Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org

Initial Discussion

Jguk, please be reasonable - religious tolerance cites it's sources, everything's not made up. Don't make arbitrary edits like that. YOu don't have anything personal against them, do you? Izehar (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Religious tolerance is a biased, one sided source and cannot be used as a reference. Check e.g the information they have about Rajneesh, omitting the poisoning of food with Salmonella. But external links to the site are okay. Andries 13:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • From [1]: "A number of sources have reported that spiritual devotees of Rajneesh had spread salmonella on a local restaurant's salad bar in order to reduce voter turnout on a measure that would have restricted the group's activities. Allegedly, 751 people were affected by the bacteria". Is your objection that he used the term "alleged"? (So would a newspaper.) Firebug 13:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
      • • Oh, I overlooked that. The salmonella attacks are a proven fact by now and this shows the double standards that the website uses when assessing positive and critical information. reference for the salmonella attack Carter, Lewis, F. Lewis, Carriers of Tales: On Assessing Credibility of Apostate and Other Outsider Accounts of Religious Practices published in the book The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements edited by David G. Bromley Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, 1998. ISBN 0-275-95508-7 Andries 13:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
        • And why doesn't the article mention the now undisputed fact that the ashram management in Oregon solicited homeless people to the ashram in order to give the ashram a majority in voting? Why does the website always gives such a one-sided view of the matter? Andries 13:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, the article seems to concentrate primarily on the Rajneesh cult's theology and origins. You're not arguing that the information there is inaccurate, just that it doesn't contain specific (negative) facts you think it should. Firebug 13:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
            • • An article that does not mention Rajneesh' 73 or 93 Rolls Royces as a source of public disapproval is probably wilfully vague, but instead writes about "religious and cultural differences" and does not deserve to be referenced. Andries 13:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Why should a site not be referenced because it writes about religious and cultural differences? You aren't making any sense here. There's an awful lot of POV axe-grinding going on. Firebug 15:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
            • No, it goes farther than that, Firebug. Check out this page, which is supposed to concentrate primarily on the controversies Scientology has been embroiled in: [2] Note that they note "There has been friction between the Church and a number of European governments", and they list four different controversies, in France, Germany, Greece and Italy. Let's overlook for now that the Germany entry is written with a clear slant implying that the German government is prejudiced and persecutory in matters of religion. Let's overlook that the Italy entry is exactly two sentences, one of which is a quote from a Scientology spokesman invoking Germany's supposed persecutions towards new religious movements. Know what's missing from that list? The fact that eleven Scientology officials including Mary Sue Hubbard, at that time the second-in-command of the entire organization, were convicted of the largest incident of domestic espionage ever in the United States. Now you can argue that that's the literal truth, because it stated that these were controversies with European governments, except it's clearly not the whole truth, because who decided that only non-European controversies should be discussed and that much larger North American controversies would not even be mentioned? Hell, if I was allowed to take any four controversies that a large institution had been involved in, and present them as if they were representative when I was really avoiding mention of some far more serious controversies (Operation Snow White is not even mentioned anywhere on the site) then I could make even the Khmer Rouge look like just a clean-cut bunch of honest, hard-working folks whose public-image problem is probably all caused by folks unfairly prejudiced against them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
              • The site is about RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE, not what bad things Scientology did. There are plenty of other sites you can reference for those issues. On issues related to comparisons between religions, the religious doctrines of various denominations, etc., this site is an excellent source. Firebug 15:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Why not cite the primary or secondary sources that religioustolerance uses, rather than using it as a tertiary source? Nandesuka 13:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the other sources are dead-tree books, and OCRT is a handy source because they're a free website available at a mouse click rather than having to order from Amazon. Firebug 13:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The last time I checked, Wikipedia:Verifiability didn't have a section saying that it was OK to skimp on references because books aren't cyber enough. Nandesuka 13:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That may be, all I know is that they have a section called references and they are citing sources. Jguk mush make a consensus to remove them as a reference - he can't do it on his own. Edit-warring will not get him anywhere. Izehar (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's more a case that if you believe something is reliable as a reference, you need to defend it. The onus is always on someone who wishes to include something in Wikipedia to justify why it should remain - not the other way round. At least some of us are discussing things now.

Izehar - the point remains that Religioustolerance.org is effectively one man's blog, and that of a man with no academic training and stature in the subject. Yes, it cites its sources - but then so does an undergraduate essay. It also mis-cites its sources and draws conclusions that are unsupported by them. I have no problem with that - virtually all the essays are Bruce Robinson's opinion pieces, and he is entitled to hold whatever opinion he wants. But all this does mean that they are inappropriate as an academic resource.

Nandesuka makes a useful point - just because religioustolerance.org is unsuitable, because it cites its sources it could be used to help find appropriate academic sources. I have no difficulty at all in that - but in that case Wikipedia should cite the original academic source, not religioustolerance.org.

However, any "stand back and have a look at what Religioustolerance.org really is" analysis will conclude that it is of limited, if any, academic value. I'm also concerned that the English Wikipedia is the sixth highest site linking into religioustolerance.org [3]. Ideally we should have no links to it, jguk 13:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• You say that we are the #6 source of links to OCRT. According to that same reference page, #1 is BBC News. #8 is MSN Encarta. #9 is CNN. Looks like it is generally considered a reputable source. Firebug 13:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why in the world does it make sense to cite an editorial that in turn cites a primary or secondary source, rather than citing the primary or secondary source directly? The characterization of these articles as weblog articles is, it seems to me, perfectly apposite. The female genital cutting articles is a great example. Are you seriously suggesting that we can't remove links that are redundant if they have a citation or two in them? Nandesuka 13:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It makes sense for the same reason that people might cite Wikipedia, rather than just citing its references, I presume. If a site has well written information drawn from a variety of sources, then that is something which would be lost merely by linking to the other sources. Mdwh 05:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I am surprised by the controversy. I have been using OCRT for years (longer than I have been using Wikipedia) and they adhere to the same NPOV philosophy as we do. The fact that it is largely the work of one man, to me, only serves to underscore the brilliance of the accomplishment. Carolynparrishfan 14:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Convenience" of a website versus "dead-tree books"

From WP:V:

Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, 
or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website. Remember that it is 
easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", 
"human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in 
the last few years. They are not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for 
more information.

• This isn't "just anyone", they've been around for 10 years. Furthermore, it isn't a "personal" website, it is a website on a specific subject that is relevant to these articles. The point of that paragraph is not that everything on the web is inaccurate and can't be cited, but rather that we shouldn't be randomly citing blogs, random opinion sites, and so forth. Firebug 13:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Who are they, then? Can you describe their expertise in any way whatsoever without relying on "Well, they get a lot of traffic from google searches?" If they are experts, what are their credentials? Can you demonstrate that credible academic sources rely on them or cite them? If not — and so far I haven't seen any argument that doesn't amount to "They get a lot of traffic, and that's why Wikipedia should be a link farm for them and generate more traffic for them" — then they are, in fact, a random opinion site.

To put it into perspective, Wikipedia articles are not allowed to rely on Wikipedia articles as an authority. Unless you can demonstrate that religioustolerance.org has some independent standing as an authority on these issues, then relying on them as such is even worse than relying on another Wikipedia article. Nandesuka 13:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What, precisely, are you looking for? What kind of credentials do you think that someone needs to have in order to write articles about issues related to religion and religious tolerance? To me, the fact that the author (a) does it for a living, (b) has done this for a decade, (c) does cite his sources and act in an academically responsible and generally NPOV manner, and (d) is very popular - all of this cumulatively is more than enough to be a verifiable source. As I pointed out on the deletion page for this non-policy, by your criteria we couldn't cite microsoft.com since Bill Gates doesn't have a college degree in computer science. Firebug 13:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Firebug, what makes you think he does it for a living? The site makes it clear he is retired. It also states its aim to be a non-profit organisation and publishes its 2003 budget, which doesn't specify any wage going to Robinson. Indeed, it states:

In early 2004, we hired our first staff member -- a part-time office manager. This has freed up the rest of us to do creative work on the web site: updating existing essays and adding new essays. Our short-term goal is to be able to continue this staff member as a permanent position. Our very long range goal is to pay a salary to our main author and coordinator so that the OCRT can hire a replacement religious generalist at a reasonable wage when our present author is no longer able to serve, either through burnout, disability, or death. He is currently 67 years of age. Only then will group be likely to continue into the future.

Please read their budget, jguk 13:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I am looking for "credentials". Bill Gates has credentials ("Founded a computer software company that does XXX billion dollars of revenue per year."); a college degree is not the only credential possible. What credentials do the authors of religioustolerance.org have, other than "Their website is popular." Nandesuka 13:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

But how do you distinguish credentials from popularity, in this view? After all, the only reason Bill Gates is a billionaire is because his software is popular. Obviously an organization on religious tolerance isn't going to get rich. Firebug 13:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

With regards to point c) the author does not cite his sources in a NPOV way. Everything that contradicts his view is omitted, made a charicature of, marginalized, lumped togetether, and even ridiculed as the Rajneesh article proves with its reference of a single critic of Rajneesh' name to a vagina. That makes a very biased impression to me. It stated aim is not to write in a NPOV manner but to promote religious tolerance. Andries 13:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I had a similar issue with user:Zappaz who inserted long quotes from religious tolerance into to the article cult. Eventually the references to religious tolerance was dropped in favor or direct references. Andries

Look, maybe you should file a RfC to get opinions on whether a website which cites specific sources is a reliable source. Consensus is required before making any changes though. Izehar (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

We're discussing the point here, Izehar. If you wish to list this page on RfC, please do so. Also, please feel free to actually contribute to this discussion here, jguk 13:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

We don't need opinions when we have official policies, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources to tell us what sources are reliable.

Another quote is relevant here:

 Beware false authority
 Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities? Likewise, you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in 
 plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics. Just as actors in TV commercials don white lab coats to make 
 viewers think they are serious scientists, people with degrees in one field are not necessarily experts in any other. 
 Watch out for false claims of authority.
 Try to use sources who have degrees in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with 
 academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field for the undergraduate level or higher:
 these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject.

So, what exactly are religioustolerance.org's credentials again? Nandesuka 13:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that we can't cite Bill Gates as an authority on computer science because he doesn't have that ALL-IMPORTANT college degree. Gotcha. Firebug 13:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Wikipedia policies require us to cite credible, verifiable, and reliable sources. What are the credentials that make religioustolerance.org credible, verifiable, and reliable? Nandesuka 13:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's already been listed on MFD. And forcing people to come to YOUR page to discuss issues on YOUR terms is flagrantly inappropriate. Firebug 13:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read their credentials. You say it's not a personal website, but that link includes the following paragraph:

Almost all of the over 2,780 essays and menus on this web site were written by our main author, Bruce A. Robinson. He is a graduate of the University of Toronto, class of 1959, with a BaSc (Bachelor of Applied Science) degree in Engineering Physics. He worked for a large multi-national chemical company for 38 years before taking a "golden handshake" and early retirement during a company downsizing. During his employment, he functioned as a specialist in the development of electronic instrumentation, as a computer programmer working in process computing, and as a group leader. Technical writing formed a major part of his work assignment.

You might also be interested in the history of the group. The website not at all secretive about what it is and who their writer(s) are. Indeed, it is quite open about their lack of academic stature. It is an honest site, but not suitable to be quoted as a reference or a link, jguk 13:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

How can a single author produce 2,780 high quality essays with sources? That seems very unlikely. Andries 13:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding credentials: [4] and [5] describe some of the commendations (and criticisms) the site has received. Highlights: a four-star rating from Encyclopedia Britannica ("Canadian nondenominational society whose stated mission is to 'promote the understanding and tolerance of minority religions; expose religious hatred and misinformation; and supply information on controversial religious topics to help you reach your own decisions.' Includes well-informed profiles of a variety of religious traditions, as well as in-depth considerations of particularly controversial religious topics."). From the American Library Association: " The information is very well-done and balanced. The scope of the information is very thorough. In addition, the individual entries are well-done whether the religion is controversial or not. For example, the information on Satanism is very balanced and informative. The entry cuts through the scare tactics, misinformation and hype and presents a balanced picture on Satanism. The other entries are equally as well balanced and thorough. In most cases, the online articles have references and further web-sites to explore." (This review was from 1996, when the site was less developed than it currently is.) Commendations have come from various academic organizations: Schoolzone, which evaluates Internet sites for the British public schools, gave it a "highly recommended rating." Also, "TagTeacherNet has recommended our site to its 24,400 members, most of whom are teachers." There are numerous others. Firebug 14:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Website "awards" are two a penny, and the factors used in coming up with these comments are different from the considerations needed to decide whether something is a useful, citable academic reference, jguk 14:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There are other websites that have received praises including the website to which I am connected, but that does not mean that it can be used as a references for facts within an article. External links is a different matter and I generally oppose Jguk's removal of them. Andries 14:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with just listing it in "external links" is that it does not warn the reader what they are about to see. It says we recommend reading it, but does not highlight that it is a pop site rather than an academic site. If it were only added in external links with a brief explanation that it is a non-academic site essentially only has text from one non-academic individual, I would not mind so much (though my preference would be not to have the site anywhere on WP at all), jguk 14:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Let us choose that as a compromise. Then at least a lot of the edit warring will stop. Andries 14:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I want to state that academics frequently blunder on the subject of cults and new religious movement, not only people without formal education, not only religious tolerance. The most notorious example was when James R. Lewis who declared Aum Shinrikyo innocent at a press conference. He was there together with J. Gordon Melton, according to the Washington Post. [6]. I think it is because people (including academics) tend to make overly broad generalizations on this very diverse subject. I have more blunders by academics on request. Andries 14:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've now stated clearly on the project page what the proposed new guidelines are. I have divided the "references" and "external links" issues into two, and given two alternatives on the "external links" point.

Also, I should note that, on reflection, it would have been better to have made comments on all the talk pages of the affected articles from the start rather than just to make the edits in the first place. I have always preferred to be bold, but I should have realised that any reliability of sources issue is likely to be controversial, jguk 15:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Reliability

I can understand jguk's reluctance to have religioustolerance.org be cited directly as a source, though I disagree with his method of deleting all references to it without first discussing it. I have a different reason for objecting to the use of religioustolerance.org as a source: it has advertising. No source of information that relies on advertising for funding can ever be reliable. --Angr (t·c) 14:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't pretty much all newspapers rely on advertising for funding? TacoDeposit 14:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they do. And they all have to be careful what they print for fear of alienating their advertisers. --Angr (t·c) 14:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sensible

I particularly like the part of the proposal that reads:

"if it is to be in Wikipedia, that information should be sourced from elsewhere"

This does not sound at all unreasonable to me. Since the main contention here seems to be that this engineer and his few friends in Toronto are concocting stuff off the top of their heads, it only makes good sense to ask that you find at least one more reliable source that concurs with them... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Closely related issue in Wikipedia

Most of the entries at the website of the University of Virginia were written by students and so sometimes the quality is very poor including factual mistakes. [7] [8] Sometimes the quality is good. Can we address this in a similar was as the religious tolerance website? Andries 15:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope so. Personally a Wikipedia:Verifiability/University of Virginia discussion page seems sensible to me - as well as similar pages to discuss other possibly inappropriate sources that are cited in multiple articles. Unfortunately the way I've got us here to this serious discussion of the reliability of this website has meant some users are trying to kill this idea at birth. Referencing is fundamentally important if Wikipedia is to be taken more seriously - we should encourage good referencing using reliable sources throughout the encyclopaedia, jguk 20:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No blanket forbidding of sources, please.

I do not think we should have subpages of wp:v that blanket forbid certain references. I believe it is acceptable - possibly even a good idea - to have a central place where comments and opinions about the reliability and usefulness of a certain source can be stated and discussed.

However, the suitability of a particular reference should be a matter for each article that cites it. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree - the appropriateness of any cites or external links should be examined on an article by article basis. Lyrl 01:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree; it's a bad precedent to "blackball" one particular site, even if it's true that it's probably not a good source in most cases. Let the reasonability of a source or link be judged in context each time it's used. *Dan T.* 12:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This is bogus

This whole proposal is bogus, for a thousand reasons that have been mentioned above. Just thought I too would chime in with my opinion.Tommstein 22:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Troubling

Does anyone else find it troubling that people are attempting to dismiss this (and other) sites based on the author rather than the content? This parallels the critics of Wikipedia who dismiss it because it is not written by "experts". There are some blogs that are far superior to books, and some books far superior to some blogs. Just because something is published in book form or printed in a newspaper doesn't automatically make it superior and more authoritative.

There also needs to be distinction between facts and opinions. "Facts" need to be "scholarly" or from a reputable source. Anyone can have "opinions". Whether these "opinions" are included in articles should be a matter of editorial judgment based on how notable these "opinions" are. Should Wikipedia include opinions from religioustolerance.org? I would think in certain cases it would be appropriate, since this is a highly ranked website. In any case, all opinions should be clearly marked as such, and opposing opinions presented as necessary. Sortan 22:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Wholly agreed. Whether a source is acceptable or not depends on what that source is being used for and how controversial the fact or opinion being cited is.

What I really disapprove of, with regards to jguk's attempted mass deletion of reference to a site he doesn't like, is that references are tied to the facts or opinions they reference. It is wholly unacceptable to delete a reference without either finding another source for the referenced information or deleting that information from the article (placing it on the talk page, of course). An article's references provide the audit trail of where things came from and should not be removed while there are still parts of the article that require them for veriability.

That jguk would do such a thing so carelessly indicates to me that he is not as concerned with the encyclopedia's quality as he would like us to believe. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Sortan and Matthew Brown. Another attempt by jguk to insert his POV and silence the opposing side. For those who don't know recent history of the affair, the previous phrase can be lavishly sprinkled with links and adjectives. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

move article

This page should be moved from the wikipolicy namespace to a Talk:wikipolicy namespace --JimWae 04:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

I've asked Jimbo about his opinion on this whole mess. Firebug 04:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Other BAD sources

Wikipedia needs policies such as this one. We can't let crazies such as communists or secularists control and corrupt the things in wikipedia. Not only with obscure INTOLERANT blog sites such as Religoustolerance, but there needs to be something to stop the Liberal MSM from infiltrating as well.--Koool 04:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to stop the crazy conservatives and religionists too? *Dan T.* 04:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"Conservative" and "Crazy" are oxymorons. It is interesting that your discussion page proudly states you are not Christian, you know what? Sorry, I don't talk to Internet trolls.--Koool 05:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, user Koool, you just talked to him. So either you broke your own word or he is not a troll. Do you talk to yourself? Hu 05:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand the concept of oxymoron. Read the page you yourself referenced and you will see that neither "conservative" nor "crazy" are oxymorons. Clear and logical thinking the only kind of thinking respected on Wikipedia. You will be more convincing if you study logic. Hu 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, lol I don't understand how this guy can think.--sansvoix 05:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Does he/she perhaps mean that "Crazy conservative" is an oxymoron? That's not true; one can be crazy or not independently of whether one is conservative or liberal, religious or secular. And where do I ever say that I'm proud to be non-Christian? You seem to be referring to my talk page comment that I've worked at getting infoboxes into all the pope articles, despite not being Catholic or any other sort of Christian, which is a somewhat ironic fact; I never say anything about being proud of it. And I don't think, if you look at all my edits, that you'll find any that show any sort of disrespect of Christianity (my pope edits consisted entirely of getting the basic facts of their biographies organized into infoboxes); I adhere to NPOV, regardless of my own religious beliefs or lack of same. *Dan T.* 12:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

References versus External Links

Whilst I probably wouldn't be in favour of citing religioustolerance.org as a reference (although even then, I don't see why we need a specific ban for this website, rather than a more general policy), part of the problem is that Jguk has been going around deleting any link to religioustolerance.org, even in External Links sections (eg, at Atheism). Surely it is reasonable to link to the site in an External Links section! Links aren't just about citing references, but also providing links to places the reader may find useful for further reading, or pointing to sites which provide interesting opinions or arguments (or at least, if that's not the point of External Links, then a vast number of External Links on Wikipedia should be removed). Things like the usage of the word "Atheist" are not factual things which you look up in scientific journals, but things where there are more likely to be various opinions; linking to a site which explains the terminology well seems an appropriate thing to do. Mdwh 05:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this just seems to be a continuation of an old dispute that jguk has been unable to win. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Sunray. Having failed to remove the religioustolerance link from Common Era, he's now seeking to push through a policy prohibiting the mention of the site. Sortan 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Remember good info can be referenced from a variety of sources

Remember that information that is correct it can be referenced from a variety of sources. It's important though that the sources cited are reliable and reputable. Here we have a website that is not suitable to cite as a reputable source - but that does not mean the information in it is false, and it does not mean that that information cannot go in Wikipedia - it just means a different source is used for that information instead.

Others have noted above (1) their concerns that Robinson does not use his sources properly; and (2) that Robinson's articles do cite sources. Assuming Robinson hasn't erred, it should therefore be possible to back up claims for WP by going back to Robinson's sources, reading them, and citing them as the references for the WP article instead of religioustolerance.org. If it's impossible to find a suitable alternative reference, then we really shouldn't be having that info in WP just on Robinson's say-so.

This page is a centralised discussion on whether one particular website is suitable for references. Hopefully more will emerge (as we really need to eliminate poor "sources"). It is most definitely not about censoring good information - good information can always be sourced by reliable, reputable references, jguk 09:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

But the same thing could be applied to any other source. After all, an academic paper cites its sources, so why not go back and cite those sources directly instead? And what about the sources for those, in turn? Round and round we go. Sorry, but I'm not buying. Your argument boils down to "he doesn't have a theology degree". So what? His credibility is established by the quality of his work (backed up with citations) and the fact that he is a recognized authority in the field, being cited by newspapers, commended by the Encyclopedia Britannica, and that he has run perhaps the best known website on religious tolerance for 10 years. You are engaging in fallacious and circular reasoning, ad hominem attacks, and sloppy thinking. Stop it. Firebug 13:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Because academic papers are specifically examples of verifiable and reliable sources, and blogs are not. This example is specifically covered in WP:V: "Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website. Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. They are not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia. ". Note that nowhere there do I see a requirement for "theology degree." If your point is that you don't like the official policy, then you should be working to change that policy, not complaining when people observe that some guy with a blog in Ontario (in their opinion) fails the test. Nandesuka 13:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You are assuming your conclusion - namely, that religioustolerance.org is a "blog". It is not. A blog is designed to express the editor's personal or political opinions, and generally does not cite sources (other than perhaps an article that is then commented on). Religioustolerance.org doesn't fall into this category; it is a research site on religious issues. Again, no one seems to be able to come up with a better argument than the lack of a specific academic credential. That is irrelevant considering the weight of the other evidence. Yes, it is "easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field", but this isn't the case here; the website has been around for 10 YEARS and has been praised by various academic organizations. 95% of the external links on Wikipedia would fail the standards you propose. Your position is absurd and based on a comic misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. Firebug 13:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

My "conclusion" is not that religioustolerance.org is a blog, although I describe it thus for dramatic effect. My position is that no one has yet advanced any argument to demonstrate that it meets the standards of verifiabiility and reliability. If "A website been around for 10 years and lots of people link to it" is all it takes to be a trusted Wikipedia source, then we might as well pack it in and go home, because it means the mainstream criticism of us as not being a serious encyclopedia is spot on.

Fortunately, I believe you are claiming that our standards are more lax than they actually are. Nandesuka 14:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I agree with you that many of the other sources used on Wikipedia would fail this test. That is a problem, and should be fixed. The reason we're specifically talking about religioustolerance.org is that it is used as a reference in a comparatively large number of articles, presumably because of a coordinated campaign to benefit from links to Wikipedia (certainly, if any other advertising-supported site suddenly appeared in hundreds of articles, that would be the presumption.) Nandesuka 15:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've stated about five times that religioustolerance.org is not merely popular, but has been praised as an accurate and reliable source by various academic organizations and by Encyclopedia Britannica. And your conspiracy theory (that this is a plot to drum up ad revenue) is absurd. These links were inserted by numerous different editors for various different reasons, almost all of them perfectly valid and encyclopedic. Furthermore, why should we take you seriously when you admit above to making statements you know aren't true, such as alleging that religioustolerance.org is a blog? No one has made a convincing argument yet that this source is not reliable. All I have seen is ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, and deliberate ignorance of specific facts presented. Firebug 15:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)