yet to me the conclusion (that others are inferring perhaps not unfairly from your comments) that this study is the definitive study on media bias, simply doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• While I believe that the study published in the QJE is a sufficiently reliable source to be used in Wikipedia (to some extent, as I mentioned above), we need to avoid placing undue emphasis on it, particularly in the article Fox News Channel. The study did not purport to evaluate the liberal/conservative slant of Fox News Channel as a whole -- just one of its prominent programs, Special Report with Brit Hume. Furthermore, the study did not rank Special Report as the most centrist media outlet in the study; it was the 5th most centrist out of 20 outlets studied. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Supercouple

I'd appreciate some input on a couple of sources being used in this article. The first is "The power of cinematic love" by Joanna Arcieri. She's a student at Mt. Holyoke and is writing for the school paper. The second is "Gamers' Philosophy II: "Love" is a Four-Letter Word" by Robert Hall. It's an editorial from a site dedicated to roll playing games called allrpg.com. I don't consider either of these any where near a reliable source, though another editor strongly disagrees. I'd appreciate any guidance. AniMate 22:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who is not familiar with the content issues, the way I see this is that both of those sources may be somewhat reliable, but it would depend on the context. Regarding pop-culture issues, an independent college newspaper seems OK, unless the content is controversial and contradicted by other sources, or the paper is self-published by the author of the article. Even if the article is by a student journalist, if there is an editorial staff, that could help support the reliability of the report.

For the gaming website, again, the question would be - is the article self-published, or is there a fact-checking staff? This particular website seems to have more than a few on staff, and seems to be approaching their work with journalistic intentions to some extent. However, it also includes a discussion forum, so it would be important to differentiate the editorial content from the forum postings. As long as the editorial content is not written by the publisher, I would find it useful as a secondary source. If the publisher wrote the article, then it could be a primary source or might be less than reliable.

Those are just my personal interpretations though; others might not agree with me. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with AniMate. I do not believe that college newspapers or editorials are appropriate sources outside of (possibly) articles about themselves. Vassyana (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Tektonics.org and The God Who Wasn't There article

Is this site a reliable source for the information that was added to the article for The God Who Wasn't There? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on their mission statement, my view is that it's a self-published website or blog and therefore does not meet WP:RS. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to second Jack-A-Roe. This seems to be a self-published source inappropriate for that article. Vassyana (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious sources

Religious sources are reliable sources for religious viewpoints, so it's not uncommon for religion articles to use religious sources to explain the meaning of any religious title and nature of the role that religious leaders have in the religion or religious organization (which are, after all, religious matters). Can someone confirm that for the above usage books[93][94] and recorded sayings by Prabhupada will act as a WP:RS reliable sources for the related topics to the views of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. (for example ISBN 0912776668 ISBN 0892132647) I appreciate you comments and views from other editors and the admin. Wikidās ॐ 08:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would see those as RS for articles on related topics; in the same way that books published by the Catholic Church can be used as RS for topics related to Catholicism. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can this be confirmed by some of the admin? Wikidās ॐ 08:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This depends. Religious documents are often primary sources. If e.g. the Bible had one obvious meaning, we wouldn't have had the persecution of the Cathars, no Thirty Years War, no Auto-Da-Fe, no Spanish Armada (or at least one under different pretext), no Mormons (or a much larger group ;-), and probably not even Roe vs. Wade. Secondary sources published by a religious organization can be reliable sources about this organization's public position. But selective quotes can be misleading - try to justify the Crusades with the Sermon on the Mount ;-). Also note that the Catholic Church does not speak for Christianity, and that e.g. Scientology has dissembling about the "truth" as a religious tenet, as mundanes are considered to be not ready for the truths. I would be very careful about proper attribution here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: And please note that admins have no special role in questions of content. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So how does one see if one publication is RS and the other is not RS, as the case be is with secondary sources or commentaries on primary that are the basis of a certain religion? Thanks - clarity will be very much appreciated. Wikidās ॐ 09:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own religious mysteries. I'd say the appropriate chapters and verses are WP:Bold and if another editor objects WP:AGF. Smallbones (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This questions has come up a number of times on this board, on WT:RS, WT:V etc, and I think there is a general consensus on the use of religious sources, and I'll try to summarize my understanding of it. There are basically two types of religious sources:

1. Primary religious works, such as the Bible, Koran, Vedas etc. These should never be used alone to support a statement of fact or, particularly, analysis. However if a secondary source makes reference to a specific passage in these texts, it is fine (and perhaps even a good idea) to add an additional reference to the exact text. Even then, one should take care of the translation and edition that one picks for the primary religious sources. Certain religious texts have significantly different redactions, translations, attached commentaries or are of unknown provenance; in such cases even greater care is required in quoting them.
2. Writings by sectarian leaders/teachers such as some Baptist pastor (Daniel Taylor), Shia Ayatullah (Muhammad Hussain Najafi), or ISKCON author (Bhakti Tirtha Swami). These sources can be useful to express the sect's own views of itself and the world. However great care should be taken that these opinions are carefully attributed, and the sectarian authors views on what Christians, Muslims or Hindus believe in general are not stated as facts (such as, "Christians believe that grace is the only path to salvation"). Finally, academic writings (by neutral scholars) that summarize or analyze such leaders' view should be preferred, whenever they are available.

Of course, particular applications of these "guidelines" may require discussion on the article talk page. Any comments on the summary and my understanding are welcome. Abecedare (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Abecedare hits the nail on the head. This is a fairly accurate description of good practice on-wiki regarding these matters. A red flag for religion articles is heavy reference to and/or quoting of primary religious texts, especially when dealing with a particular sect of a religion. His second point is equally valid. It's very important to note when views presented are those of a particular leader within the faith or of the organization itself. It's very good practice to rely heavily on reputable academic descriptions and analysis of sects and faiths. Vassyana (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious sources tend to have big problems in seeing their own religious beliefs, practices, rituals, texts in contexts. For example, often they do not know the basiscs, let alone mention, that their religous movement was an off shoot or influence by another organization decades ago. Andries (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the uncritical use of religious souorces to desribe beliegs and practicies tend to yield very bad articles. For an example see Word of faith. Uncritical self-descriptions should have no place in this or any encyclopedia. Andries (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Abecedare's first point 101%.Bless sins (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also with Abecedare on this one - I share that view. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Joel Fuhrman and Herbert M. Shelton's published books

Their self-published books are being used as sources to backup what I believe to be exceptional claims in the Fasting article.

Some of the claims are "Some doctors believe that pure water fasting can not only detoxify cells and rejuvenate organs, but can actually cure such diseases and conditions as cardiovascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, colitis, psoriasis, lupus and some other autoimmune disorders when combined with a healthy diet. ". This one uses Fuhrman's book as a reference.

Another claim was "In naturopathic medicine, fasting is seen as a way of cleansing the body of toxins and dead or diseased tissues, and giving the gastro-intestinal system a rest. Such fasts are either water-only, or consist of fruit and vegetable juices. Some results have been achieved while including fasting in the treatment of some kinds of cancer". This one used Shelton's book.

Am I wrong in this belief, or are they reliable sources? There weren't any peer-reviewed studies associated with these claims. Thanks for the help. I'm posting this here because there's a dispute with another user on the talk page for this article, and I'm trying to avoid an edit war. FironDraak (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick check of 2 of Fuhrman's books on Amazon. They weren't self published - one was published by Brown, Little, the other by St. Martin's Griffin. They look like a step or 2 above the usual diet books - at least Fuhrman is an MD. So I'd say at face value they may very well be RS. They are "popular books" rather than medical texts however.

One concern - in the article it looks like we're getting fairly close to offering medical opinions - there should be caveats given (it looks like these can be taken from Fuhrman's books) that medical supervision is needed for a fast. There probably is another view of medical fasting - why not get an RS for another view and include that as well?

In short, don't rely exclusively on these, but more-or-less RS. Smallbones (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's a popular book instead of a medical text is the issue because it's being used as a primary source for some pretty way-out claims in at least two articles. I've posted it on the fringe theories noticeboard now, but thanks for the help. FironDraak (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would raise this issue at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done so. Thanks. FironDraak (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dynamosport magazine as source

There is currenty a set of articles on SV Dynamo under the Category:Sports Club Dynamo, the former East German police sports organisation, existing from 1953 to 1989. To a large amount, these articles state as their primary source the Dynamosport magazine, a magazine published by Dynamo about Dynamo, having ceased publication in 1989. Even if I ignore the fact that press freedom did not really exist in the former GDR, it seems to me that it is a questionable source for the articles. I personally, for example wouldn't even consider the Bayern Munich club magazine an independent source for a Bayern Munich article, and even less so then Dynamosport on a Dynamo article. Or, for a matter of fact, the Völkische Beobachter on an article on the Nazis, other then to highlight the meaning of propaganda. Has anybody got any ideas on how to tread sources like: (a) Club magazines about sport clubs, and (b), historical publications from countrys we generally consider as having been unfree? Advise would be appreciated, thank you.EA210269 (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

They fall under WP:SPS ... in other words, the club's magazine is being used in an article about the club. That seems appropriate to me. I would not consider it reliable for other articles. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Even in regards to claims of the clubs international success? EA210269 (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It might have to come with some kind of a "health warning", like "Believing in this source could damage your knowledge".EA210269 (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• The article SV Dynamo needs a complete rewrite anyway as it appears to have been poorly translated into English. Furthermore, the claim that Dynamo won over 200 Olympic medals is misleading. Dynamo didn't even win one Olympic medal; members of the club won those medals, and they did so representing East Germany, not representing their club. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate use of capitalization in French titles and style from 1589 to 1830

To begin with, if this is not the appropriate notice board to post this discussion, please excuse me. I am in a dispute with Charles and, apparently, WP:MOS-FR#Noble titles. I find this whole section of the MOS faulty. It tries to set standards were it readily admits there are no standards. In the end, the standard it does promote is contrary to the actual usage of capitilization method used by the House of Bourbon between 1589 and 1830. In addition, the standard is not followed by many English-speaking authors today, leading to a style of writing most English-speakers would not be familiar with from reading a biography of a member of the French royal family.

In particular, I am offended by the following comment/directive and find it to be arbitrary, incorrect and representative of a very biased POV:

"in French with capital spelling: Comtesse de, Marquis de... (e.g. Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu; Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon; Constantin-François de Chassebœuf, Comte de Volney). This is a incorrect Franco-English hybrid form using the capitalization rules of an English-user."

I am interested in getting this policy changed, and WP:MOS-FR#Noble titles rewritten or deleted. I will summarize my argument as follows (it is found more fully in Talk:Fils_de_France and Talk:Prince_du_Sang):

1) The capitalization method described in the MOS is not an incorrect "Franco-English hybrid." It is the one used by the French royal family and court themselves:

• In the illustrations section of Antonia Fraser's book, Love and Louis XIV, The Women in the Life fo the Sun King, Doubleday, 2006, she reproduces a letter written in 1700 from Princess Marie-Adélaïde of Savoy to her grandmother, Marie Jeanne of Savoy-Nemours. On the last page, her style is clearly handwritten (probably by a lady-in-waiting) as "Mme. la Duchesse de Bourgogne", again with the title "duchesse" explicitly capitalized.
• In the endpapers of Lucy Norton's Historical Memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon, Volume III, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1972, there is a facsimile of one of the handwritten pages of Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon's memoirs. It specifically refers to Philippe II, Duke of Orléans as, "S.A.R. Mg'r le Duc d'Orléans" with the title "duc" explicitly capitalized.
• In Susan Nagel's new biography of Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte of France, Marie-Thérèse, Child of Terror: The Fate of Marie Antoinette's Daughter, Bloomsbury, 2008, p.374, the author does an analysis of Madame Royale's handwriting. She reproduces a letter written in 1804 by the Fille de France to her cousin, Louis Joseph de Bourbon, prince de Condé in which she specifically refers to his son, Louis Henry II, Prince of Condé as, "M. le Duc de Bourbon" with the title "duc" explicitly capitalized.

2) Many modern English-speaking authors do not use the Wikipedia style of capitalization, and to use it not only misrepresents how the people who used those titles and styles referred to themselves, but also is confusing to most English-speakers, whose reading material should not be censored by modern French linguists and how they feel about linguistic revisionism.

The following is a list of well-known books in English on the French royal family that specifically do NOT use Wikipedia's incorrect capitalization standard for French titles:

• Nancy Mitford - The Sun King, Harper & Row, 1966;
• Antonia Fraser - Marie Antoinette, The Journey, Doubleday, 2001;
• Antonia Fraser - Love and Louis XIV, The Women in the Life of the Sun King, Doubleday, 2006;
• Caroline Weber - Queen of Fashion, Henry Holt and Company, 2006;
• Susan Nagel - Marie-Thérèse, Child of Terror: The Fate of Marie Antoinette's Daughter, Bloomsbury, 2008.

BoBo (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not take it to the talk page at WP:MOS?? I don't see any question about Reliable sources here. Smallbones (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have added my complaint to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. BoBo (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

TheGoal.com

Is The Goal.com a reliable source? I think the source is of questionable reliability. It appears to have a religious agenda of "helping them [athletes] communicate their faith in God."[95]

More specifically is this website a reliable source when it claims that a certain Hindu or Muslim athlete has converted to Christianity? What if this website is the only source saying this and the information can't verified using any other source?Bless sins (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a Christian advocacy site, associated with TheGoal.org. The usual caveats apply. rudra (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you spelled those caveats out. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell: reliable for what they say about themselves; not reliable for what they say about anything else. rudra (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So basically WP:SELFPUB?Bless sins (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's quite different. WP:SPS is where an established authority in a field says something on-topic outside the normal WP:RS channels (e.g. peer-reviewed journals): it still counts as reliably sourced material. E.g. if a Nobel-laureate physicist posts something about his specialty in physics on his blog, the material is on a subject in which he's a recognized expert, so it's notable, and exempt from normal WP:RS criteria. The point here is that the subject is one where there are other experts and WP:RS also. In the advocacy site case, the only relevant subject is themselves, and they are the unique experts (if they are at all!) rudra (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB is actually the section on Using self-published and questionable sources, and thus the correct link. We really should give it some other WP: Abbreviations. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Sorry for the misidentification. Though, what is a questionable source that isn't self-published and yet there's no reasonable doubt who authored it? An article in an e-zine (like "A Message from Pat Robertson" on TheGoal.com)? rudra (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall

• AdamDeanHall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has utmost frequently continued to terrorize Desperate Housewives future episodes pages. In the past, I've warned him many times. Check his talk page, and his talk page history! Check Sunday's revision history. Check In Buddy's Eyes revision history. AMONG numerous others! This user will not stop, no matter how many times I warned him to source his work. He deliberately ignores my beggings. Check here, here, and you'll see how he reduced me to begging. Please, give him a strong avid warning (at least), or a minor ban to prevent him from Vandals in the future. Please!- Yours truly, [ S ] υ ρ є r ı o r _reply! 22:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes are not vandalism. This board is for the reporting of obvious persistent vandalism only. I suggest you seek the proper dispute resolution channels for dealing with this individual. Trusilver 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That too! He keeps ruining pages by reverting all edits, removing all sources and refs, and writing in lies.- Yours truly, [ S ] υ ρ є r ı o r _reply! 22:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Given his most recent edits, when I looked, were legitimate link fixes, I don't see obvious vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do I do then, if he continues what I call vandalism? I try to keep it in a good FA and/or GA type-look, but if someone like him disgraces the page, what do I do? I have no back up.- Yours truly, [ S ] υ ρ є r ı o r _reply! 22:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A good start would be to read over WP:DISPUTE and use that as a reference for your next step. Trusilver 22:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done that! Done the "third option", and if you take a look at his talk page theirs a recent section called "source it" -- a direct proof I tried negotiating! I've done most of that, keeping a cool head, and attempted to call a truce but he still feels he has to add things from unreliable sources. Tripod is not reliable!- Yours truly, [ S ] υ ρ є r ı o r _reply! 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you might want to try taking your matter to WP:RSN. That seems to be more in line with your difficulty. Trusilver 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

For this reason, I have come to you! Please, tell him that TRIPOD is not a correct site!- Yours truly, [ S ] υ ρ є r ı o r _reply! 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus (en Español)

For quite a while, various editors have been trying to add unsourced or poorly sourced information to Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus regarding allegations of election irregularities. Most, if not all of the edits have been associated with http://apostolicassembly.info, a self-published cite that does not meet WP:RS. There has been some discussion concerning this in the past, and the election irregularities content has been kept out. Just now, content concerning the election irregularities has been re-added, this time sourced to two articles from La Opinión. I do not speak Spanish, so I am coming here to see if there is anyone versed in WP:RS that also reads Spanish. Would they care to look over the new content and the links and give feedback, specifically on the matter of reliable sourcing?

There are some specific issues that jump out at me. The second sentence mentions "it has been outspoken" when instead it should state who specifically is doing this critical speaking. Next, do the articles mention the name of the bishop who wrote the request? Finally, do the articles mention the complaints in the last two sentences (fund mismanagement, "the family").

Any additional help or comments would also be helpful (but if they stray from WP:RS, WP:V issues, it is probably best to bring them to the article talk page). ¡Muchas gracias! -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

La Opinion is a highly reliable source. I read some Spanish and have skimmed through the articles. They do indeed make accusations of financial irregularities within the organisation. It would take me a while to read through them carefully enough to suggest amendments to the article. I suggest that you look for a Spanish translator who would be able to do the job for you. Note that WP prefers English-language sources where they are available. Could you check whether the reports in La Opinion were picked up in the English-language press. Even if not, I think references to La Opinion can stay, because it is an important newspaper in California and easily verifiable by many people who might come to the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Consumerfraudreporting.org

http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org is apparently an anonymous self-published website. I'm dealing with an editor (and an admin no less) who is claiming it's WP:RS. Thoughts? --Insider201283 (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me to be run by a reputable non-profit. However, attribution is hard to find. On the other hand, there's little in the MLM article which is sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"seems" to be? There's no attribution at all. As for the lack of sourcing of the rest of the article, I entirely agree. That however is extremely poor reasoning for allowing a bad source. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree with Arthur Rubin's assessment. It does not, in the least, seem to be run by any kind of non-profit, reputable or otherwise. It may be superficially presented in that fashion, but even that is making a stretch. It's quite obviously a privately run ad-supported site. There is no note of non-profit status and not even an "About Us" page. It's a self-published source with no indication of authorship and, as such, certainly not a reliable source. Vassyana (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion/editorial

Are editorials reliable sources for extreme claims? In particular is this editorial a reliable source for claiming that there is "apartheid" in Mecca. Is it also a reliable source to claim that the "apartheid" is rooted in the Qur'an, the Islamic holy scripture?

Please note that the above is an opinion. For the author JONATHAN V. LAST, though he makes political commentary, I could not find any credentials in religious studies or Islam.

While I understand that some may argue that this comment may be notable enough to quote and attribute (is it?), but can it be used unreservedly as fact? Bless sins (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

An editorial is only a reliable source for the author/publication's opinion (see this for a thoughful comparison between columnists and news reporters). There may be exceptions, but I can't think of any for mainstream media sources. I am not talking about "editorials" in medical journals etc, which AFAIK are considered to be reliable reviews of the field

Of course, if the opinion is thought to be notable enough, it may be included with proper attribution; and if it cites sources, those may be usable. Abecedare (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is there any doubt that there are specific religious prohibitions on non-Muslims entering Mecca? There are surely dozens of sources attesting to that, we don't need a random op-ed, surely? Could you explain a little further?

The piece by Sohail Hashmi in the 2003 Buchanan-Moore book might help if a discussion of the origins of the prohibitions, which appears to be a puritanical extrapolation of the status of the cities as haram, might help. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I should've explained: This editorial is being used as source to claim that the prohibition constitutes "aparthied". There are not a lot of sources that say this, infact, this is the only I've seen so far. Bless sins (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is a matter of a extreme minority opinion, it's more a consideration of undue weight than reliable sourcing. In this case, we're dealing with a topic that is very widely written about that has no shortage of sources on just about any reasonable related topic. In such cases, it's an easy bet that if only one source makes a claim that it is a extreme minority view not suitable for Wikipedia. Similarly, if only a very small handful of extremist, small press or otherwise fringe sources make a claim, we can be fairly assured it is similarly an extreme minority opinion. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bhaktivedanta College

• Question Is the website of Bhaktivedanta College a reliable source for information on the members of their faculty. This issue has been raised in two articles: Smita Krishna Swami and Hanumatpreshaka Swami where both have been tagged under the assertion that Bhaktivedanta College is not a reliable source. I feel that the information on the Bhaktivedanta College website helps to establish verifiability for the above articles. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a primary source,;it may have been written and was probably at least approved by the subject. That doesn't mean it's not necessarily reliable, but it should be used within reason, with respect for the limits of a semi-promotional source, and ideally backed up by more sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the real problem here is WP:N. rudra (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Would WP:PROF be the notability criterion, or is it different for religious figures ? Abecedare (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we'd have to play this by ear. However, the standard criterion applies: if there aren't enough good-quality, reliable sources to write an article on them, we shouldn't have an article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the College website is a reasonable source for the assertion that individuals are or are not members of its faculty, the responsibilities of those individuals at the College, and basic information about their CV. (Though if there are semireliable sources that challenge the College's assertions, further investigation is warranted, and the College's assertions weighed very carefully.)

In general, an individual's own College (or own company or other institution) isn't going to be a reliable source to establish that individual's importance, significance, or eligibility for inclusion. Per Shoemaker's Holiday, such sites will all tend to have a (more or less) transparent interest in promoting their own people. My employer will be sure to market my incredible skills on our website – TenOfAllTrades is a leading expert in the design of widgets – because he wants to sell more widgets. Awards and honours (Nobel Prize, perhaps?) that would lend notability may be mentioned on such semipromotional sites, but should be sourced to the awarding organization or to a neutral third-party news source. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Abu Ishaq

In the The Jews of Islam. Princeton University Press. pp.44-45, Lewis quotes a medieval poem, by Abu Ishaq, who provoked the anti-Jewish outbreak in Granda in 1066. The poem goes:

Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on.

They have violated our covenant with them, so how can you be held guilty against the violators?

How can they have any pact when we are obscure and they are prominent?

Now we are humble, beside them, as if we were wrong and they were right!

Can this poem (which I think is a primary source) be considered a reliable source?

Secondly can this primary source be interpreted to conclude that the anti-Jewish massacre was an example of antisemitism, that was caused by Islam?Bless sins (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lewis quotes it. So Lewis is the secondary source, and his book is a WP:RS. If Lewis himself (or anyone else citing the poem) draws the conclusion of anti-semitism, or offers the poem as an example of it, fine. Otherwise, no. We need a secondary source (like Lewis) to give that characterization. rudra (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And, looking at 1066 Granada massacre, it's clear that you were wasting everyone's time by posting this question. rudra (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tut, don't be silly. Its a valid question when framed as asked. I don't think you understood it properly.

Did Bless Sins arrive on Wikipedia yesterday, that he needs a primer on secondary sources? Coming from him, the question as framed is silly, because primary sources are not open to interpretation. He's just fishing for more specious arguments to filibuster with, as usual. rudra (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Peh, he was asking if it can be used as a basis for categorisation. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? And what category could that be in any case? The one he has been filibustering over says "articles that make references to the religion of Islam and to the topic of antisemitism." Nothing about drawing conclusions. rudra (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rudra, you're filibustering as much as you accuse him of, now. "Nothing about drawing conclusions", indeed. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what I'm holding up, unless it's the end of this thread, in which case I apologize forthwith. rudra (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The poem can be quoted as a primary source that has had its relevance and accuracy attested to by a reliable secondary source - Lewis. Check if Lewis says that the massacre itself was motivated by Islam, or he describes it as an example of antisemitism rather than, for example, economic strife; the fact that it was conducted by Muslims, and that one of the causes was a poem that was antisemitic in nature, is insufficient for the interpretation you suggest. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tried looking for some references about this myself. Amazingly, few enough studies - even recent ones - can resist blaming the victim in this case. Very odd. Relata refero (disp.) 09:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a pretty obvious quote by a reliable secondary source, and Lewis' clear characterisation of it and its effects are also quoted in the article. I am a little surprised that an old user like Bless sins would think it necessary to bring such a clear case here (hence, presumably, Rudra's comment). Perhaps we're all misunderstanding the question? One quick comment on the article itself: It's a bit quote-y, and could use more descriptive text about the massacre itself. Try not to add any more direct quotes while expanding it and it should be fine =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Further notes: the poem itself has been quoted outside Lewis, so we're not relying only on him. James T. Monroe, in a delightfully acerbic passage, says that Ishaq wrote "ascetic poetry renouncing the pleasures of the world that he was not allowed to enjoy." Also that he put "his pen at the service of prevailing anti-Jewish sentiment"; though of its use in the riots himself he says "it illustrates the dissatisfaction of the lower classes with Zirid rule". Most studies of the pogrom contextualise it in terms of a resentment from the Arab working class against the Jewish compradors of Berber rule. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Relata, do you have full references to further academic studies because the article sorely needs them. At present there are Lewis and Laqueur, both A1 RS, but also an unacceptable citation of a 12th century writer (primary source) as if he were writing today, and the list of "references" is mainly to non-RS websites. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, The Monroe citation is to Monroe, James T, Hispano-Arabic Poetry: A Student Anthology, Gorgias Press, 2004: pp 24-30. I've mentioned a couple of additional ones on the article talkpage. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going try and clean up the article a bit and it would be great if you were able to add facts from these refs. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll add some of them to the talkpage. A more complete answer is here. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I know the poem can be quoted as a reliable source. But can the poem be interpreted to conclude a connection between Islam and antisemitism? As for me I don't even see the word "Islam" in the poem, so how could it refer to the religion?Bless sins (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh Bless sins, bless you, please pay attention! The poem is not a source. Lewis is the source. It is Lewis' words that are cited, and the poem is a citation within a citation. Look at the Lewis text, which you probably have to hand (I don't). If he says it was Muslim antisemitism then that goes in the article. If he doesn't, it stays out. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. The user I was in edit conflict with kept on insisting upon the poem. Let's take Lewis. His job is to report historical events and literature. That doesn't mean he agree with the content of that literature. I agree if he argues Muslim antisemitism then we keep the cat in the article.Bless sins (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is getting bizarre, as the article directly quotes Lewis' analysis of the poem:

Lewis writes:

“ Particularly instructive in this respect is an ancient anti-Semitic poem of Abu Ishaq, written in Granada in 1066. This poem, which is said to be instrumental in provoking the anti-Jewish outbreak of that year, contains these specific lines:

Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on.

They have violated our covenant with them, so how can you be held guilty against the violators?

How can they have any pact when we are obscure and they are prominent?

Now we are humble, beside them, as if we were wrong and they were right!

”

Lewis continues: "Diatribes such as Abu Ishaq's and massacres such as that in Granada in 1066 are of rare occurrence in Islamic history."

...I mean, really... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Really what? The poem is anti-Semitic. Lewis says so, therefore it is. But what does this have to do with (at least mainstream) Islam? Lewis even makes him self clear by saying "Diatribes such as Abu Ishaq's... are of rare occurrence in Islamic history" - in other words a fringe and rare view.Bless sins (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what this argument is about now. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nor I... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean about this fellow's disruptive proclivities? And lo, I'm the one who's filibustering, apparently. rudra (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he appears to have made himsef clear on the talkpage of the article. I case anyone is interested, it is on whether this particular mention can be used to justify the inclusion of the article in Category:Islam and antisemitism - not really a RS/N problem. (Rudra is currently filibustering in favour of inclusion.:) ) --Relata refero (disp.) 14:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm done, except perhaps for posting a list of references, though I don't know how useful that would be. We have Brinner for Dhimma being relevant, and Lewis' summation. The argument now reduces to whether a single RS is required for both criteria of the category. I've already had my say on that. rudra (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing credits on Children of Men

An RfC has recently been opened in relation to this topic. Another request regarding the issue of WP:OR has been opened on the OR noticeboard. Please read it if you are interested in the background. This message will be brief as the RfC and noticeboard requests explain most of the problem.

Presently, there is no reliable source available to describe a particular sound effect that appears in the closing credits of Children of Men. In order to help the editor who keeps adding this trivia to the article, I recently devised a solution where we would create a new section, "closing credits", and describe all notable aspects using the {{cite video}} tag to source it, complete with the time the sound effect appears. When i did this, the editor removed the primary source citation, claiming that it wasn't neeeded. This deletion appears to be contrary to WP:V, as the importance of this particular sound effect has been challenged and debated for a year, as the talk archives (and current talk page) show.

The question: can the film be used as a reliable, primary source (a self-reference) to describe a trivial sound effect that appears in the credits, and if so, should the time parameter in the cite video template be used to note its appearance? We can support the trivial sound effect with the film as a primary source using the cite video template, but the editor continues to remove it.

Another problem emerges. The editor who keeps adding the sound effect to the article and removing the reference, has a history of trying to draw a relationship between the use of the sound effect in the credits and the appearance of the closing title credits, claiming in many discussions that it has special meaning and importance. But, there is no reliable source that supports this relationship. To support this relationship, the editor removed all elements in the closing credits section except the sound effect in question (which can only be sourced to the DVD) and the mention of the closing title credit, which has RS, but does not discuss the sound effect in any of those publications. Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that a sound effect happens could reasonably be sourced to the video. But everything beyond that is OR, and while a little latitude might be granted in uncontroversial cases, this isn't uncontroversial. Now, I'm not going to pass judgement on an editor without hearing his say, but... have you considered WP:ANI? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding earlier. I should endeavor to point out that much of Viriditas' post is a bit skewed, but considering our mostly unpleasant past interactions over the past year, I am not terribly surprised that I would be painted in the worst possible light by him/her. It is not the first time such has occurred. However, I'm not going to address that here

The specific "trivial" sound effect is the laughter of children during the closing credits at the end of a film about the human race dying out from infertility. While the reader can draw their own conclusions as to what that laughter and shouting means (that the human race did not die out, that the laughter of children was the Upanishad prayer, that a sound editor fell asleep at work, etc.), no citation in fact exists that explains the sounds. However, the source of this problem has apparently been raised a number of times at this noticeboard, most recently here.

The determination (a clear prior consensus) is that the sound, as observable phenomena that is not contested as to what it is (though dissent clearly exists as to its meaning and importance) is allowed. It would appear that this consensus has grown out of discussion here spanning the past year, and were therefore not available at the time this matter first came up for discussion in the CoM article talk page. I was certainly unaware of it until just recently. As well, I certainly don't consider the notation of laughter to be uncontroversial, though notable and contentious discussion has shown it to be otherwise. It was a knife fight just to get the source noting the presence of the shantih words at the end of the film into the article.

However, Viriditas added the section on phenomena in the closing credits that discussed the presence of the children's laughter (as observable phenomena) and the shantih (with quoted citation as to meaning). I disagreed that the cite video template, time-stamping the instance of the laughter, was necessary. The section is called 'Closing Credits', and the laughter and shouting of children runs throughout; there seems little ambiguity as to where the laughter occurs, so citation seems like overkill - especially so when the laughter is observable phenomena. I am not aware of any FA articles that currently utilize the cite video template, and FA is what the article should be aiming for, right?

I removed the statements about the music as non-notable bloat (as there was no citation speaking to the plot-worthy weight of them), and removed the cite video template timestamp (as we know precisely where the laughter is). The specifics of the template say it is useful to include time-stamps to navigate to a particular area. As the section specifically names the section, and the children's laughter occurs throughout the closing credits, the usefulness of the template is redundant to the section text.

Lastly, I think the addition of songs to the section are in fact trivial, as no citation exists as to their special meaning to the movie. I haven't seen any FA articles that note - uncited - any soundtrack's song being intrinsic to the movie's plot, though I know of a few non-GA articles where a song that appears in the soundtrack is important to the plot (Eddie and the Cruisers, for example). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Response from Viriditas

My apologies for not responding earlier. I should endeavor to point out that much of Viriditas' post is a bit skewed, but considering our mostly unpleasant past interactions over the past year, I am not terribly surprised that I would be painted in the worst possible light by him/her. It is not the first time such has occurred. However, I'm not going to address that here

I have never once mentioned your name above, so I have no idea how you could have been "painted" in any light. Every single claim I've made can be substantiated by dozens of diffs, past RfC's, third opinions, discussion by the film project, etc. You have not pointed out how anything I have stated above is "skewed" in any way, and I look forward to your evidence. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The specific "trivial" sound effect is the laughter of children during the closing credits at the end of a film about the human race dying out from infertility. While the reader can draw their own conclusions as to what that laughter and shouting means (that the human race did not die out, that the laughter of children was the Upanishad prayer, that a sound editor fell asleep at work, etc.), no citation in fact exists that explains the sounds. However, the source of this problem has apparently been raised a number of times at this noticeboard, most recently here.

And here we get to the crux of the issue. Arcayne's pet theory about how the audience draws some kind of conclusion from the sound effects in the credits, belongs to him and him alone. Not a single film critic, author, journalist, or reliable source has commented on this pet theory except Arcayne, and he's been talking about it for a year in the talk page archives, edit warring and trying to push his POV, which is essentially classically-defined as original research. This has been explained to Arcayne by at least a dozen different editors with absolutely no change in his editing behavior. What's even more bizarre, is that he claims to have raised the issue previously on the noticeboard, where he said, we cannot list an observable phenomena...the laughter of children during the end credits of the film Children of Men. Observable phenomena cannot replace citation. So, he's arguing the exact opposite of what he argued here before. I think the facts are really clear on this issue. Arcayne has engaged in a repeated pattern of OR and using unreliable sources to support his POV for over a year, including edit warring and gaming the system. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The determination (a clear prior consensus) is that the sound, as observable phenomena that is not contested as to what it is (though dissent clearly exists as to its meaning and importance) is allowed. It would appear that this consensus has grown out of discussion here spanning the past year, and were therefore not available at the time this matter first came up for discussion in the CoM article talk page. I was certainly unaware of it until just recently. As well, I certainly don't consider the notation of laughter to be uncontroversial, though notable and contentious discussion has shown it to be otherwise. It was a knife fight just to get the source noting the presence of the shantih words at the end of the film into the article.

This is not true. The trival sound effects have been contested on the talk page for a year, because you've consistently been trying to include them to support your OR. You've never done the slightest bit of research on the article. That is what is required to find reliable sources. Erik found the RS for Shantih for you and you still have not used them in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

However, Viriditas added the section on phenomena in the closing credits that discussed the presence of the children's laughter (as observable phenomena) and the shantih (with quoted citation as to meaning). I disagreed that the cite video template, time-stamping the instance of the laughter, was necessary. The section is called 'Closing Credits', and the laughter and shouting of children runs throughout; there seems little ambiguity as to where the laughter occurs, so citation seems like overkill - especially so when the laughter is observable phenomena. I am not aware of any FA articles that currently utilize the cite video template, and FA is what the article should be aiming for, right?

This is not true. You added the material to the plot section against the consensus of the active editors. Recently, you returned to your old ways and you added it to the themes section. No reliable source could be found to support the inclusion of the sound effects in the theme section. As a compromise in good faith, I moved your material to an "end credits" section (later changed to closing credits). Your disagreement with using a cite video template to show when the sound appears is completely spurious. WP:V is pretty clear on sourcing controversial statements, which is exactly what this is in your own words. You claim that the laughter and shouting of children runs throughout, however there are at least three songs that break those sound effects up, two of which only appear in the credits and are just as important to the closing credits as the sound effects of children laughing. You claim you are not aware of any FA-Class articles that use the cite video template, and that is one of the most absurd argument I've ever heard. The cite video template wasn't even used until 28 July 2005, which is why older FA's might not have it. All you would have to do is visit what links here to see how incredibly silly your statement reads. Many FA-Class articles cite films as primary sources, with or without the cite video template. The FA-Class article Chaco Culture National Historical Park cites the film The Mystery of Chaco Canyon three times, and it was added before the article became FA. FA-Class article Final Fantasy uses the cite video template and it was added to the article years before it passed FA. Same with J. R. R. Tolkien and many other FA-Class articles. So we see that contrary to what you say, the cite video template is used by many FA-Class articles. After having this discussion with you again and again for over a year, I'm getting the strong sense that you just make stuff up without thinking that people will actually take the time to look into what you are saying. How many times have I checked up on you, Arcayne, only to find that you had invented and manufactured claims out of thin air? What's going on here? Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the statements about the music as non-notable bloat (as there was no citation speaking to the plot-worthy weight of them), and removed the cite video template timestamp (as we know precisely where the laughter is). The specifics of the template say it is useful to include time-stamps to navigate to a particular area. As the section specifically names the section, and the children's laughter occurs throughout the closing credits, the usefulness of the template is redundant to the section text.

There are no citations "speaking to the plot-worthy weight" of the sound effects of "laughing children", so why is it in the article? The fact is, there are citations in multiple sources discussing the three songs used in the credits and their relationship to the film, even in the current article (for example: Crust, Kevin. "Unconventional soundscape in `Children of Men'", Chicago Tribune, 2007-01-17). These sources discuss the songs you removed: John Lennon, Jarvis Cocker, and John Taverner. So again, we see the opposite of what Arcayne claims to be true. What the heck is "non-notable bloat"? The songs you removed from the credits have been discussed in multiple sources. The "sound of laughing children" has not been mentioned in any reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, I think the addition of songs to the section are in fact trivial, as no citation exists as to their special meaning to the movie. I haven't seen any FA articles that note - uncited - any soundtrack's song being intrinsic to the movie's plot, though I know of a few non-GA articles where a song that appears in the soundtrack is important to the plot (Eddie and the Cruisers, for example).

The entire section on "closing credits" is trivial. Since I have been following your edits to the article for the last year, I am aware of what you are trying to do. You removed the songs from the closing credits section to bolster your pet theory of some kind of relationship between the sound effects of laughing children and the use of the closing credit that reads, "Shantih". You've discussed your personal beliefs and pet theories at length in at least five separate talk archives. There is no reliable source on the planet that supports your original research. Read what Shoemaker's Holiday wrote. Sound effects can reasonably be sourced to the video, but everything beyond that is OR. And a quick look at the cite video tag shows that multiple FA-Class articles use it, as well as many other citation styles. The songs that you removed can be sourced to critical commentary in multiple reviews, one of which already appears in the article. Your reason for removing them doesn't hold water. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The reasons given for removing an accepted method of citation are flimsy and it does appear that there is an attempt to push some original research. "I am not aware of any FA articles that currently utilize the cite video template, ..." is either Clintonesque wording (not aware?) or just an uninformed statement. Many FAs use cite video: just access Template:Cite video, click on what links here, and scan down the list to take your pick: there are quite a few and they aren't hard to find. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I did look at the long list, Sandy. Are you aware that many of those do not use the cite video template in the way that Viriditas seems to think its used? Let's take Dungeons & Dragons, for instance. No real cite video template to be found. Odd, that. Not in Batman, either. A few others garnered the same result. Now, I am not saying that cite video is never used, or that it cannot be used to specifically note time-stamps of important events (especially when they would be otherwise hard to find), but I am not going to comb through the 500+ article list to find an FA article that just as likely doesn't use the template in the way being suggested. Perhaps 'Clintonesque' is an unfair characterization of my roundabout asking for examples of when cite video is used; I imagine characterizing your claim that than I "can scan down the the list to take (my) pick: there are quite a few" as McCarthy-esque would be received the same way. Maybe you do me the favor of pointing out a few Featured Articles that use the cite video template in the way that Viriditas seems to think is appropriate.

The main point here is that are observable phenomena are exempt from NOR rules; they are from the film itself, much like the plot, which requires no citation whatsoever. The only reason it is exempt is that editorial consensus agrees the shape that the plot summary takes, so as to remove any speculation or incorrect events. When no one disagrees as to the plot summary, then its reasonable to believe that the plot summary is accurate. By the same token, any observable part of the film, from nuts to soup, falls under this same exemption. So long as there is no meaning prescribed to these events without secondary citation, noting the existence of the event is not OR, and is verifiable by anyone who sees the film, which is the primary source. As everyone (even Viriditas) agrees that the laughter and shouting of children does indeed occur in the film, it is not a contentious point.

That Viriditas continually calls the addition of this info my "pet theory", I think it notable that I did not add the info into the article recently - Viriditas did that. I have not in three days, three weeks or three months added any theory as to what the laughter means into the article, and without citation, I am not likely to do so.

The argument of triviality has been raised and is, in my estimation, the only real issue here. Yes, we can note the laughter of children without citation, as it is observed phenomena. Yes, we can note the instance of the 'shantih' phrase, as it has multiple citations speaking to it. What remains is whether these are trivial or not. Personally, I don't think they are, but I have admitted bias in the matter, and Viriditas has made it clear over a year and a half that he feels they interfere with what direction he feels the film article should take. I'd long since settled in to await citation about the meaning of the laughter. I don't intend to add any theory ("pet" or otherwise) about what it means without a solid citation. In fact I haven't in recent memory, which is why the instances being recalled by Viriditas are over a year old.

Honestly, I think the laughter and the shantih are worth noting, as the reader can make up their own minds as to the value of them. I don't think we need to time-stamp pointing to where it occurs, since the section named 'Closing Credits' is the only place it happens, and happens throughout. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat my comments from the NOR noticeboard... stating the blunt statement "the laughter of childred can be heard during the closing credits" is not OR. We can cite the film itself (a reliable primary source) for this fact. However, I really do not understand why this fact needs to be mentioned at all. The reader is left with the question: "Why was this mentioned? Why is it significant?" The problem is that any explanation of the significance would be original research unless it is backed by a reliable secondary source. It would be best to leave this information out until such a source can be provided. As a blunt statement of fact, it really does not add anything to the article. Blueboar (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is OR - it's an interpretation of a primary source. If it's true, and significant, some reliable secondary source will have written about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI...some of the proponents are treating the credits section as a "plot section", citing WP:MOSFILMS which says that citations are not needed for general information about the plot. However, to be consistent with WP:V, the films guideline allows for exceptions where citations should be used, especially for ambiguous material. Arcayne has argued for a year that there is a connection between the sound effects of laughing children and the conclusion, but in fact, there is none; on the other hand, there is self-referential evidence (from scene 12 in the film) that the sound effects are used in the credits to remind the audience of the missing sound of children throughout the film. The question becomes, is this important to the viewer? It could or could not be, we really don't know, which is why I have asked for secondary RS. To date, there are none. Arcayne wants to leave it in using the citation-less standard of the films guideline for plots. But this still doesn't override WP:V, as the guideline makes clear. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any edit I've done within recent memory has added any interpretation (or "connection") of the laughter of children to the outcome of the movie. Sure I did such over a year ago, but who here can say they are the same editor they were a year ago? Lol.

As the question has shifted from whether it can be noted to whether its trivial or not, maybe the RS noticeboard is the wrong place to discuss this matter. Since it is an observational part of the film, it fulfills the same criteria as does the plot, which is kept reliable via consensus. And consensus in this case agrees as to the existence of the laughter. So long as (uncited) interpretation is not added along with the observation, it seems appropriate to present the full picture of the film to the reader. We don't chew the food for them by providing out own interpretation, but we do in fact give them the actual food to chew themselves. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty easy, Arcayne. The three songs you removed from the credits are supported by a RS. (Crust, Kevin. 2007-01-07. "Sounds to match to the 'Children of Men' vision". Los Angeles Times) The trivial sound effects of "children laughing" that you find so important, are not. Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure your citation doesn't say the laughter sounds are trivial. but please, feel free to actually post a link that can verify that statement. If they are instead citations about the music, they might be better off in a section about music - which there already is in the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, the burden of proof is on the editor adding content. The content you added about "laughing children" is not found or supported by any reliable source. Because it is unsourced trivia that you are using to push a POV about the conclusion of the film (in the words of User:80.192.175.116: As the screen fades to black, sounds of lots of children laughing is heard, showing that her baby was the answer, and humans are able to conceive once again) we can't use it. If you can find a RS, great, but until then, it doesn't belong in the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Not sure why Viriditas was quoting an anon IP whose comments do not appear in the article, but I guess its immaterial. As mentioned preciously, discussion on no less than four articles (two of them noticeboards) has considered it 'clear consensus' that the children's laughter is observable phenomena and as such, doesn't require citation. The shantih is cited, but even if it weren't, it too would be includable, as it is also observable. Now, if we wish to change policy as to how we use at WP:PSTS, we have to address the following:

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."

As the source of the laughter (and the Shantih) both fulfill this criteria, let's read on:

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."

and since there is no interpretive value being added to the observation of the laughter. check and check.

Okay, that was from WP:NOR. Looking at WP:V, we see:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

Since the phrase 'burden of proof' has been tossed around willy-nilly a few times, lets put it into the context intended by the actual policy. The burden of proof, such as it were, is to prove that something actually occurred, or that a citation is in fact what it claims to be and represents what is claims to represent. As there is no editor who challenges the existence of the laughter or where it occurs in the film (any more than someone challenges the plot of a film) the burden of proof has been clearly met. Were someone to say, 'golly, that sounds like a string quartet there at the end' or 'are those dogs I hear barking?' there might be an issue. However, it is not. Everyone agrees that the sound is indeed laughter, and the laughter is indeed from children.

Lastly, the contested information has been contested as being trivial. Okay, let's look at that, as well:

"Trivia sections should not be categorically removed. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Migrate trivia items to prose, or to focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "References in popular culture"), whichever seems most appropriate. Items that duplicate material already contained elsewhere in the article can be removed in most cases."

Though we aren't dealing with a list of trivia, I think the intent remains the same. Even were the contested statements to be considered trivial, we usually try to incorporate them into the article text. This was already done, as presented in the Closing Credits section already present in the article.

Were that not persuasive enough, the guidelines on handling trivia say almost the same thing about integrating stand-alone trivia

"Stand-alone trivia usually make excellent candidates for integration into the articles they appear in."

and in fact, the recommendations on handing trivia (same article) backs that up rather clearly:

"Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists. If no such text exists, but it would be relevant, it should be created."

This would mean that the trivial bits about the music previously added to the Closing credits question should likely be added to the aptly-named section 'Music'.

It is quite likely that the editor taking issue with the inclusion of this information is seeing this as a sourcing or content issue, which might be part of the problem. It is instead a citability issue, which I think has been resolved through a closer look at the actual policies and guidelines. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bravo. That's a wonderful example of wikilawyering and gaming the system. In reality, the "observable phenomena" of what you describe as "children's laughter" is your interpretation of a sound effect. To me, it sounds like children talking and playing on a playground, and it was apparently not significant for any reviewer or critic to make note of it. Please place your interpretations of trivial sound effects aside, and focus on finding reliable sources for your claims. Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. All challenged material. There are no exceptions. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Book by Pete Earley

I tried to mediate an editorial conflict here but get in trouble. I think this boils down to a simple question: if a book qualifies as a reliable secondary source, and therefore a claim from this book should be included per WP:NPOV. The book was based on inteviews with a former KGB oficer Sergei Tretyakov. The book was published as follows:

Pete Earley, "Comrade J: The Untold Secrets of Russia's Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War", Penguin Books, 2007, ISBN-13 978-0-399-15439-3.

According to the book, the KGB conducted certain special operations to promote the nuclear winter theory. However, all references to this are repeatedly deleted from the article. Actually, this book has been used for reference in many WP articles, but it was challenged as a source only in nuclear winter. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Published by Penguin, it would seem to be reliable. If another reliable source contradicts it then both should be mentioned. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

unsigned website with zero sources and severe bias hosted on an odontology website

I need independient uninvolved confirmation that odontcat.com is a non-reliable source. See reasons on title. It's being used on Coat_of_arms_of_Catalonia on both sides of a POV argument. Actual page being used is this one,

The page being used has probably terms that can indicate bias as "Count-Kings of Barcelona" and "so-called Crown of Aragon". The site has grave errors, probably caused by bias trying to give more importance to Catalonia, see "With the marriage (...) in 1137, the Kingdom of Catalonia and Aragon was born"[96], but there was never anything going by the name of "Kingdom of Catalonia and Aragon". Only page with something ressembling a source is one that has some data tables on it. The entry page to it has very few incoming links [97], so it's non-notable and certainly not cited as reference.

Please someone take a peek and give a second opinion confirming or denying the non-reliability --Enric Naval (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This gateway is destined to professional dentists and dental hygenists, students and any person that might be interested in the dentistry world. say what? it's a gateway for dentists that also hosts some material on catalonia? em.. --87.114.40.124 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick google finds many references to th "Kingdom of Catalonia and Aragon", include on official EU websites[98]. The site itself doesn't pass WP:RS muster, but it seems reasonably well put together, so I'd suggest anything it claims should be able to be verified from other sources and those sources used. For example, this europa.eu article would I think be an acceptable source for the claim of the marriage leading to the creation of that Kingdom. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you use quotes, the number goes down to 106. If you try to look at all the results, there are only 24 in reality, the rest are omited for being very similar. Almost all are travel guides or travel articles like this nytimes article about how cool Barcelona is. There are no documents or articles from historians naming the term, except for the europa.eu article and this document about dance on 15th century, which also uses a non-standard term like "Alfonso III of Catalonia and IV of Aragon", and this document about Landscape and national identity in Catalonia (ouch @ potential bias in using names that increase importance of Catalonia).

(rant: that damned europa-es site includes "aragon" inside the catalan area, and only talks of the Crown history on catalonia article, and not on aragon, valencia or balearics articles. Still not as biased as the other one, since it says "King John I of Aragon and Catalonia", so at least it preserves the original order of the titles. It's also centered on languages, and only mentions history of the Crown tangentially)

Well, I'll try to use the europa.eu web instead where I can, and I'll replace it with cites from Payne, Chaytor and other historical authors that I can get from paper sources as I find them. Thanks for the help. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So that leaves us with 24 sites... surely at least one of them is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To put it in context, "kingdom of Catalonia" has 1180 results [99], and "Kingdom of Aragon" has 168000 [100], with the first page of results including the Britannica[101], a call for papers for a magazine about critical-history study of alchemy[102], a list of abstracts of a University of Valencia website[103] and a book by historian Chaytor[104]. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

After looking at this, I would say that WP:FRINGE applies to this term, so it needs an extraordinary source for inclusion on the article. It's extremely little used in comparison with "kingdom of aragon", and don't mention the relative quality of sources. Ídem for "kingdom of catalonia", I think Sclua can easily agree with me that it's simply inaccurate to the point of incorrect, with catalonia never having been an actual kingdom at any point of history --Enric Naval (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ídem for "Count-Kings of Barcelona" 82 results vs "Kings of Aragon and Counts of Barcelona" 773 results and better quality, and "so-called Crown of Aragon" 5 results, 2 of them being copy/pastes on forums of the odontia page and "Crown of Aragon" 59100 results including 2 history books and the official page of the Archive of the Crown of Aragon.

Add to this that it has near-to-zero WP:V verifiability, and I would say that this website is biased to hell and back, and not reliable at all except for sourcing which are the most biased statements you can find on the web. The europa-eu website is also unsourced, so no WP:V, and, combined with the use of that term, I think it's neither a reliable source at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, notice that Enric Naval is aragonese and is involved on the talk page. The first united Parlamient of the Aragonese and Catalans was called by the Crown of Aragon and Catalonia, on 13th Century, so the name is not biased and like this, the rest but this is not the talk page ideal where to talk about this. Please, Enric Naval do not try to clear the sources you do not like.--Sclua (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's "crown", not "kingdom". I remind you of WP:AGF and WP:NPA --Enric Naval (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jin Jing - between hero and traitor

Hello. There are three sources quoted for Chinese netizen attacks on Jing, two of them being kind of blog-like (China Digital Times in English, the other in Chinese). The third is the reputable German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, effectively backing up the other two sources. Now some removed the first two sources by saying they were "unreliable", but once this has been done the text quickly was changed to run along the line "according to one German media, there were attacks by Chinese netizens against Jin Jing", making it look like an isolated report. What is your view? Should we keep all three sources or remove the bloggish ones? Part of the problem is that the attacks took place on Chinese internet bulletin boards, so it is only natural that primarily blogs report about it. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Suddeutsche Zeitung is a reliable secondary source and should remain as the main source. The bulletin boards can be seen as primary sources. I suggest removing the one in Chinese and keeping the one in English for convenience and as a backup to the German newspaper. As the English wikipedia we prefer English-language sources where they are available, but Suddeutsche Zeitung is a respected newspaper. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

British Isles sources

Hi. The term "British Isles" is controversial in Ireland. Sources say that the term is objectionable and say things like "objectionable to many people" or "often objectionable". These descriptions appear in serious published histories of the British Isles and by serious historians of the British Isles. An editor on the British Isles page is repeately denying that these sources are acceptable and is reverting phrases in the text that reflect the references. Some of the references are here[105]. Are these sources acceptable, reliable, verifiable? I view them as very much so, since they are scholarly views published bby some of the most serious publishing houses in existence. Another editor on the article is describing them as "academic tracts" and discounting them. If a Cambridge University press published history of the british isles says "many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable", is it justified to use "many" as a characterisation of the number of people who find it objectionable? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, for the reasons you give. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Frieda Harris

The above article is a direct, verbaitim copy of this webpage. According to the talk page this is not a copyvio, as permission apparently has been granted to copy it... but it still bothers me that we have an article that simply copies another webpage. I also wonder whether the underlying source is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AuthorHouse

Hi. I'm having a bit of a dispute with an editor, and would like some advice about a source, as I'd really like to keep things civil. The source is Saylor, Jane. "The Road You've Traveled", AuthorHouse, 2006. I think both of us have agreed that it is not a reliable secondary source, as it is self-published. The dispute revolves around whether or not it is a primary source in regard to whether or not AuthorHouse should be described as a vanity press. The other editor argues that the book is published by AuthorHouse, and is therefore a primary source on this issue. My argument is that it would be a primary source in regard to "claims made by Jane Saylor", but not as it is being used. Currently the sentence reads "AuthorHouse, formerly known as 1stBooks, is a vanity press that provides print on demand services". Any help to clarify this either way would be much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AuthorHouse has published a book, "The Road You've Traveled," which states on page 63 that AuthorHouse is a vanity press. Since this information is coming from the publisher itself, this qualifies as a primary source for the fact that AuthorHouse is a vanity press. Qworty (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did acknowledge that above, I thought, but perhaps not clearly enough. I guess I have two concerns. The first is that just because it was published through AuthorHouse does not mean that it is a primary source for AuthorHouse. AuthorHouse do not hold themselves responsible for the content of works published through them, and do not edit the books - a point that has been main elsewhere in regard to this type of publisher, very often by you. Second, even if it is a primary source, it is still not a reliable source, and cannot be used to support the line as it stands. I can reasonably see "Jane Saylor has described AuthorHouse as a vanity press", or maybe even "An author published through AuthorHouse has described them as a vanity press". If it was accepted as a primary source I could even see "AuthorHouse have described themselves as a vanity press" (but for that we would have to consider the times when AuthorHouse stated that they are not a vanity press), but not "AuthorHouse is a vanity press". Either way, I'd like to hear other opinions on the matter. - Bilby (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A book published by AuthorHouse is not generally a reliable source. But it is an acceptable source for statements about the publisher itself, in the same way that the website of a political advocacy group is an acceptable source for statements about the stance of the group. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet a website by a political advocacy group is written by the political advocacy group, and therefore can be said to be represent their views. A book that a publisher prints is not written by them and does not necessarily represent their views, especially when that publisher does not have editorial control. Perhaps a better comparison would be with a forum, where the comments made by users do not represent the views of the owners, even if though the owners are providing them with the means to speak? - Bilby (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Feminism reliability

Hi, the user User:Cailil has made the following change to remove critisicm of the quality of this particular source which I believe to be fundamentally flawed. He insists on describing the research as being the opinion of the United Nations (I am unaware if an organisation like this can have an opinion), when it was the result of a study for the UN.

I think it is either important to maintain this criticism or remove the reference.

Also at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#civil_rights the reference #104 is not verifiable, it is simply a statement that someone stood up and said something at a conference, I don't see how this can be considered a reliable source.

I'm sure there are many more unreliable sources here and I can attempt to identifiy these if it seems worthwhile.

There are many other issues also:

Here the same user has used an edit description that is misleading, the edit is completely different. The article has does not appear to be representative of worldwide views on the subject either and is heavily influenced by this single editor.

Other articles edited by User:Cailil also do not seem to exhibit a NPOV, e.g. Sexual Objectification where the page seems to be written entirely from a feminist perspective, including content under the sub-heading for the objectification of men.

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.60.134 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the UN study link leads to a 404 Document Not Found page, so I can't check what it really says. (However, it's clear to me that a study called "United Nations Human Development Report 2004" should never be referred to as "A study for the United Nations". That's just trying to downplay the study for no reason.).

You mean Sexual objectification. As a very short superficial review, Cailil's edits seem correct: removal of unsourced text under the men section [106], preceded by the addition of sourced text a reference under the women section[107] and a reword that reduces the number of words on an unsourced paragraph on the women section[108]. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 Remark: See comments about this IP being an edit warrior, and relevant checkuser case --Enric Naval (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone is still interested in this, I'd like to point out that the Human Development Report is eminently reliable and can be quoted without attribution. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this Relata refero and Enric Naval. I'm always happy to have people review my edits. I have no idea what the IP has against me (other than the fact that I reverted their vandalism) or what their problem with the UN is. But that aside the user is a block evading sock IP of User:80.192.60.20 and has been making a number of personal attacks about me over the last 24 hours. They've been reported to the original blocking sysop and other than this post I'm following WP:RBI--Cailil ^talk 14:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Below I have listed several problems with Section 28 of the report in question.

• There is no information in that report regarding what constitutes work and this is one of the units used in the calculation for the ratio of work between genders in section 28.

• The report clearly states that the information it presents in section 28 is an estimate (this would preclude it from being considered fact).

• The report indicates in section 28b that "Classifications of market and non-market activities are not strictly based on the 1993 revised UN System of National Accounts" with no comment as to why this is not adhered to or what classifications are used.

• The report indicates in section 28e that it does not perform a weighted average. This indicates that the figures are unrepresentative of the population that has been selected as a whole.

• The report indicates in section 28b that it is considering selected developing countries yet the criteria for selection is not given.

• The report includes non OECD countries under a heading of OECD countries (Israel, Latvia) in Section 28.

• The report indicates Section 28b uses data based on time use surveys that was available at the time. It does not provide references for where this information has come from.

• Section 28 presents a list of the "Burden of Work" which is undefined. This is also listed by country yet there is significant difference in the dates at which this information was obtained for each category (differences of more than 2 decades can be seen).

This is just from reading section 28 as referenced. I haven't looked at the rest of the report but I would find it remarkable that this report could be considered reliable information. 80.192.60.134 (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer on page 6:

The analysis and policy recommendations of this Report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme, its Executive Board or its Member States. The Report is an independent publication commissioned by UNDP. It is the fruit of a collaborative effort by a team of eminent consultants and advisers and the Human Development Report team. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Director of the Human Development Report Office, led the effort.

I think that the paper needs to be attributed like "The Human Development Report Office commissioned "The United Nations Human Development Report 2004", which estimated (...)" or similar wording. The title of the report should be preserved, since the UN allowed the report to bear its title, and the disclaimer only says "not necessarily". As for reliability, it's probably very reliable. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Human Development Report is, quite simply, the state of the art in development economics, and is reviewed by hundreds of academics, independent scholars and area-specific expert consultants before being released. If it has chosen to use a different form of accounting, we can rest assured that it has done so because that form of accounting is more appropriate. The data collated and analysed by the HDR are used without question by thousands of scholars, and feature in doctoral dissertations and peer-reviewed papers without comment. Simply put, and concerns about the reliability of the report are delusional. If anything deserves to be stated without attribution, its the HDR. Wikipedia is unlikely to ever reach the HDR's level of reliability. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Here[109] you will find Kevin Watkins, Director at the Human Development Report Office of the United Nations Development Programme giving an overview of the contents of Volume 7, Number 2 (July 2006) of the Journal of Human Development: Alternative Economics in Action.

This journal has coverage of the Gender-related Development Index (GDI) and Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) used throughout the aforementioned 2004 report.

Of particular relevance is that in this summary he states "The papers and findings from the on-line forum were discussed at an expert meeting in New York in January 2006, which led to specific recommendations on revising the measures." Note that that the referenced report in the feminism article is from 2004, before the experts recommended the measures be revised. (Also note that the previous editor has just implied that these experts are are delusional). A particularly appropriate paper in this issue is "The Uses and Misuses of the Gender-related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure: A review of the literature", described by Kevin Watkins as follows:

"The paper by Dana Schüler examines the uses and misuses of the GDI and GEM by researchers and policy-makers in the past ten years, and discusses some interesting proposal to reform the GDI and GEM and ways to better interpret these measures. In particular, she highlights that very frequently the GDI is erroneously interpreted as a measure of gender inequality. This reflects a poor understanding of the (rather complex) measure as well as the great demand for an internationally comparable measure of gender inequality. "

Contrast this with the following text describing the use of this index in the 2004 report:

"The gender-related development index (GDI), introduced in Human Development Report 1995, measures achievements in the same dimensions using the same indicators as the HDI but captures inequalities in achievement between women and men."

The abstract for the Dana Schuler paper can be found here[110] along with abstracts for the other related papers in this edition that focus on these metrics.

It is clear from the above quotes that the experts have decided that the metrics is not fit for the purpose of measuring gender inequality. The metric is pervasive throughout the 2004 report. I have also raised the 8 bullet points above related specifically to section 28. I think it is clear that the reliability of the source is called into question, when the metrics being used are being discussed in academia as insufficient and panels of experts are moving to replace them. 80.192.60.134 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, 80.192.60.134, the article is using the report as a source for "Gender, work burden and time allocation" and not for GDI, so your entire comment is moot. I'll have to agree with Relata that the report does not need attributtion on its current usage. If the report is ever used to report GDI, *then* the article should caution about the meassures possibly being outdated. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Question on sources regarding personal letters and buinsiness letters from public individuals

I have been working on two types of articles: politics and literature. I want to research personal corespondence between some authors and their pubishers to gain insight on how they viewed each other in relationship to their success. For instance, how much impact did the publisher have on the success of a particular invidual and how much impact did the success of an author have on their pubishers success. I think this information is particularly noteworthy in regards to the the success of their careers. I woulld like to research personal letters that are in archieves at libraries. How would I cite these sources and are these sources appropriate for wikipedia?

In regards to politics, I have worked on several articles for US presidential candidates. I wanted to add endorcesments from foreign leaders to the endorsement artilces of candidites where I nknow the foreign leadres supports the US candidate for president. Is it appropirate to add letters of endorsements which have from the offices of these leaders? it would be a primary souce document. It is me i think (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As to the letters between authors and publishers... It sounds like an excellent project, but unfortunately it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. What you wish to do would be termed "Original Research" on Wikipedia, and that is not allowed (see WP:NOR).

As to the political endoresements... first, such letters would have to be published in some form for them to be used at all. If they are published, they would indeed be primary sources (and, thus, only usable with great caution and lots of limitations). It would be much better to use a secondary source (something like a newspaper), that reported on the fact that the foreign leader endorsed the candidate. Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Classical CD liner notes

Hi

I'm interested in expanding the article on the conductor Jascha Horenstein as my first foray into a non-trivial addition to Wikipedia. Would liner notes from CDs in the BBC Legends series be considered reliable sources ? They are often written by people who knew the subjects of the CDs, for example Joel Lazar, who was Horenstein's assistant in the last years of his life. On a related note, I'd like to add examples of different schools of critical thought regarding his Mahler recordings. Would quotes from a website such as http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/index.html be appropriate ?

Thanks

MuppetLabTech (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I see some of the other notes are written by people such as Jeremy Siepmann and Graham Melville-Mason. I'd say they are impeccable as sources. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramey

There is currently an edit war occuring over the inclusion of this source over at veterinary chiropractic. There is currently no consensus on the page for inclusion, but I would like some outside opinion on whether this is a reliable source. I have so far not commented on the talk page about the reliability of this source and have tried to stay outside this debate. Any arguments below are quoted (but not attributed) off the respective talk page. DigitalC (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Source: ""Veterinary Chiropractic"". www.chirobase.org.
• Arguments for inclusion:

"...best available reference for the specific topic of risk of injury..."

"...David Ramey is a notable equine specialist in Hollywood, who has written a number of books..."

"He is a notable expert on the topic. Per WP:SPS, we can include the text and ref"

• Arguments against inclusion:

Chirobase.org is not a reliable source, nor does it meet WP:MEDRS.

"A statement from an unscientific, non-peer-reviewed, opinion piece is inappropriate for this section (regardless if the source is pro or con chiropractic)."

"It's old, unscientific, an opinion, not peer-reviewed, and unsourced to any piece of scientific literature."

"I know of no caveat to WP:RS which states that when a reliable source can't be found then you can dredge up and use whatever unreliable source is available."

":"...it is not an WP:SPS as it is not published by Ramey, but rather by the partisan website. Second, even if it were a WP:SPS it would fail some of the qualifications, especially #2 "so long as... it is not contentious;""

• Comments from outside observers on whether this is reliable or not?

Here is the current text in the article. David W. Ramey, a doctor of veterinary medicine, argues that there is a risk of injury to a horse if overly aggressive maneuvers occur. Manipulating the spine of a dog with a degenerative disk carries the risk of severe and permanent harm to the spinal cord. * David W. Ramey. "Veterinary Chiropractic". Retrieved 2008-04-15. Please note. David W. Ramey is a notable equine specialist, who has written a number books. And EVJ mentions him a few times. Per WP:SPS, a notable expert on the topic meets Wikipedia's standard. The article is written by Ramey. Could attribution help? WP:ATT has been included in the text using the author's name. The source also qualifies under WP:PARITY because the topic is considered WP:FRINGE. For example, even the American Chiropractic Association, the largest professional association of chiropractors, states the term veterinary chiropractic is a misnomer. Further, Ramey is the best source available specifically for safety information. QuackGuru 01:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The American Veterinary Medical Association apparently does not see it as fringe. CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ramey certainly has published other books [111] and his credentials look excellent. To me he qualifies as an expert in the field, so that the self-published nature of the work might well be considered a reliable source. On the other hand, it is published on a highly partisan website. However, why doesn't somebody wade through Ramey's book "Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine Considered" [112], published by Blackwells, a highly reliable source, and source whatever is required from there. Slp1 (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

PS it is also available as a search inside at Amazon.[113] So is another book of his, Consumer's Guide to Alternative Therapies in the Horse [114]--Slp1 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

His "expert" "opinion" is dated and is supplanted by new (2008) verifiable, peer-reviewed high quality research published in a high impact veterinary journal. The case isn't whether or not Ramey is notable; it's that that he's 1) been annoited an expert without ever publishing one paper in the literature 2) annoited an expert specifically on the topic of spinal manipulation and veterinary care 3) is a dated source which has been updated by recent, robust research and 4) his "opinion" is being used to contradict what the peer-reviewed source says. Now that some facts have been laid out, let us continue this discussion with the proper context. Next? CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as if Ramey's book published by Blackwells is a reliable source and so also is the 2008 paper. The article can present both. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal seems confident that Ramey should not be considered expert in the field. However, I disagree. He has written two recent books (1999, 2004) on the subject of alternative/complimentary vet medicine published by reputable publishers, has written at least two articles in peer reviewed journals on the same subject [115] as well many other books, including a 2007 book on evidence based practice in the field. He has also been on the AVMA committee responsible for the guidelines of use of alternative/complimentary vet medicine. It is clear to me that he meets the bar as an expert in the field whose opinion is notable. As I said before, it would be better to use his peer-reviewed books/journal article as sources, however. If you think his opinion has been supplanted/updated by recent research than you should argue that on the talkpage, though my personal take would be that the very small studies reported currently in the article, both of which clearly suggest that further research is needed, are not a slamdunk showing that Ramey is out of date.--Slp1 (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My main contention was that his sourced material was being used to dispute and supplant the 2008 peer-reviewed research. Also, the source being used from Ramey was specifically a 1990 piece from chirobase as opposed to one of his books. These were also noted in the talk page. The research section clearly said that "further research is needed" (it is the research cliche, after all!) but the section on "safety" proposed by QG using a 1990 chirobase article from Ramey which was used to contradict a 2008 research paper is a non-starter. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I don't share your certainty about it being a 'non-starter'. The sentence in question talks in part about dogs, and the two studies that are supposed to "contradict" it both concern horses. The studies are in fact extremely weak methodologically (e.g. no control group in one case, and the horses didn't actually have back problems in the other.) In neither case was the issue of safety addressed as far as I can tell, which is Ramey's concern, and the studies couldn't possibly have any meaningful data on the subject in any case given the very sample sizes. But this part of the issue isn't a question in fact a discussion for this page. My view of the subject in question is that the website document is likely a reliable source given its authorship. However, since Ramey repeats his concern about the possibillity of injury on p. 95-96 of "Consumer's Guide to Alternative Therapies in the Horse " at least that part can be sourced to a very clearly reliable document.Slp1 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramey is not be used to contradict a 2008 research paper. This is the only source of informatiom about "safety" in the article. We should continue to use the Ramey source. If another source becomes available we can consider replacing the Ramey source. There are books written by Ramey. We can't use any of the Ramey books unless someone actually reads it. There is a lack of research on Veterinary chiropractic and we are using one of few available sources. QuackGuru 18:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh but you can read them, QuackGuru. Click the links I gave above to electronic copies of the books on Google books and Amazon, sign up to Amazon, and get reading! Both books will be very useful for the article.--Slp1 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So that I am clear on your position Slp1, do you agree that the currently used source is not reliable, due to its age and the fact that it is published on a partisan website? DigitalC (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, quite the opposite. Ramey has been published widely by peer-reviewed sources. The article in question therefore appears to qualify under per WP:SPS. I don't see anything more other, more reliable sources, regarding safety issues that would indicate the article is out of date. Having said that I believe that there are better, more clearly reliable sources by Ramey that can be used to source the issue of safety in the article, and these should be used where possible.--Slp1 (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Radical Gun Nuttery! website

I am interested in hearing second opinions on the ongoing discussion[116] where I am concerned that the chart 'image:rtc.gif' is based on data drawn from the website Radical Gun Nuttery! not being a reliable source. My instinct is that this private website, with unclear fact checking, is not a reliable source. There is also the argument that the WP:OI policy controls because this is a "diagram". I am thinking that it is a diagram, but it portrays ideas/data, that come from this private website. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unreliably sourced material is still unreliably sourced. There's a difference between snapping a photo of a celebrity or landmark (two prominent examples of user-generated free images) and making an animated diagram based on a unreliable source. For images regarding statistics and the like, they should cite reliable sources like anything else. I will raise this issue at WT:NOR, as the clear statement that images do not generally advance unpublished ideas arose out of nonsense like this. Vassyana (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

History of changes to Right To Carry laws

Here is the graphic in question. It does not advance any unpublished idea. The year in which a state enacted a concealed carry law is an uncontroversial fact and can (tediously) be sourced (about 40 citations needed). The idea that many states have enacted such laws in recent years is also public record and is already sourced in the article. A timeline is not an unpublished idea that needs a source in and of itself. There are plenty of user-constructed timelines in Wikipedia. By way of comparison, please see the article Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, one of numerous timeline articles. It even uses the wiki tag timeline. I could, as a Wikipedia editor, reconstruct this diagram by hand, with a cite for each state, and donate it to the Commons and it would have the same end result (other than the waste of time that could be spent upon more meaningful contributions). Such diagrams are protected and in fact encouraged by WP:OI and if this diagram is not allowable, then the hundreds or thousands of such user-constructed diagrams should also be deleted from Wikipedia. I do not understand how SaltyBoatr's opposition to this diagram improves the article in any manner. Nobody contends that the diagram is inaccurate, which is not surprising in that it consists of a collection of uncontroversial dates. kevinp2 (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are tons of unquestionably reliable sources covering the gun control debate and associated laws, many of which discuss issue-laws and the timeline of their development. WP:OI is not intended as a free pass on using unreliable sources and to assert otherwise is simply absurd. It is even more ridiculous to assert that unreliable and self-published sources are acceptable in the face of abundant, easy availability of highly reputable sources. Such an assertion simply flies in the face of the core content principles of Wikipedia and common sense. Is it easier to find information on self-published and unreliable websites through Google than to actually use library resources? Sure it is, but the concept of using reliable sources is a principle of Wikipedia, while the concept of using the most convenient sources is most certainly not. Vassyana (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So what solution do you propose? If the Rtc.gif page contains citations for all of the 40 states, is that sufficient? I am willing to do this provided that nobody moves the goalpost at the last minute. kevinp2 (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That should probaby be enough, IMHO. You can make a list of citations and data on the "source" field. Make sure they are reliable sources like links to government sites. Wait for more users to confirm this, please. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt it should require 40 separate citations. Give me a day or two and I will check for sources to see if we can simplify matters a bit. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

http://bourabai.kz/landscheidt/

Having edit warred about this for too long, I'm belatedly asking for an opinion on whether this counts as a WP:RS for Theodor Landscheidt. I assert that http://bourabai.narod.ru/ is clearly one bods personal webpage, dressed up as his personal institution. User:I Write Stuff contends that because the FAO has used text by the sites owner [117] (on the entirely unrelated subject of forest fires in Kazakhstan), therefore the site itself is reliable, apparently on any subject it covers, and in particular on the subject of Landscheidt. Your views are sought William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why I have to repeatedly correct you, however it is the institutes page, Bourabai Research Institute. They are located in Kazakhstan, perhaps which accounts for the bad design, however as pointed out above, the United Nations used a report issued by the research institute. I have asked William to state why its not reliable, it seems he has had a personal issue with Lanscheidt since they are in the same field, and recently filed a failing AfD on the subject. The institute further states they had specific permission from the family of Lanscheidt to publish the information. The subject of their research is a red herring as they have information about scientists in various fields which they feel made significant contributions. I have asked William to show something that would prove the information is false, fabricated, or something other then personal opinion which seems to be gauged in their web design ability, he has either refused, or is unwilling. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, the non subdomain page is: [118]. The Narod.Ru page should not be the one pointed to. William has also stated "is likely a reliable source for forest fires; thats what the FAO used him for. But not for L" L being Landscheidt, so apparently we can trust them about stuff, just not about stuff William does not want to see on Wikipedia. The site, which William admits is reliable in some form, states they received the information from Landscheidt's family as well. The information is not particularly gratifying either, just a mention of an award from an institute he is a member of. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[this originally posted to the RS talk page; I've moved it here William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)]

Basically a "Private research institute", which in Central Asia-speak means that it isn't recognised by the government or the local academy of sciences. In this case, the hobby horse of Karim Khaidarov, so exactly as reliable as he is reliable. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is, on the very home page they push Aether theory, they disprove the Theory of Relativity (and show that the vacuum speed of light is not constant), they claim that much of Southeast Asia was created during a 2.5 hour cometary bombardment (and, interestingly, apparently little to no continental drift has happened since then - the maps show India snuggly against Asia all the time), they show that Quasars are near and red-shift is an illusion, and so on. Sorry, that is an international collection of kookery. If they conned the FAO into citing a report, good for them and bad for the FAO. They are not a reliable source on anything. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately your personal opinion on their work does not decide if its RS or not. Its also not appropriate to state they conned the FAO into anything, as you obviously have no proof, however if you do have proof of some perpetuated fraud, please post it here. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

By posting here, you ask for my personal opinion. And I'll take a bet that almost anybody with even a marginal scientific education who spends five minutes looking at their home page agrees. This is a collection of not even convincingly masked pseudo-science. It's the kook side of talk.origins ca. 1992, with images added. Ted Holden would be proud of it... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping more for policy based arguments, not "I don't like what they study", but it has been resolved none-the-less. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Found better source, thanks for all who participated. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gush Shalom

Is this brief mention in the San Francisco Chronicle sufficient to attach the epithet "left-wing" to the Israel peace organisation Gush Shalom? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find a few books sources identifying Gush Shalom as 'left-wing'. But the question is, why does one have to label invariably a movement that is not clearly politically alligned as 'left wing', particularly when 'left' and 'right' wing parties in Israel tend, much as in the US, to share policies that peace activists oppose? It is rather anglocentric to do this. Live on another continent, and you find this far more complex. The Catholic Church in Italy, in political terms, tends to support the right wing in politics. In matters of international politics and issues of war, many of its activists and even political representatives, can be found on what might be called the 'left'. In the dumbdown word this kind of language passes muster. It's hardly good descriptive language for a gloabl encyclopedia Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Chronicle is quite reliable. Of course, I fail to see how "left-wing" is in any way necessary in an article about it, which would presumably discuss its views in more detail rather than as a brief caricature; and if a modifier for the times they are mentioned in other articles is required, surely "Israeli peace activists" or "vile traitor peaceniks" or whatever is more appropriate, as that is their defining characteristic? --Relata refero (disp.) 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both former comments. I would point out that :

1. In Israel, left and right doesn't mean anything.

2. on wikipedia, we should avoid writing : this group, who is ..., claims that.

Whatever are the 3 dots, it is completely pov and tends to say something that is not needed.

Personally, when I feel it is important for the reader to understand who claims something, I just put this between brakets : [[ ... ]] assuming the reader is "adult" enough to click to go and read if he likes.

(this being said, I would say Gush Shalom is far-left :-)

Ceedjee (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

When I see these type of questions, it always raises a red flag for me. Use the best sources available, look for consensus of sources (or lack thereof), avoid WP:UNDUE, and always use good editorial judgment and look for consensus of involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wise advice. I think we're all being careful here. There is a great deal of room for improvement in this and related articles. Israeli peace camp is dire by any account, and has been tagged for a long time. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I see they are cited in the lead as describing themselves as a 'national camp', presumably a calque on a Hebrew term. But 'camp' in the sense being used here in the title, in English, meant primarily 'a body of adherents of a militant doctrine, or theory'. It was common during the cold war, predominantly to describe the left. Perhaps editors should reflect on its appropriateness (to my ear it jars in slightly POVing things) to describe a 'peace movement'. Good luck Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Physical attractiveness

Physical attractiveness (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch There is a dispute between me and Loodog (talk · contribs). The question at the center of this is whether or not random, editor-selected images need sources when they are meant to serve as illustrations of the article topic. Dorftrottel (ask) 16:23, April 28, 2008

The general principle is no, you do not need a source to justify the inclusion of a picture. Of course you need to ensure that you do not create a WP:copyvio and you should also be careful not to introduce bias in your captions. You should use the talk page to try and reach consensus about the criteria on which pictures should be selected. I would say that the article could do with a greater variety of pictures. A Rubens painting would be nice because his work is often cited as an example of changing standards of beauty throughout time. Also, you should really have at least one dark-skinned person. And what about someone who is ageing beautifully - with or without surgery? Itsmejudith (talk)

The problem is that in this particular article, images are automatically statements on what beauty is. Including an image of e.g. Michele Merkin in this article, is for all practial purposes identical to including a statement like "Michele Merkin is beautful". Dorftrottel (complain) 17:15, April 28, 2008

In this case, I would fully expect the relevance of an image to be cited to reliable sources. Michele Merkin may indeed be physically attractive, but an illustration here should be encyclopaedic as well as - er- pretty. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd be on safe ground with Marilyn Monroe.Itsmejudith (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks all so far. I think I'm requesting an RfC at the article talk page. Dorftrottel (talk) 20:00, April 28, 2008

Energy & Environment

I am being told this entire Journal is never to be used as a WP:RS source for information. They published some background information on a scientist and it was removed stating they are not permitted to be used, is this the case? For more information you can see publishers page: [119] your feedback is appreciated.

Wikipage on the journal: Energy and Environment, editor Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. The staff also seems to be highly documented in Google scholar:

• Editorial board: B W Ang [120], Maarten Arentsen [121], Max Beran [122]
• Book review editor: Debra Johnson [123]
• Editor: Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen [124]

Comments appreciated. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

E&E is not carried by any science citation index I know off. It is barely "published", being available in extremely few academic libraries. The journal has been heavily criticized, even by some of the authors it published, for sloppy review standards. The editor in chief has publicly stated that she publishes paper based on political preference. This is not a reliable source for anything controversial. It is usable as a primary source about the views of published authors. On a different angle, in my experience even high-class journals don't usually fact-check the author blurb unless it is extremely implausible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Choosing what to publish based on political leaning is the nature of publishing. If we are to take you correctly, you are stating that we can never find a WP:RS source for the information, since everyone could have possibly received the information from Theodor directly, of which you haven't shown to be true in the first place, and everyone who would publish the information could have simply decided not to check it. Doesn't that put the information into a convenient black hole? --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

At first sight, it looks like an academic journal, but a minor one. And the editor is a geographer; the editorial board are mainly social scientists; the articles concentrate on economics. Furthermore, if there are indeed criticisms of the journal by academics then this should be taken into account. Looks like it is not a good source for scientific fact. Particular articles may be good for summarising viewpoints in energy economics. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is being used as a source for information about one of the people who contributed. An award he won is noted in the journal, would the journal not be a reliable source for basic information regarding the people they publish? Further its not an extravagant claim as the award is from an institute that the person is a member of. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First, in scientific publishing the decision what to publish is usually based on blind peer review. Of course an editor has some influence, but the process is reasonably transparent, and doubtful cases cause quite an uproar, as e.g. the Sternberg peer review controversy and the Climate Research controversy.

Sourcing the award to this paper is a different question than accepting E&E as a reliable source in general. I'd put this author blurb at about the level of a self-published CV as far as reliability is concerned. This means it's ok for uncontroversial claims only.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Theodor is a member of the society, long term member prior to his death, and they have published his work, would you consider an award by them to fall under controversial, or uncontroversial? --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone has won an award, one would expect a better source than an author blurb in a journal. The normal source would be the award-making body. The question of how reliable the journal is may not actually be relevant here. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Verification

I'm wondering if this would count as a reliable source.

http://www.thelostworlds.net/index.html

The site contains a great deal of originally published content, but also contains an archive of deleted materials from a video game series, which is what is being sourced. In some cases they also provide the cut content itself, such as screenshots and audio clips, etc. I've looked around and this site seems to be the only one devoted to archiving such materials and thus is the only reliable so source for this material. So, can I use it as a source? The Clawed One (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)