Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

"WP:RSN" redirects here. For "Wikipedia will be ready real soon now", see meta:Eventualism.

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs. Please post new topics in a new section.

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

This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board.

If your question is about undue weight, or other neutral point of view issues please use the NPOV noticeboard.

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

Click here to start a new discussion thread

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Can [1] be used to source this statement: However, Stanford has stated "Neither the Stanford Graduate School of Business nor the office of Stanford Executive Education has ties of any kind with IIPM." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Has that document been uploaded to MBA Channel by the site's publishers/editors (in which case it is a reliable source), or by some user (in which case it is not) ? Do you know of a page on the website that links to the document ? Abecedare (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for prodding me to investigate further. It's linked from here [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Since that article is written by Bärbel Schwertfeger, an employee of the publication, and is not some user-submitted content, I think it is reliable for the claim. Abecedare (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is written by Bärbel Schwertfeger who is the part owner of the site. Her web site in question is a commercial career portal[3] whose main aim is to be an MBA Directory (see the web page description on the main page at the top)[4]. Even if it is a self-published career portal (as Barbel is the part owner), "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.". But Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Flaws#OS:_Self-publication would advise us to wait in this case as the attribution of Stanford backing out is an exceptional claim, and if it is reported, then it should have been printed by other sources. Having said that, I'll also on the other hand suggest that a secondary source that might have reported the same could be used.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You say the Stanford claim is exceptional, I say it isn't. Plus, the website hosts a Stanford's document refuting IIPM's claim which can now be used since it's referred to by a third party reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim here is not that Stanford backed out, BTW. The claim is that they never had a partnership in the first place, contradicting what IIPM said in their ads. As I recall, the only place where a partnership with IIPM and Stanford has been reported is in IIPM's advertisements and websites. Isn't that a primary source of the school talking about a third party?(retracted, see below) Schwertfeger is a respected journalist with many publications about MBAs and business training; she is an expert in the field where IIPM provides education. Her reporting is what led me to Stanford's statement. I see no reason to believe that she fabricated the Stanford document.

Just so everyone here is clear on my involvement--I'm the editor who originally used MBA Channel as a source, and who replaced it with Stanford's direct statement after Wifione challenged MBA Channel and removed it. I want to be transparent so you can all take my potential bias into account. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NeilN, you say the career portal MBA-Channel source is a third party reliable source. I have shown how it is a self published source as Barbara is the co-owner. Under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Flaws#OS:_Self-publication, we should consider the fact that "editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. In general it is preferable to wait until other sources have had time to review or comment on self-published sources. " Given that, as mentioned I would suggest a search for secondary sources that quote Stanford's association with IIPM, like this[5]. Or on Stanford's site, like these.[6][7]. Given that you consider Barbara as a respected journalist, WP:SPS would suggest we maximum include the link as an op-ed column in the IIPM article than as a straightforward reliable source. I'm alright with that. What do you say to that? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right that the Tribune India report, which is cited in the article already, is a secondary source; I had forgotten about that and retract my earlier statement about it only appearing in primary sources. However, the CV and faculty bio of professors at Stanford do not support the already-cited Tribune India report that Stanford is partnering with IIPM as an institution. They support that individual professors who teach at Stanford have taught seminars, but that doesn't constitute an institutional partnership.

I'll let others weigh in on whether respected journalists constitute self-published sources. Wifione and I have already gone round and round on this topic regarding another source, and I'm interested in what others think. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're quoting an essay not a guideline. The guideline states: "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 material in this case is directly supported by a primary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NeilN, an essay is a guiding thought which has some weight and defines guidelines in examples. I'm ok with the self published article's Stanford point being included if even one external secondary source has confirmed the same. In case you are saying that we can use a self published article's statements without even one external reliable secondary source confirming the same, then it'll be a critical move away from suggested styles of editing Wikipedia articles.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. I'm saying the source fulfills the guideline. Again (since you haven't seemed to address it): "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" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

NeilN, I agree with your interpretation of the guideline (which, of course, has much more weight than an essay). But I think perhaps User:Makrandjoshi has provided us with a secondary source stating the same thing in Der Spiegel. It is by Schwertferger, but I think anyone would have a hard time arguing that Der Spiegel isn't a reliable source. That article states: "Bereits 2007 distanzierte sich die Stanford Graduate School of Business deutlich von falschen IIPM-Angaben." In English (my translation), this says "Already in 2007, the Stanford Graduate School of Business distanced itself from clearly false IIPM statements." Wifione, does this meet your request for "one external reliable secondary source confirming the same"? Can we agree that this source is reliable now? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A google search on Schwertfeger's name is enough to establish her credentials as an expert. She regularly writes articles in major newspapers on business education. And as WeisheitSuchen pointed out,. I have given a link for the same fact from Der Spiegel, which is undeniably WP:RS. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Der Spiegel article is an opinion piece by Barbara who doesn't work at that magazine. Can we therefore reach a consensus then that both her self published MBA-Channel news and the Der Spiegel source are RS opinion pieces? In other words, if they're used, we'll have to use them as opinion pieces clearly mentioning her name. Acceptable? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither of these are opinion pieces; it would not be appropriate to label them as such. In major news magazines like Der Spiegel, opinion pieces and editorials are clearly labeled. This is a regular article, not an editorial. Her name isn't necessary in either case. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not an opinion piece. If it were, it'd be labelled as such on the Spiegel website. And if you read it, it is more of an investigative column, where she has contacted different schools and gotten their reactions on tie-ups with IIPM. It is very clearly not an opinion piece. Makrandjoshi (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• As we've accepted the MBA-Channel article is a self published "RS" source, it automatically becomes equivalent to an opinion piece as the common sense assumption would be that it would not have undergone an "independent fact check", irrespective of how investigative the article might seem. A quick look at the RS discussion that Makrandjoshi raised on Maheshwer Peri's column in his own publication would clarify this thought. Therefore, the MBA-Channel article should surely be considered an opinion piece.

• The Der Spiegel article by her would also become an opinion piece as she's an 'autoren' (author) in Spiegel and not an editorial reporter. [8]. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• WS, You could also compare the current opinion writers in Speigel and check whether their names come in the Autoren section. That could support/reject this context. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Peri article is an opinion piece because it is specifically labeled as "opinion." Look at the heading right above the article title for that source. That's what we don't have in either case with Schwertferger's sources. We should not conflate opinion pieces and editorials with self-published sources, contradicting Wikipedia policy. In addition, the fact that she is a freelance journalist does not imply that her article did not go through editorial review with Der Spiegel. There's nothing in Wikipedia policy that demands treating freelancers in reliable sources any differently than staff writers. Do you have any arguments from Wikipedia policy or guidelines that say these sources should be considered opinion pieces? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WS, maybe this link helps WP:ASL. One line could be helpful from this, "By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean a matter which is subject to dispute". Also, can you please show the place where Speigel puts its opinion articles? As it's a German site, I'm not able to traverse properly. If I get the link, I can check the authors who are mentioned there and compare the points. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wifione. It is not an opinion piece. It is a news article. Go to the google-translated version of the page here Look at the top left under the banner and tabs how the article is classified: News -> UniSpiegel -> Study -> India. Spiegel classifies it as "News". Hope this is enough to put your mind to rest. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, if we labeled this as an opinion piece when the source labels it as news, wouldn't we be engaging in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? When Der Spiegel publishes an opinion piece, they label it clearly at the top to differentiate it from their normal news reporting, as they do here. In German, the word is "Meinung." I don't see a section just for Meinung at Der Speigel the way I do at Zeit Online, which may mean that Der Speigel just doesn't regularly publish opinion pieces, only news and investigative reporting like this example. I am strongly opposed to labeling a source an opinion piece in direct contradiction to the source itself. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WS, thanks for the links. Do pl note.

• That MBA Channel is self published has been already accepted. Therefore it directly becomes an Opinion piece. A self-published piece (if RS) will have to be considered for the author's statements as opinion rather than as fact.

• I repeat a line that's there in WP:ASF, which says "By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean a matter which is subject to dispute". If you visit the section link I've given, you'll see why the dispute heavy statements of Schwertferger's in Spiegel should be considered an opinion to avoid a non-npov bias. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You say that self-published sources must automatically be considered opinion pieces. Please do not confuse the meaning of "opinion" as a general word, like you quoted from ASF, with an Op-ed or editorial, which are specific genres within journalism. The Peri article is an editorial; these are not. If we label them as op-eds, that would be in direct contradiction with what the sources themselves say.

If you have a source that disputes what is said in Der Spiegel, you are welcome to add it to the article for NPOV balance. I understand that you dispute it as an individual editor; do you have a reliable source that disputes it? We can't include content in articles based on the opinions of a single individual, only what's in sources. Wouldn't you agree? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your view on Der Spiegel is logical. Wrt MBA Channel self-published sources, would you be ok with us raising an RS query on whether a self-published source, after being considered reliable, should be considered as an opinion piece or as a news source? I'm perfectly alright with you wording the query as a separate RS question (if it's ok with you). Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad we have reached a consensus that Der Spiegel is a reliable source.

I think part of the problem is your use of the phrase "opinion piece," which seems to be an informal synonym for editorial or op-ed. That's how the phrase is currently used in the article when referring to the Peri article. It is factually untrue here. It's not an opinion that the MBA Channel article isn't an editorial; it's a fact. Whether the information contained is opinion or fact is a separate question, but we need to avoid being careless in our wording when asking these questions. We can ask whether the content of this article should be treated as opinions. Basically, we can go back to NeilN's original question, slightly reworded: Is MBA Channel (with the primary source from Stanford) a reliable source for supporting this statement: "Neither the Stanford Graduate School of Business nor the office of Stanford Executive Education has ties of any kind with IIPM." In other words, should we treat the statement that Stanford isn't IIPM's partner as a fact or as an opinion attributed to Bärbel Schwertfeger?

Since this discussion was originally about the MBA Channel source and the supporting Stanford document, let's just keep it here. After all, you've already made the arguments here. No sense in duplicating that work elsewhere. What does everyone else think? Should reliable self-published sources be automatically assumed to be opinions in all cases, including for supporting the statement about Stanford above? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The argument whether or not the MBA piece is an editorial, while interesting, is moot. Schwertfeger's credentials establish her as a reliable source. Her piece refers to the Stanford document meaning we can now refer to it. Additionally, we are making no interpretive claims using the primary source. Please read WP:PRIMARY carefully. It does not say primary sources can never be used on their own. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

NeilN, Barbel is not a primary source. (She's not involved in any IIPM incident, so to say). Secondly, it's been accepted that Barbel's piece in MBA Channel is self-published. The Stanford document you refer to is not on Stanford's website, but in her web-site referred through her article. I'll actually look forward to your/others comments (to WS's correctly worded ques) as I'm not sure myself about how we should take it. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Stanford document is a primary source, even though it's published on MBA Channel as part of her supporting documentation. Abecedare noted back on 29 December that since that document was uploaded by Schwertferger that it is an acceptable source.

Wifione, it seems like you are pushing here that even though everyone has agreed that MBA Channel is a reliable source that you want to put conditions on that. The rule isn't that self-published sources are "reliable with conditions"; the rule is that some self-published sources are just reliable sources. Most self-published sources aren't, but this one is. Even you yourself have used the word "reliable" to describe it.

The Peri article was an "opinion piece" not because it was published in a magazine he owns, but because it was written and clearly labeled as an editorial. Had that same editorial been published in the NY Times, it would still be appropriate for us to call it an "opinion piece" in the article. "Editorial" and "self-published" are two independent criteria; they aren't actually linked in any intrinsic way. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the Stanford document as the primary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WS, with due respect to your statements, I'm not sure what you mean when you're saying the Stanford source, loaded on MBA Channel by Schwertferger, is a primary source. I'm also not sure which guideline you're referring to when you mention that reliable WP:SPS should be considered simply reliable sources. I ask you again, would you be open to listing this question as a separate query on this RS noticeboard? I suggest this move as out here, other commentators (including Abecedare, who commented before he perhaps knew all facts - which is clear by his not knowing Schwertferger owned the very website where she'd written the article) might get confused seeing so many statements? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Stanford document is a primary source because it was written by someone in a position of authority at Stanford. The fact that it's published on the MBA Channel site isn't the determining factor. Whether it's a primary or secondary source depends on 1) who wrote it and 2) whether it contains analysis, evaluation, etc.

Let me quote WP:SPS for you, as NeilN has done before: "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." Note that it doesn't say "self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable, but only if you treat it as an opinion piece." It says SPS in a case like this is an "acceptable" source--just like any other reliable source.

If you were to start a new discussion, would you have any new arguments that you haven't presented here? If not, then there's no need to extend this discussion further. If you're worried about people being confused by reading through a long discussion, then you can add a brief summary of your arguments here. Whittle your arguments down to two or three bullet points so people can understand your position even without all the previous context and "window dressing." WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"?

Yes, there are medical organizations that say it's a great site (most of which are companies/organizations that rely on drugs or drug sales), but the only thing that Quackwatch does is bash alternative medicines. It has no positive information about alternative medicines and is completely biased against them. I'm thoroughly confused as to how this can possibly be considered a reliable and unbiased source whereas almost every other biased website that I've seen cited here has been shot down as "not RS". Can anyone explain this to me? Burleigh2 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See Quackwatch and the numerous refs cited there. LeadSongDog come howl 22:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see all the citations as I mentioned in my original question and that's already been covered. Most of those may be praising certain aspects of the website (eg. uncovering fraudulent companies), but the site in general bashes virtually all alternative medicines regardless of effectiveness, verifiability, or usage of the various categories. I have read articles on their site before that were practically ranting about certain supplements that they claimed didn't work and were ripping off people who used them, but they didn't mention a thing about the dozens (or in some cases, hundreds) of studies that have been done and published by various organizations (many of which have been published in PubMed, the Lancet, JAMA, and other reputable organizations). That spells the very definition of "biased" to me... am I missing something? Burleigh2 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you give a concrete example with Lancet/JAMA disagreeing with QW? 0¹⁸ (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription to either of those so I can't read the full articles, but I have come across some citations over the past few years that were pointed out as conflicting with QW in the articles that were written by Barrett... that was one of the first times I started looking at what QW was writing. I unfortunately didn't keep those citations or I would list them. Burleigh2 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that is a pretty serious accusation to make without any evidence. I am sure I can get access to both, so if you have examples, I can look through them. Until you do find an example, you might want to attenuate your rhetoric. 0¹⁸ (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is right on their respective websites. I'm sorry I don't have instant recall to all the articles and research I've ever read, but I can look through some sources that I have seen some examples of in recently and see what I can find. It's been rather busy at work so it may be a while, but anyone in a solid position in an alternative medicine field (eg. supplements, chiropractic, Naturopath, etc) would be able to verify from their experience and research about QW's bias against their professions in general. I work in the supplement field and some of the articles he's written made me laugh because of how overly biased he was with twisting the facts to the way he wanted them.Burleigh2 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to do this now or on any timeline. What I am saying is this: before you next make time to attack them, please first make time to put together a cogent argument with some references. 0¹⁸ (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Quackwatch. However, in principle, the fact that a site dedicates itself to finding medical quacks and fraud does not automatically make it unreliable, just as an attorney general who dedicates himself to finding criminals and does not bother to praise good people is not automatically unreliable. The real question is whether or not Quackwatch does a good job of identifying quacks and frauds or not. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

True, it does some good things like exposing frauds, but then it also bashes all the rest including some of the most well respected doctors not only in their field, but even in their local areas in some cases. Burleigh2 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we try to be fairly careful and circumspect about Quackwatch as a source, but consensus has repeatedly held that it is acceptable under certain circumstances. Is there a specific usage that concerns you? MastCell ^Talk 23:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I pointed the editor to this noticeboard on their talk page after undoing their edit on Alternative medicine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Virtually every source has some kind of bias. If we insisted that reliable sources have no bias, we'd have no sources left. What we require instead is that sources be verifiable, and that they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. If an established publisher in the modern world starts publishing junk (about people, products or organizations), they will quickly be sued or fined out of existence. In the case of Quackwatch, when using them as a source, we should be sure to wiki-link the first instance, and use in-text attribution ("According to Quackwatch, ... "). If there are other reliable sources which contradict Quackwatch, they should be mentioned too, unless they represent a tiny minority. Crum375 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's true that every source will have some sort of bias... even saying the sky is blue would be biased based on the time of day. The reason I even ask this is that Quackwatch is very overly biased against any alternative options. After too many searches to want to count, the only "alternatives" I have seen in a remotely positive light are multivitamins and I think only prenatal ones were shown exclusively in a positive light (while some of the articles said multivitamins in general were useless). I would hardly call such an overly-biased website "reliable", even if they do some good work to expose frauds, which is what most of the lauding of the site comes from... does that really mean everything on there is reliable? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

All good points. NPOV requires we cover all significant sides of an issue using reliable sources, and reliable sources will usually be biased from some particular POV. That doesn't exclude them from eligibility as sources.

This issue has been discussed to death in many venues here at Wikipedia. The conclusion is that the use of Quackwatch be judged on a case by case basis, just like every other reliable source we use. There is no RS that's allowable in every situation, so context is important. It would be rather odd to allow positive sources in an article on alternative medicine and exclude the largest, best known and most highly recommended (and hated!) database on the internet for skeptical information on the subject. That would violate NPOV. Nearly any article without negative or controversial content likely violates NPOV. Lack of such content is a red flag for possible policy violations.

Here are a couple places to read up on the subject:

• Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery

• Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

As to the reasons why QW criticizes alternative medicine, they just happen to be right. They don't work, otherwise they'd be called "medicine". Read this section carefully, especially the part about where the NCCAM hasn't found evidence for efficacy after ten years of large studies:

• Relation to evidence-based medicine

Happy reading, and Happy New Year! -- Brangifer (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. I totally agree that Quackwatch should be judged on a case by case basis. After all, if there was a great humanitarian that robbed a bank just once, would he get off because of all the other good stuff he did or would he be tried based on that robbery? I think the point of being judged on a case by case basis should be mentioned on the RS entry for it, but I'm not sure if that is implied for all RSs or not. There have been a number of articles I've seen on Quackwatch that were bashing certain treatments, saying they shouldn't be used and/or didn't work, but they are some commonly recommended treatments by more Naturopathic doctors because they work... just one example of why not all of it would be a RS. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Use on a case by case basis applies to all RS, not especially to QW. As to your mention of certain unnamed treatments that you believe NDs recommend because they "work", well, if they really work, then they're EBM and Quackwatch and Barrett wouldn't be criticizing them. Note two points: (1) Not everything that is recommended by an ND is quackery. They actually do some good things. (2) Being recommended by an ND is a red flag, since they also recommend many things that are unproven or even disproven. Some of their most used methods are horrendously pseudoscientific, such as homeopathy. Whatever the case, your objections on this basis really have nothing to do with the use of QW as a RS, but only are a difference of opinion as to whether QW is wrong and NDs are right. The mainstream EBM position, IOW the evidence, sides with QW, which again shows that QW is a notable source that backs up whatever is current mainstream science and opinion. If the evidence changes, so does QW, and that's the way it should be. Barrett and the other authors who write there are educated in thinking using the scientific method, and they judge things through that prism, which is a good thing. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I figured (and was hoping), but I've come across a few instances within Wiki where the argument was made that QW as a RS for statements that could be seen as completely unnecessary for the context. One example is in Alternative Medicine where the statement is listed "Many CAM methods are criticized by the activist non-profit organization Quackwatch" (and cited the general website, not an article on it)... in other articles, that could be seen as spam/advertising for that website, but when I removed it saying it wasn't appropriate, another editor put it back saying Quackwatch was RS so it belonged (which was the main reason I asked the question here).

Obviously, that example could be argued on both sides of keeping/removing it depending on your bias, but listing the website in general and no specific article is definitely not RS material from what has been said thus far (case-by-case basis and all). It's the potential edit-wars like this that bring to mind the old quote "can't we all just get along?"... but if it was removed again, I'm sure the same member would undo the removal without something more than "that's the intent" stated. Is there somewhere that says RS is on a case-by-case basis that I can point to for inappropriate citations like this? Burleigh2 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As is mentioned in the links provided by BullRangifer, Quackwatch is supposed to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The problem is that the majority of articles are written by Barrett, and they are not peer reviewed. So, it should not have the same weight as an article published in a peer reviewed journal. stmrlbs|talk 09:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Many of the articles written by Barrett himself are opinion articles based on his opinion, but a number of them are exposing frauds which some feel gives more weight to his opinion about everything else. Regardless of how good my mechanic might be with my car, I wouldn't ask him what medical treatment I should take just because he's so good with my car. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Barrett's opinions are notable opinions from that POV and are used as opinions, not scientific facts. Some articles are much more scientific in their nature and can be used to source facts. Others are commentaries on various issues related to consumer protection and fighting health fraud. Most use extensive sourcing and sometimes we choose to use those sources, rather than the article itself. All its articles and documents are different in their nature and should be used in the appropriate situations. No rule at Wikipedia would consider the use of a source to be reliable in every situation. No one has ever argued that QW is somehow immaculate or unlike other reliable sources we use. It's just the most notable website of its type, the largest database of skeptical sources related to its subject matter, and thus not to be excluded as an often usable source. Just use common sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. That should go without saying to anyone who understands our sourcing policies, as you should by now. When dealing with the nitty gritty details of scientific facts, the WP:MEDRS guidelines take priority. They prefer scientific research, so Quackwatch isn't normally used for such details (except for the scientific articles it hosts), although it always agrees with them. Since it usually agrees, it thus demonstrates that it truly is "reliable" in the traditional sense of the word. So, per MEDRS, we still prefer scientific studies for such details, while QW is usually used for other aspects of the subjects.

As far as it not being "peer-reviewed", that's a red herring. Websites aren't expected to be peer-reviewed, and QW never pretends to be a scientific journal, so that argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Only one website is peer-reviewed, and that happens to be a medical journal that is only published on-line. We still allow the use of myriad websites as RS for information, even though they aren't peer-reviewed. It all depends on which details are being tied to which sources. Just connect the dots properly.

While numerous articles are primarily written by Barrett, he does have a very large group of experts who aide him and review as necessary the articles. While this isn't exactly the same as the peer-review process used for journals, it's still far better than for most websites. Vetting, fact checking and review by multiple experts is a good thing. Many articles are also written by other authors. There are definitely articles at QW that wouldn't be suitable as sources here. That's why the use of QW is already done on a case by case basis. Just use our normal sourcing rules and common sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true... but unfortunately, not many people in the world understand the sourcing policies here. Yes, those who edit a lot here would likely understand and know most/all of them, but the common man typically doesn't. I also note in the "Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery" part that was referred to above, it points out that Quackwatch has been sourced in reliable 3rd party publications... but does that automatically mean that everything he posts on his site is reliable? I mean, by that standard, you could use a magazine or newspaper source and make a quote from the opinion section as being reliable because the paper/magazine is so well respected... that's basically what people are citing because Quackwatch is listed as RS (not necessarily just on Wiki, but on other sites as well). Am I the only one that sees that as more than disturbing? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[Moved to correct section] The principle on which organizations such as Quackwatch operate is the Scientific Method, and all of its umbrella principles (falsifiability, testability, the Peer Review Process, predictability, etc.) which is the method utilized to evaluate the empirical validity of scientific claims. Organizations like Quackwatch do not "bash" or have a "bias" against alternative medicine; They simply evaluate them based on whether they follow proper empirical methodologies. Personal belief systems aside, so-called alternative and complementary medicines do not have any scientific validity. Those that do aren't called "alternative" or "complementary" medicine; they just called medicine. This is a point that is not only unknown by the general public, it is also unknown by many who work in these fields, which is why they are advocated even by people with PhD's after their name. But whether someone of repute advocates an idea does not mean it has empirical validity. To argue it does is a logical fallacy called Argument by Authority.

As for unbiased, Wikipedia's policies on Reliable Sources do not, and cannot, gauge such a thing, because all sources, even reliable ones, from the New York Times to the Village Voice to FOX News, have biases. Reliability is predicated on criteria such as whether the organization in question has proper editorial controls for its content, whether its staff has the pertinent expertise, etc. Complete lack of bias cannot be a criterion, because no source exists (nor any writer working for one) that lacks some type of bias. Nightscream (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

An excellent summary of the situtation. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is a generalisation arrived at without consideration of the arguments on this page or the article about Quackwatch or Quackwatch itself. To assert that Quackwatch is an organisation operationally adhering to the scientific method and all of it's umbrella principles is not only unfounded but demonstrably wrong. The discussion in this section already shows that Quackwatch is to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and shows the reasons why. Attempts to elevate Quackwatch to the standard of a scientific institution adhering to all the principles of the scientific method are unfounded and a clear attempt to imbalance the situation by introducing the "Argument of Authority" the author wishes not to see in Wikipedia. Weakopedia (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Weakopedia here. QuackWatch is basically the blog of Stephen Barrett, and it is wild to suggest the the blog adheres to the scientific method. It has already been determined that QuackWatch should be used on a case by case basis, and should usually be balanced with an opposite viewpoint. DigitalC (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with these two as well. Is there an option of listing a caveat on the Quackwatch listing on the RS page that it should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, not as gospel truth? Or is that implied on everything on the RS page (so others take it as gospel truth if they don't know about that implication)? Burleigh2 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The default implication in the RS policy is that all sources be judged on a case by case basis. QW is no exception, nor under any special scrutiny. Most sources are written from some POV or other and we just have to use common sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're picking and choosing to find something you can object to, rather than noticing I repeatedly state things we both believe. Note that it was myself who clearly stated that it should be (1) used on a case by case basis, and (2) that scientific research is preferred to Quackwatch when dealing with the nitty gritty details of scientific and medical facts. Other editors agreed. That's in agreement with the MEDRS guideline. Do you disagree with that? I don't think we really disagree on that. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have indeed considered the arguments on this page, and you have not provided any evidence or line of reasoning that I have not. The original comments that I was specifically responding to were the notions that it "bashes" alternative medicine, has a "bias" against it, and that it does this even despite the advocacy of some of these ideas by "well-respected doctors", and my response was sound: Pointing out that alternative and complementary medicine is without empirical validity is a fact, and is not a "bias", nor "bashing", and the degree to which a doctor advocating an idea is respected is not the basis upon which ideas in science are properly vetted. If you can invalidate this, then do so.

Burleigh mentioned studies published in Lancet, but he never provided any examples, nor did he mention whether these studies survived Peer Review or have achieved wide acceptance in the scientific community. (Remember that the vaccine-autism hysteria, for example, began with a 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield published in Lancet that was later found to be bogus.) And again, if these studies have been validated by Peer Review and widely accepted, then they're no longer complementary or alternative medicine. They just medicine. Complementary and alternative are essentially just euphemisms for "non-scientific" or "ineffective to any degree greater than placebo." Have any of the ideas criticized by Quackwatch been so accepted? If so, where are the examples? If Quackwatch's adherence to the Scientific Method is "demonstrably wrong", where's the demonstration? The determination that it should be used on a case-by-case basis? I assume that's not the demonstration you're referring to, since that's a Wikipedia editorial decision, and in no way makes a statement about whether Quackwatch understands and accepts the SM. I haven't considered the arguments here? How so? Which ones? And how do you know this? Nightscream (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like an example, the link for one has already been given. One of the last times this was brought up (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Usage_of_Quackwatch_as_RS_in_medical_quackery ) that cited http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-06-22/news/doctor-who/ "Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable. Former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine Peter Barry Chowka states that: He seems to be putting down trying to be objective... Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative... But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours. In a critical website review of Quackwatch, Joel M. Kauffman evaluated eight Quackwatch articles and concluded that the articles were "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo..." and "...it is very probable that many of the 2,300,000 visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity. -- Levine2112" Burleigh2 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Brangifer has stated a workable compromise that is in line with the consensus reached in previous discussions. If someone wants to suggest a different general guideline for the use of Quackwatch, then do, but otherwise we need to move on to improving the various articles. Following a question on WP:NPOVN I had a look at the Quackery article. It has multiple problems quite independent of any perceived bias. So there is work to be done and people need to be able to work together. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The link you mention, Burleigh, shows the vast majority of editors agreeing that it is reliable, and should be vetted on a case-by-case basis, which I agree with. As for Peter Chowka, the fact that he is an advisor to an "Office of Alternative Medicine" makes it clear he too, may not understand the scientific skepticism with which scientific ideas are properly distinguished from non-scientific ones. It seems odd to argue that Barrett has a "bias", but that someone who works in capacity promoting A&CM does not. I would find a scientifically-informed "critical website review" that reported on numerous errors fundamental to Quackwatch's abilities to be more reliable, but you did not link to that one, interestingly enough. I agree that unless such information can be provided, each bit of material from Quackwatch should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and that we should move on. Nightscream (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said that the link wasn't biased, I said it points out how overly biased Barrett is. I also said it was just one example (of many I've read over the years). The fact that you are ignoring the article based on the man's title would be exactly the same as me ignoring all of Quackwatch (or at least any article that Barrett writes) because he's a psychologist and knows nothing about drugs or supplements... most of your statement is completely biased to ignore any facts or information presented to you, which does seem quite similar to Barrett's position. I have seen numerous reports about Quackwatch that it conveniently ignored studies that showed the effectiveness of a supplement/herb and only uses those that show it in a negative light. I have seen some of the studies first-hand that have reported certain supplements/herbs in a negative light and many of them were flawed (whether funded by a drug company or whether it was testing something completely different; I can give more information on that via E-mail as this would take too much space on an already crowded page), but those seem to be the only ones that Barrett uses to push his ideals against natural options and "alternative medicines". Oh, and please don't twist my words for your own purposes... that does seem to be one of the main attacks of the skeptics and it really doesn't show you in a positive light.Burleigh2 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Burleigh, you can exclude a source by showing its publisher has a poor track record for fact checking and accuracy, and for that you'd have to provide reliable mainstream sources which have so concluded. Unless you can do that, your own personal knowledge and personal opinions of a source are not relevant for WP. Crum375 (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's completely understandable, but there are two different sides to this... there's Quackwatch's valid and helpful information that points out fraudulent companies and false items (which is what's being praised on all those sites), but then there's Dr. Barrett's personal articles that are entirely his opinion and bias and many have nothing to do with what the rest of the research did. If Dictionary.com had an opinion section, would the opinions posted all be automatically reliable?

Yeah, it's really hard to separate them since they are on the same website and his name is on both of them, but that's what is so difficult about saying the site is completely RS. After going through this, I know it should be on a case-by-case basis and I totally agree that is the best compromise... but not everyone on Wiki (and most people who don't edit here) have no idea that it should only be used on a case-by-case basis and that not all of them are appropriately RS. I can't recall if I mentioned it yet in this, but in the Alternative Medicine article, Quackwatch is mentioned saying "Many CAM methods are criticized by the activist non-profit organization Quackwatch" and then gives a citation to their general website... in any other article/example, that would likely be seen as spam for the website (since it doesn't cite any specific article), but when I deleted it and said the citation had nothing to do with that statement, my edit was undone because "QuackWatch is a RS". If I went to the GOP (Republican party) article and referred to Fox News or another RS that is very Democratic and said this site disagreed with many Republican ideals, it would be removed within minutes as spam or defamation... how is this any different based on what we've already covered and agreed on?Burleigh2 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that the old discussion had RS saying that QuackWatch was a reliable website: JAMA, Lancet and NEJM. And if you are going to use a review from the Village Voice, then you shouldn't forget using also the review from the Time magazine, which is very favorable. And also all the other stuff that I bothered to compile in the compressed text here. Otherwise you are picking only the negative reviews while leaving out the positive ones.

I also agree with Brangifer's compromise. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, this was only one example that was listed on the last time this was brought up... there are many more examples I've come across that point out how biased against alternative medicines he is regardless of the available research he seems to ignore. This is not just my opinion, but has been verified in many places that I've read over the years. If you'd like a few more examples, a quick search on Yahoo brings up 163,000 hits for "Quackwatch biased" (most of which are not praising Quackwatch, but pointing out their bias and "attack articles" for lack of a better term).Burleigh2 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"The fact that you are ignoring the article based on the man's title..." I am not ignoring the article based on the Peter Chowka's title. I responded to your presentation of it (kinda hard to do if I'm "ignoring" it) by pointing out that the person who criticized Quackwatch promotes a/c medicine himself, thus illustrating that he, like any other promoter of it, does not follow scientific skepticism. This has nothing to do with "ignoring" or his "title". It is a response based on the same criteria I've maintained in this discussion: Proper adherence to scientific skepticism, the same criteria that properly informs all scientific knowledge, and critical examination of it.

If you had instead presented, as an example of criticism of Quackwatch, a person (Michael Shermer, Robert L. Park, James Randi) or organization (Center for Inquiry, Skeptics Society, American Medical Association) that found "incomplete data, obsolete data, [or] technical errors" in Quackwatch's work, as you alleged, that would've been different. But aside from merely cutting and pasting material from an old version of Wikipedia's Quackwatch article (or a site mirroring it) about Joel M. Kaufman, you did not do this. I tried looking through the Skeptic's Dictionary, randi.org and Google to see if Kaufman is regarded as an adherent of proper scientific methodologies, but could not find anything at a glance to this point. Kaufman, it should be pointed out, is a critic of mainstream medicine, and a promoter of low-carb diets, which doesn't say much about him regarding this point.

"would be exactly the same as me ignoring all of Quackwatch (or at least any article that Barrett writes) because he's a psychologist and knows nothing about drugs or supplements..." Wrong. As aforementioned, my response to your mentioning Chowka was based on whether he promotes ideas that are considered pseudoscience, which is a valid scientific criterion. By contrast, ignoring Barrett because he's a psychologist and not a nutritionist is an ad hominem argument, and therefore, a logical fallacy. Not the same thing.

"most of your statement is completely biased to ignore any facts or information presented to you" I have responded to each line of reasoning and evidence that you have presented, and have done so directly, in order to explain why they do not support the conclusion that you believe they do, which flies in the face of this assertion. But if I'm wrong, please name one of these facts or bits of information presented to me, and please explain, by pointing to my replies to them, how I "ignored" them. If you'd like, I'll provide an example of how you have done precisely this:

I pointed out, at least twice, that there is no form of alternative or complementary medicine that has been scientifically shown to work any better than a placebo, that such medicines that are found to work thus are no longer called "alternative" or "complementary", but simply "medicine", and that this is why skeptic organizations like Quackwatch conclude thus. As far as I can remember from reading this entire thread, you did not respond to this point. If this "herbal supplement" you mention has passed the Peer Review Process, clinical trials, etc., then how is it "alternative" or "complementary"? (If you did and I missed it, I apologize; can you please point it out to me?) If I'm right, then isn't this an example of you ignoring information presented to you?

"I have seen numerous reports about Quackwatch that it conveniently ignored studies that showed the effectiveness of a supplement/herb and only uses those that show it in a negative light." Yet you have consistently refused to link to any of them, making it impossible to discern whether any of these studies are scientifically reliable, or just criticizing Quackwatch because they themselves promote a/c medicine. If you did, and it showed this, then I'd be in greater agreement with you. But feel free to link to one that's been peer reviewed, and prove me wrong.

"If you'd like a few more examples, a quick search on Yahoo brings up 163,000 hits for "Quackwatch biased" (most of which are not praising Quackwatch, but pointing out their bias and "attack articles" for lack of a better term)." Which is a poor method to verify that Quackwatch is biased, since Google hits can be generated by those promoting the exact same pseudoscience that we're talking about. This is like pointing to a survey showing that half of Americans reject evolution or accept creationism in order to argue that evolution is scientifically questionable, or that creationism is scientifically valid. I'm sorry, but anyone arguing that Google hits indicate anything other than the popularity of an idea (as opposed to its being "verified" scientifically) obviously does not understand the proper standards by which scientific knowledge is properly examined. Nightscream (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner, it's been a busy week. I was saying that you were ignoring what he was saying and writing off because of his title... more appropriately because of his position and his views. You contradict yourself when you say you aren't rejecting it on that basis because you say he "does not follow scientific skepticism" as a blind statement based on his title/position/whatever you'd like to call it. You're dismissing every point he's making in the article regardless of how you want to say you're not. There are a number of MD doctors including some at highly reputable hospitals (John Hopkins and Mayo included) that use and recommend alternative medicines (not all, but a good number) because of their proven effectiveness... dismissing someone's statements because they use or recommend alternative medicine is just being biased and stereotyping. I'm also not talking about ALL of Quackwatch's information... I'm referring to the articles that are written by Barrett that are only of his opinion and not on any factual or cited basis. Again, you are twisting my words and choosing to use only the words you want... how are your arguments any more valid than mine or anyone else's if you contort the truth or what you perceive into what you want to perceive? That's just as bad if not worse than ignoring facts no matter how you want to read that. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is science and pseudoscience, the medicine and complementary medicine distinction is a false dichotomy. All treatments need the same degree of evidence. Physicians will use what makes sense and has been shown to work. Quackwatch exposes treatments that have a poor reference base. Often ones that are so poorly researched that nothing exists in the peer reviewed press. The evidence needs to show something works before claims of effectiveness can be made.

If quackwatch was to say no evidence exists for some treatment and you came up with a review of 10 RCTs published in the Lancet that showed effectiveness we would go with the review. However if nothing exists and quackwatch says so. And no one can show otherwise. Quackwatch is a good enough reference.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"You contradict yourself when you say you aren't rejecting it on that basis because you say he "does not follow scientific skepticism" as a blind statement based on his title/position/whatever you'd like to call it." No. Based on the fact that he promotes an idea that is pseudoscientific. Arguing that alternative or complementary medicine is not pseudoscience because some guy running an office promoting it says so is specious reasoning, and saying so if perfectly valid.

"There are a number of MD doctors including some at highly reputable hospitals (John Hopkins and Mayo included) that use and recommend alternative medicines (not all, but a good number) because of their proven effectiveness..." One more time: The empirical validity of an idea is not based reputation or authority. That's religion, not science. The empirical validity of an idea is based on whether it has survived the scrutiny of the Scientific Method. The fact that you continue to repeat this fallacy over and over---without responding to my repeated refutation of it---proves that you know I'm right, and are simply not able to admit it. In science, there are no sacred cows, no popes, no saints, no dogmas. Only evidence and repeat testing. None of these therapies have not exhibited proven effectiveness under these criteria, and the "folk wisdom" that you're insisting on is not a sufficient substitute. Saying "this doctor or this reputable hospital says it's been shown to work" is anecdotal, and anecdotes are not scientific, because they're too subjective, and impossible to measure objectively. If I'm wrong, then why not respond to this point by pointing out how?

"dismissing someone's statements because they use or recommend alternative medicine is just being biased and stereotyping." If they're talking about basketball or their favorite movie, then yeah, it is. But if they're promoting new medicines that do not follow the Scientific Method, are not submitted to Peer Review, are not testable, are not falsifiable, and/or have been shown in clinical trials with proper controls, such as randomization, double-blind procedures, etc to have nonexistent effects, then no, it's not. It's an adherence to the only methodology by which empirical knowledge can properly be examined. Is a planetary scientist "biased" for rejecting the views of a Flat Earth Theorist? A chemist for rejecting someone promoting alchemy? An astronomer for rejecting astrology? Is a virologist "biased" for concluding the ideas of AIDS denialists are wrong, and saying that they are not afforded more weight because a noted doctor promotes them? Is a historian prejudiced for rejecting Holocaust Denial, or conspiracies relating to the JFK assassination and the moon landing? The answer is no. These ideas are rejected because the proper methodologies by which the facts of the universe we live in can be discovered, tested, confirmed and revised show that they all lack merit, and includesaAlternative and complimentary medicine. That's not a "bias", unless you change the definition of the word "bias". Bias is when you form an opinion on irrelevant internal criteria instead of relevant external criteria. My statements clearly conform to the latter, not the former, and are therefore statements of fact. Not bias. If you really think that recognizing a proper standard for determining matters of fact, or pointing out when some people do not, constitutes a "bias", then you need to reexamine your dictionary.

You seem to think you can slide out of this problem by reframing or rewording my statements, which shows either your cognitive dissonance, or your deliberate dishonesty. I did not "dimiss his ideas because he uses alt medicine." I pointed out that if Quackwatch writes about how some ideas are non-scientific or pseudoscientific, and you want to refute his work, then you have to do so scientifically, using the scientific literature, and not by merely by pointing to someone who advises an office whose existence is predicated on promoting the very branch of non-scientific knowledge that was criticized in the first place. That is not a "bias", it's simply a question of having a proper standard for reliability. A peer review journal criticizing Quackwatch is reliable. Rebuttals by those who favor the ideas Quackwatch exmaines are not, and more than a judge in a criminal trial declaring a witness to be unreliable is "biased". Nightscream (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Goldhagen

The following sentence keeps on being deleted (5 times in 1 day last week , once just now), based on the claim that Daniel Goldhagen - a fomer Harvard Associate Professor with an international bestseller in the area and a PBS series forthcoming - is not a reliable source. I've asked the deleters to come here and explainwhy they don't think he is reliable, but they won't do it.

Daniel Goldhagen states that, as a result of their communist ideology and their knowledge of Soviet experience, Chinese Communist leaders, as early as 1948, planned for the destruction of 80 million people, including peasants and landlords. This destruction included mass executions, mass incarceration, mass population movements, and other eliminationist policies.

• Goldhagen, Daniel (2009). Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity. PublicAffairs. p. 608. ISBN 1586487698, 9781586487690. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) p.344.

P. 344 is not that long. Would somebody look at Goldhagen's credentials, and verify that my summary is accurate? Smallbones (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC

I don't know the definitive answer to the question, but would note that the word "controversial" appears in the second sentence of Goldhagen's WP entry. --FormerIP (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The publisher's reliability is moderate. Their about page indicates that aggressive commercial marketing is their primary business, their back catalogue indicates that they are not an academic publisher. Similarly, they're an independent affiliate of a publisher's network that works on a marketing basis only. Not the best, nor the worst, within WP:MILMOS#SOURCES schema. Certainly a work from another publisher would be preferable. Regarding Goldhagen's reliability, Goldhagen is a historian known for his speciality in assignment of guilt in relation to the European holocaust. His assignment was controversial, but the level of criticism was within the standards of acceptable academic conduct. The book is too new to have yet been reviewed academically. One commercial review discovered at Washington Post is not generous, "His ambitious new book, "Worse Than War," springs from an immersion in their sufferings and the heartfelt desire to end it. But even victims -- or, perhaps, especially victims -- deserve books that are clearly argued and clearly written. "Worse Than War" is not that book." (First unnumbered web page.) And goes Goldhagen for academic failures, "But by conflating so many incidents, movements and events -- all of which are (or were) very bad, yet all of which are very different -- he makes the eliminationist concept virtually meaningless. He's like a doctor who thinks it doesn't much matter whether you have cancer or AIDS." (Second unnumbered web page.). However, I'd counsel waiting on academic reviews, strongly counsel this. Goldhagen's specialty is not Chinese history, so he's probably using other sources for those claims of intention and number. 1) Use with caution, if at all. 2) Return to WP:RS/N in six months when the academic reviews have been published for a proper opinion on the reliability of this text. 3) Immediately: seek Goldhagen's footnotes for the claims of intentionality and volume; if non primary, use these instead as they're probably more reliable than Goldhagen. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I consider reinstating the unsourced figure of 80 million as a blatant disruption by Smallbones. I raised this issue here and Smallbones has simply ignored it while continuing to edit-war instead. (Igny (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

PS I can't see the material on Google books. Would it be possible to type out the relevant extract?--FormerIP (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In 1948, Mao in "agrarian reform" study materials conveyed to the party membership that his schemes for restructuring overpopulated China required that "one-tenth of the peasants would have to be destroyed" One tenth of half a billion is fifty million. In 1948 Jen Pi-Shih of the Communist party's Central Committee declared in a speech to the party cadres that "30,000,000 landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed" The communist leadership's intention already well formulated (and communicated to their ideologically like-minded followers), they began, upon taking power, to implement their elimionist policies in programs of population movement, mass executions, and mass incarcerations of landlords, rich pesants, and other class enemies in the vast camp system they created. The communists exterminated Chinese on the order of magnitude that Mao and Jen had foretold well before they had begun.

Thanks. That doesn't seem to support "...as a result of their communist ideology and their knowledge of Soviet experience..." in any way, and Smallbones also seems to have resolved a conflict between two figures by adding them together, which is creative but not a good use of the source, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The 3 sentence immediately before "In 1948" "For Mao and the Chinese communist leaders, the ideal of a transformed and purified communist society derived from Marxism. The knowledge that they must use violence to achieve it derived from the experience of their mentors, the Soviets. Therefore, the intention to practice thoroughgoing eliminationist politics took shape much earlier than it had with the Soviets, crystallizing in mass-murderous thinking as the communists’ victory over the nationalists and the assumption of power neared." As far as adding Goldhagen's fifty million and 30 million together, yes I can add, and WP:SYNTH specifically allows such simple addition.

Fifelfoo's "WP:MILMOS#SOURCES schema" is irrelevant here. A sub topic of the manual of style on Military History simply doesn't over-ride WP:RS on a genocide article. Fifelfoo has earlier stated that Goldhagen was a very good scholar. Whether somebody calls him controversial or Fiflefoo counsels waiting until all the reviews are in is also irrelevant. Is a Harvard scholar with an international best seller in the area and a forthcoming PBS series based on the book cited, a reliable source or not? By the standards stated in WP:RS, I'd say there is no question that he is. Smallbones (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Also see [9]. Smallbones (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're putting it in those stark terms, then no, this book isn't an RS. His publisher is crap and the reviews available to date indicate that this work fails to meet expected academic standards. Reliability primarily inheres in the publisher, not the author. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Which is why I'm counselling to wait on academic reviews, which will take about six months from now. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is most likely a misreading to add the 50 million and the 30 million together. The dates for the two speechs study materials and the speech are not given. So, either the number shrank from 50 million to 30 million with the target becoming more focussed from peasants in general to landlords and rich peasants in particular, or vice versa.

As for using Goldhagen or not, we have to remember that we are not writing PhD dissertations here. Thus, it is not up to us to determine the source material used by the authors and then vet the authenticity of same. Rather, we are supposed to be writing undergraduate level papers wherein we present articles that survey the literature on a given topic. Thus, whether to use Goldhagen or not depends on how one intends to present his material. Does his analysis fly in the face of accepted scholarship? Then it should be presented as such, presented as an alternative, not-widely-subscribed-to view, and fully cited accordingly. While I truly respect Fifelfoo’s caution, I am not altogether certain that one need wait for reviewers to vet the book prior to our being able to use it. It’s out there. And it presents an (alternative?) viewpoint that ought to be presented to wikireaders to maintain the article’s neutral point of view by surveying the spectrum of scholarship in the subject area. Finally, Goldhagen is notable enough that he qualifies for a wikiarticle, so why would a book by him, a book that is not self-published, not be notable enough to be cited so long as it is cited with due caution? — SpikeToronto 05:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is obvious that Goldhagen is a reliable source. He is also fairly mainstream - even if controversial in his own way. Mainstream: Chinese Communists killed 30-50 million. Goldhagen: because of their Communist beliefs, Chinese Communists planned to "destroy" 80 million. Note that the 30 million and 50 million are not alternative numbers, they are separate numbers that can be added together. Mao - "destroy" 50 million peasants - one class of people according to Communist theory. Jen Pi-Shih - "destroy" 30 million "landlords" and "rich peasants" (i.e. Kulaks) (two other classes in Communist theory). "Destroy" includes mass executions, mass internments, and mass population movements Smallbones (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, had he been published by an academic publisher, or a commercial publisher with a statement of purpose that was less marketing oriented, I wouldn't be worried. But the combination of an extremely hostile review going to the credibility of the research methodology (claiming it isn't credible research) combined with the publisher issues has me worried. The article in question has a number of issues with academics who publish credible work in academic spaces and FRINGE work in unreliable publishers, or SELF spaces. Checking reviews in academic journals for arbitration would be my normal next step, but the work is sufficiently new to be within the publication cycle of humanities / social science journals in the field. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are looking at reviews, you might as well look at the New York Times review [10] "In this magisterial and profoundly disturbing “natural history” of mass murder, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen calls for an end to such willful blindness. As he did in his celebrated and controversial “Hitler’s Willing Executioners,” Goldhagen insists that even the worst atrocities originate with, and are then propelled by, a series of quite conscious calculations by followers as much as by leaders. " Smallbones (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones, I attempted to access that review but got channelled into blog territory. I'd still prefer waiting for full academic reviews before stabilising my opinion, but getting a magisterial out of NYT is sufficient to swing the presumption back in favour of Reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Source is RS by WP standards, and as long as the numbers are cited to the author, it is properly in the article. [11] repeatedly cited by the NYT as an American scholar, so the author is notable as well. It is moreover, not up to us to decide which figures we like or do not like - as long as the numbers are sourced, we have to deal with it. Collect (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• The "80 million" are nowhere present in Goldhagen and fall foul of WP:SYN. Goldhagen himself cites Rummel, p. 223, which is visible in google books. Rummel quotes Mao's instruction mentioning the 10% (or 50m), and then adds that "Jen Pi-shih, a party Central Committee member, had also said in a 1948 speech to cadres that '30,000,000 landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed'" (emphasis mine). The placement of the word "also" reinforces my impression that neither Goldhagen nor his source, Rummel, meant for these two figures of 50m and 30m to be added to each other.
• Rummel is much the better source to use here. Goldhagen moves from Hitler to Mao to Serbia in the space of two paragraphs. It is a high-level survey, whereas Rummel's book is actually dedicated to the topic of China. Rummel puts the figure of those killed as a result of these policies at an estimated 4.5 (not 80) million. --JN466 19:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As for Goldhagen discussing all of this in summary while Rummel deals with the material in detail, I do not think that that is relevant. We are not doing investigative journalism here. Nor are we writing graduate theses and dissertations. We are charged with writing undergraduate level articles that survey the literature. We are only to vet the sources for verifiabilty and reliableness.

I think that both Rummel and Goldhagen can be used so long as they are presented as differing views. My understanding of WP:NPOV is that the article must, on balance, be neutral. To leave out one author’s differing calculations is to choose one view over another, which is not our job as neutral wikieditors. However, it is one thing for the Party to have made estimates of between 30 and 50 million, it is quite another if the subsequent reality is an entirely different figure. I would suggest that Goldhagen’s quote be used to illustrate the Party’s pre-genocide estimates, while Rummel’s numbers be used as a measure of the ensuing genocide. However, I think that one can find many sources that would disagree with Rummel, that his number is too low. I seem to recall reading back in the dark ages when I was at university that the number in reality was much nearer Mao and the Party’s estimate than Rummel’s calculation.

Finally, I still maintain, and agree with Jayen, that the 30 million and 50 million figures are not intended to be added together, regardless of whether WP:SYN would permit it or not. To do so is to misread, to misunderstand, the source. — SpikeToronto 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is no point of fact on which Goldhagen and Rummel differ. Goldhagen simply repeats material from Rummel, citing him. --JN466 20:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that Goldhagen's book has the searchable preview in amazon enabled: [12] --JN466 20:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that Rummel's estimate of 4.5m is for land-reform-related killings only. [13] Rummel himself says that estimates vary widely and gives examples. --JN466 21:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, both can be cited, Goldhagen for 50 million planned "destructions" and Rummel for 4.5 million actual killings during the land reform program. The "basic addition" exception to WP:SYNTH only applies when it is obvious to everybody that the numbers can be added together. While I think that it should be obvious that Communists would never conflate "peasants" and "landlords" in the same category, I'll bow out on this one (as I made clear on the talk page), so 50 million is the number Mao PLANNED to destroy according to Goldhagen. Does anybody have problems with this? Smallbones (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this section was titled using the name of a writer rather than a reference to the source cited. Goldhagen's academic writings are reliable sources. His popular books are not. The same with all other writers. Smallbones, do you understand what this difference is and why it is important? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

An interesting claim - but not one founded in WP policy nor guidelines, nor in any articles on WP. Books which one does not like are automatically not RS just "because"? Nope. Books by academic presses by recognized scholars are RS for WP. Collect (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Partially seconding Collect here (The press isn't academic). Yes he's gone through a high intensity marketing popular press. No, this doesn't mean he's avoiding appropriate review (though in this case its commercial rather than academic review). Popular press reviews located so far are split (NYT: magisterial, Washington Post: not clearly written and argued). This would be different had he gone to a less reputable press, or a small press, or a press where this would be their money spinner for the year on the basis of it having his name on it: all methods of avoiding review. However, its rather obvious Goldhagen's book will be peer reviewed in journals, Real Soon Now. Given that the press isn't shocking, the reviews are split, and he's deliberately bringing his views into a public domain commercially, presumption favours reliability. Avoidance behaviour which would mean he's avoiding academic publication review would be a website, vanity press, micro press who doesn't normally publish in that area, a popular magazine or newspaper etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Goldhagen is generally considered to be a reliable source. If the publisher were a university press, that would weigh in favor of increased reliability, but that doesn't mean the book is unreliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Goldhagen is a notable expert in the field, but some of his original statements are not undisputed in academia. They can be used, but should be used with inline attribution. For the non-disputed facts presented by Goldhagen, in most cases other, less controversial sources, are available, and should be used instead.  Cs32en  12:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Goldhagen is a noted expert in his field. There's no reason to prefer other sources to him for "non-disputed facts", and he can be cited freely and without inline attribution for them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a better way to put it would be "For non-disputed facts, citations to Goldhagen should be used in due proportion to citations to other appropriate sources." I was probably too concerned about people who may want to source everything to Goldhagen, so that the author would become unduly relevant as the authoritative source for such facts, and, by extension, on possibly other facts as well, in the mind of our readers. I also was concerned about a particular interpretation that Goldhagen may attach to a fact that itself would be undisputed, and that may become unduly prominent by, e.g. repeatedly referring to a specific book published by Goldhagen that includes the undisputed facts that are being sourced, as well as a number of interpretations that may well be controversial. The statement in my previous comment above was too absolute, and I am retracting it.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Goldhagen argued that ordinary Germans not only knew about, but actually supported the Holocaust, because of a virulent "eliminationist antisemitism" in German society, which had developed in the preceding centuries. Thus in the twentieth century, with Hitler in power, conditions were primed for the pursuit of large-scale killing of Jews."[14] If that is not fringe, then what is? The Four Deuces (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just one end of the academic spectrum of views on the functionalism versus intentionalism debate. His work generated a lot of support and criticism, but it's within the bounds of academic debate. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

News sources

Question: What should the policy/guideline be about the use of questionable, but not totally unreliable sources like Xinhua, Pravda, Granma, etc. ? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean, secondary but official sources. They'd be reliable secondary sources for many topics. They may require attribution "The state-owned nespaper XYZ says ....", and for information about the government itself or related controversies they would become primary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a particularly culturally specific answer. The issue isn't that they're state owned (The BBC is state owned), the issue is that they're government controlled. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The BBC isn't state owned. --FormerIP (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Its a public corporation acting in trust on the basis of a renewable state charter establishing its nature as a result of the actions of the government, and in receipt of recurrent funding enforced by acts of parliament and criminal law; but, it isn't "owned" by the state despite being dependent upon the state for its establishment, terms of operation and right to operate, and for a significant revenue stream. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot of words, but you are correct, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The BBC is state owned, just not state controlled. It's probably the least biased mainstream news source in the UK. It was recently censured for anti-Israeli reporting, but because it is subject to independent review at least we know when its coverage has not been neutral. If you ask me BBC News is the most reliable news source there is in Britain, if not the world. Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As well-written as the BBC's reports are, it would still become a primary source for, example, disputes over Northern Ireland. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsense.

To answer the original question, I what SFC originally said was not nonsense. State-controlled media will often be perfectly acceptable, but in may cases may not, or they may need to be attributed. It would need to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. I think there is no easy rule-of-thumb that can be applied. --FormerIP (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Squid... you are off base here. The BBC is considered one of the most reliable news sources in the world. It is a reliable secondary source, even for reporting on the UK and Northern Ireland. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I brought up the BBC as an exception that proves the rule. It's a very fine source, though because it's not completely independent, I would use other sources to weigh in on who's right and who's wrong in Northern Ireland. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I restate my question? I don't claim the BBC is untrustworthy, or that it should be avoided because of its relationship to the government, the same for RTE, AFP, DW, PBS, and others of similar quality/reputability. My question was just on the ones that are run by countries whose news outlets' editors have direct line from the presidential palace on their desk, so to speak. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

They're as reliable as an official statement from the government in question itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And should be treated as such? IE. For current events something like BBC, Reuters, etc. would be preferred? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

For current events probably the best way to handle things is to use a mix of international wire services and local, even if government-run, sources. Also check out the Washington Post and The Economist for analysis, and also there are specialty sources for analysis of geopolitical, military, and diplomatic aspects. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, independent news sources are preferred; one should avoid government press in favor of BBC, Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, The Times, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Institute for Historical Review

An editor on Gas chamber is trying to use the Institute for Historical Review as a credible source. I have checked the archives of this noticeboard, and it has been tangentially dismissed as an unreliable source. I'd like confirmation one way or the other. Hohum (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Institute for Historical Review is a pseudohistorical source and addition of such source falls under WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE. --Defender of torch (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hohum, the Institute for Historical Review is a Holocaust denial organization. If the article on that organization is insufficient, you can read more about it in the book Why People Believe Weird Things, by Dr. Michael Shermer, the founding director of the Skeptics Society. It covers topics on pseudoscience, pseudohistory, etc. You can also read Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman's book Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?, in which the topic is given the more central focus. Both are excellent books that show, as Defender stated, that it's not considered reliable, except perhaps for non-controversial information like its members, its stated beliefs, etc. Nightscream (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a RS. And it's not even funny that someone would believe otherwise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's possible that some people are not familiar with the IHR. Nightscream (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a RS, for the obvious reasons stated above. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If its RS for its views, then can it be used in that context. i.e. “according to IHR ect…”?Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE and WP:QS, as an extremist site representing a tiny minority, it can only be used to describe itself, typically in its own article. This would be similar to using the Flat Earth Society website as a source for Earth. Crum375 (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly as Crum375 says, it could only be used in an article about the IHR itself, and even then with extreme caution. To be frank, it's not even a RS for its own views. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite the IHR being soundly rejected here, and that fact noted on the article talk page, it has been repeatedly re-included. What should be done? Hohum (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Make sure you don't fall foul of WP:3RR. He's clearly editing against consensus and if he continues he's going to end up in trouble for edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ondarock.it/

This page is used as a source in the article System of a Down. Is this in any way reliable? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC))

Broadly speaking, it's one of the most known Italian musical web magazines, kinda like of an Italian Pitchfork Media, but with a broader focus. The founder is a music journalist who collaborated with several magazines. It is no less (and no more) reliable than many print music magazines. --Cyclopia^talk 23:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

Maharishi_University_of_Management

There has been some discussion at the Fringe Theories noticeboard about the Transcendental Meditation article group. Some claims have been made about the purported effects of TM to affect things such as frequency of car crashes, crime rates, etc.

These strike many of us as being classic examples of File Drawer Effect, Data dredging and a failure to differentate between correlation and causation however some editors who focus almost exclusivey on TM articles have claimed that there are "peer reviewed studies" demonstrating a causal link between TM and various phenomena.

It would appear these studies originate from the Marharishi University of Management, a school founded by Maharishi Mahash Yogi, the yogi responsible for TM. My question is if anyone here has any information on the reliability of these studies. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Maharishi Effect is independently viewed as a pseudoscience hypothesis, since it tries to bridge the pseudoscientitifc idea of "pure consciousness" or "transcendental consciousness", rather than the brain, and connects alleged quantum field effects from practicing TM and/or the TMSP. See [15]. Physicist Victor Stenger in his excellent work "Quantum Gods" debunks the idea of any quantum "coherence" mediated by the brain using the mathematics behind the original 1913 work on quantum mechanics by Neils Bohr (Quantum Gods, p. 189) --Kala Bethere (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

A large number of journals mentioned in that article. I'll check out the status of each but it will take a while. I think we will need a reference for each, i.e. that someone associated with the MUM authored it while they were at MUM, not before or after Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The sources used to support statements about the "Maharishi Effect" are indeed published in peer-reviewed journals and I believe would generally meet the minimum Wikipedia standard for being "reliable sources" so I'm not sure that's the relevant issue here. The issue is that all of the research is conducted by people affiliated with MUM or TM in some way, either MUM faculty, people who got their PhD at MUM, people who got their BA at MUM and went elsewhere for their graduate degree, and so forth. No research corroborating this effect has been done by any independent researchers completely independent of the movment. The published research is flawed in ways that should have been picked up by any competent peer review process (and yes, there are reliable sources that say exactly that, for example:

The Orme-Johnson et al research has flaws which should have been evident to the reviewers. Publication of the article indicates a failure in the review process rather than a failure in the standards by which social scientific research is evaluated. I will focus on the JCR article, but most of these criticisms also apply to the subsequent research on this theory. [Schrodt. A Methodological Critique of the Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 1990, 34: 745-755]

but it is very difficult to get these criticisms into the article.) I agree that it's a problem but I'm not sure addressing it from the standpoint of reliability of the sources is the best approach. Woonpton (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the articles are being vigorously edited by current and former employees of MUM. Several editors have admitted as much. Others are more circumspect about their ties to the TM Movement organizations, but have posted comments which suggest that they have close personal and/or professional relationships with MUM officials, with the authors of many of these studies. Some of them may very well be the authors of these studies. From a reliability standpoint, an initial fundamental question is whether these studies are primary sources, and whether they should be utilized at all in these articles. It has been strongly suggested that the studies themselves should not be used as sources because they are primary sources, and also that they do not qualify as reliable sources because, even if peer-reviewed and published in a journal independent from the TM Movement, they are not independent studies. The analogy between the Maharishi's "Science of Creative Intelligence" and Creationism has been raised by reviewers outside these talk pages; is this really all just religion masquerating as science in an effort to gain mainstream acceptance and access to government funding and avoid the separation of church and state issue?Fladrif (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• At the very least, there should be clear attribution as to the provenance and authorship of these studies. And if there are 25 peer-reviewed studies by TM followers saying one thing, and no corroboration by neutral researchers, then the weight given these 25 studies should be reduced accordingly. Criticism of the studies' methodology, where available, should be represented in the article.
• On the other hand, I wouldn't go so far as to say the studies should not be used at all; if it's a peer-reviewed journal, it's a peer-reviewed journal, if the author is a follower or not. (That's assuming we are talking about reputable peer-reviewed journals.) --JN466 01:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Over at WP:MED we try not to use primary research and instead try to use reviews. As a review of this topic exists it trumps the primary research which cannot than be used to discredit the review. Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"a review of this topic exists"? Pray tell me, where? Or maybe the topic being referred to is something other than the Maharishi Effect research. Or maybe something different is meant than what I mean by a review: a critical analysis and summary of all the research literature available on a topic. I've been studying the Maharishi Effect research pretty closely as a result of working on this article, and if there's an independent review of this literature, I'd sure like to see it. There are a few critiques, but they are focused on one article; they don't survey the whole body of research. I've been tempted to write such a review myself, but I doubt any journals would be interested in publishing it; it would be kind of like trying to publish a review of the hundreds of articles about N-rays or polywater. Woonpton (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor was referring to the review of the TM medical research contained in the Ospina-Bond meta-analysis, rather than a review of the Maharishi Effect research. I agree that there has been no overall review of the ME research papers, but rather a number of critiques that most often focus on a single article. I think that your idea of writing a review of the overall research would be an excellent idea, though I share your concern that no journals would have much interest in publishing it. Off the top of my head, Skeptical Inquirer probably would be your best bet. Fladrif (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I do see now that the editor was most probably referring to the TM-Meditation research literature, in which case I would agree wholeheartedly; the Ospina et al meta-analysis is stellar (one of the very best meta-analyses I've ever seen in any field, and I'm hard to please when it comes to research) and deserves a central place in that article. It was mostly because of my inability to gain that meta-analysis the prominence it merits that I backed off from editing or commenting on those articles (TM and TM-Scientific Research) altogether, and I appreciate the outside attention in all these areas very much. And thanks, Fladrif, for the thoughtful publication advice. Woonpton (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For peer review criticism on the pseudoscientific hypothesis termed "the Maharishi effect" see [16], [17] and [18]. Victor Stengers book Quantum Gods debunks the ME based on the 1913 work of Bohr.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a comment that seems unbiased and helpful . I would add that these studies of which there are about 50 (of course only a sample is being included) are not being used to make claims but are examples of the range of the research that has been done on a particular topic, so one review probably is not enough. Thanks your mature comment is a breath of fresh air a since it didn't contain any negative attacks on either editors or the studies whatever you may think of them.(olive (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Sentence in Maharishi University of Management about journals their scholars have published in

There is a long list of journals that I promised to check up and have done so now. They are mostly listed by the ISI and reputable. Disciplines are jumbled up. If we're to include such a statement I think each needs to be referenced independently. An article would normally carry the institutions that the authors are affiliated to and that would be a sufficient reference. The institute's own journal isn't listed at ISI.

This is a separate issue from claims about the effects of TM which also need to be referenced properly. Doc James' point about reviews of the topic is particularly helpful. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable?

hi, I'm quite new to referencing. so ehh..i have few question.

Can these sources be used? reliable?

• A celebration of the Hanbok fashionfreak.de Retrieved 2010-01-18

• Features of Hanbok actakoreana.org Retrieved 2010-01-18

• Clothing, Traditional—Korea bookrags.com Retrieved 2010-01-18

Can you point out which can be used or which can't?--LLTimes (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would avoid the first and the third. The first is an editorial and the third is Bookrags, which IIRC mirrors Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The first one actually contains a disclaimer of the accuracy of any information contained on it, so it is definitely not a reliable source. The second one is a University-published e-journal with an editorial review panel, so it is OK. The third one isn't a Wiki mirror, but is an article from an encyclopedia - The Encyclopedia of Modern Asia, published by McMillian. That is a reliable source, but is a tertiary source, and so should be given only limited use, per WP:PRIMARY for things like broad background information.Fladrif (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough about the Bookrags article. Regardless, #2 is definitely your best bet. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Very friendly and helpful :) !! thanks for helping a noob out xD. And thanks fladrif for stalking me :P Don't deny it [19]xD --LLTimes (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC on authoritative sources for citation totals and inclusion in articles

The following RfC has been raised after inconclusive discussion about whether to include citation totals or statistics (from Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge or MathSciNet) in an article in order to support notability — Talk:Steve Shnider#RfC Using citation totals in articles on academics.

This was raised after asking for a third opinion and searching for policy. Your comments or recommendation as to which policy applies would be welcome.—Ash (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you should never include these kinds of figures, unless they have been explicitly published in a reliable secondary source (e.g. a reliable source, such as The New York Times, that explicitly states "x gets 545 Google scholar hits"). Statistics based on a Wikipedia editor's Google searches and the like are unverifiable original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, please consider copying your comment into the ongoing RfC linked to above.—Ash (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

YouTube video on 9/11 Truth movement

An editor has used a YouTube video in the article 9/11 Truth movement. Is this a reliable, secondary, and independent source?  Cs32en  11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Depends what point it is being used to support.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It is being used to introduce Noam Chomsky's viewpoint on the September 11 attacks and on 9/11 conspiracy theories into the article. It's not clear when or where Chomsky spoke, and Chomsky does not comment on the 9/11 Truth movement, but on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The findings of the 9/11 Commission and of NIST are already described in the article to provide context, so adding Chomsky's views on 9/11 there is coatracking. The uploader of the video apparently runs a blog here, and it's not clear whether that blog can be considered independent. It's certainly not a reliable source. No indication of any secondary source referring to Chomsky's comments has been given.  Cs32en  12:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say you would need something more reliable to comment on a figure as prominent as Chomsky. But can you provide that exact quote it is used to support? Youtube is like Wikipedia. It is based on user added content. It is not peer reviewed. I am behind a firewall and cannot view the video. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor has added the following paragraph to the article, based on the YouTube video.  Cs32en  12:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky "the academy’s loudest and most consistent critic of U.S. policies at home and abroad" stated, regarding US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, "the evidence that has been produced is essentially worthless" and while the American government stood to benefit from the incident, "every authoritarian system in the world gained from September 11th." He argues that the enormous risk of an information leak, "it is a very porous system and secrets are very hard to keep", and consequences of exposure for the Republican party would have made such a conspiracy foolish to attempt. He dismisses observations cited by conspiracy proponents saying, "if you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence," arguing that even when a scientific experiment is carried out repeatedly in a controlled environment, phenomena and coincidences remain that are unexplained.

The quote sounds correct / true but it would be nice to have a better source. The quote is here in Salon [20] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an opinion column, but it would be a secondary source that references what Chomsky said. Thank you for finding the text!  Cs32en  13:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't view YouTube at work. The question is 1) where is the video from and 2) is it clear that the uploader had permission to upload it (ie. they are the copyright holder)? Because we don't link to copyvios. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is a red herring in that we can use a source even if it is a copyvio (just then not link to it). However, it seems clear that youtube videos of questionable provenance are not reliable sources. If this were from a channel of a known news organization or something like that it might be different. But as it stands this isn't reliable. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As Joshua says, youtube videos are not reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, that was my point entirely. If, say, this were a link to an interview of Person X on CBS, we'd only link to the YouTube if it was uploaded by CBS. If it was uploaded by Joe6PackLOL, we wouldn't link it, but could cite the original airing on CBS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't cite it even then, if you've only seen it on Youtube. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What, specifically, is the "Resolved" decision? On what finding of fact is the "Resolved" based? E.g. the video in question appears on Youtube in violation of the rights of the copyright holds, Chomsky is not a reliable source, etc.

Please forgive my pedantry on this topic but when the dust clears I am going to write up some proposed clarifications to YOUTUBE#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites, so I would like to understand this decision clearly. Note that the video in question is cited to verify the statements attributed to Chomsky in the article. Deicas (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The resolved was that we found an alternated source from Salon and that as youtube videos are self published they are rarely if ever appropriate sources. We discuss self published sources here. Youtube would be an example. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What has me confused here is that the video in question shows Chomsky, making the statements, that are attributed to him, in the Wikipedia article. In this instance, the video is no more and no less reliable than Chomsky himself. Contrast that to an identical video with some person off the street, e.g. me, making the same statements. In that case the video and the content therein would not be a reliable source on the topic because I am not a reliable source on the topic. Am I making sense? Deicas (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You assert that the video shows Chomsky. There is no verifiable and reliable source that gives the information that the Youtube video does in fact depict Chomsky. You may say that it is clearly showing Chomsky, beacsue you knwo what Chomsky looks like. However that would be original research on your part. Now if there were a relliable source that cited this particular Youtube clip in more than a paasing reference then that might help assert the reliability of the source. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources again. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If any good secondary source, or Chomsky's own website cites or links to the video then the video would be authenticated. If so, Chomsky's own views are probably notable enough to include in the article. But please check and see if there's a transcript or a position paper; rich media such as video shouldn't be our first choice for a reference link. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy groups exclusions & academic requirements

In this posting on this page, O18 and Simonm223 argue that advocacy groups can not be reliable sources and that there is a requirement for academic review. I find nothing in policy to support that claim. The fact is the much research is done by interest groups or advocacy groups of some kind on various topics. Most controversial articles in Wikipedia contain references that present a point of view from one side or another from such sources. No where in WP:RS does it even mention the word "advocacy group", "interest group", or otherwise. This claim that an advocacy group can not be a reliable source is not based on policy or even any sense of consensus. In fact, it is in opposition to wide consensus and policy. It could very well be a violation of NPOV to exclude such sources. It's like saying that you can't use AARP to source something on Medicare. They also seem to suggest that sources require academic peer-review. While certainly a goal for sourcing, I see nothing indicating this as a requirement or a definition of what satisfies that requirement. In addition, O18 makes the claim that anything published by an advocacy group is a self-published source. While some may fall into that category, it does not follow policy per what we describe that such sources are automatically considered self-published. I'm bringing this back up as it seems to be a major deviation from policy and if such is agreed upon, then policy should change to reflect the new consensus. Until a wider discussion on this issue is made, I do not want to accept this reasoning for source or content removal. Morphh ^(talk) 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this question should be addressed directly. How should advocacy groups publications be treated? Is this the right place? 0¹⁸ (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the talk page of the policy would be the relevant place, but I would say:

1. Advocacy groups generally should not be considered reliable sources for something which may be considered opinion. (Progressitivity seems to me to be opinion, as reputable economists disagree on the proper mesasures.) This would apply to claimed peer-reviewed publications of advocacy groups, as well.
2. However, advocacy groups who do not have a reputation for falsifying data may be acceptable for courtesy copies of reliable sources, or for facts (clearly not "opinion").
3. Advocacy groups' statements and publications which are frequently quoted in reliable sources as accurate should generally be considered reliable. (This probably does eliminate fairtax.org, but may include AARP.)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, would not excluding the opinion of well known advocacy groups be a violation of NPOV? Seems the main reason we use such sources is to add balance to articles. As for FairTax.org, their research has been quoted in reliable sources, NYT bestsellers, WSJ, peer-reviewed journals, testimony before Congress, etc. I think this would be sufficient.. where do you draw the line? Morphh ^(talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Morphh, can you please name the NYT article and the scholarly work that quotes fairtax.org for any reason other than to say, "fairtax.org's opinion on this is...". 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the view that advocacy groups cannot be reliable sources as a general statement. At least in the US, there's quite a bit of research and analysis done by and/or commissioned for advocacy groups. It also pre-judges advocacy groups as being incapable of rational, neutral analysis while stating the academia is unbiased. I find both of those stereotypical.

Sources should be evaluated the same regardless of where it's from. Blanket statements of this type don't benefit Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to add here that I think Morphh and I are interested in this question broadly, not just for the discussion he linked to above. As an example, the article FairTax is largely well cited in the sense that there are journal articles, mainstream media articles, and op-eds. But there are some unrefereed papers on academic websites and papers from groups like The Tax Foundation and fairtax.org. Are these reliable sources? 0¹⁸ (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree... As for the FairTax article itself, fairtax.org is a reliable source for their research and opinion on that topic. Even if the general argument follows your conclusion, such a site can be used on an article about itself. Morphh ^(talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To put another example out there, what about research sponored by non-academic groups? For economics, the Federal Reserve sponsors a fair amount of work, not all of which is published in a peer-reviewed journal. There are others in probably ever field. Would this change also exclude such sources? Ravensfire (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Another example on a BLP I was just looking at... An Anti-Defamation League special report referred to Beck as America's "fearmonger-in-chief"... we source the ADL report. This is a advocacy group source being used to support a criticism. I use this example as BLP articles are our most sensitive area when it comes to sources, and criticism/praise on a BLP even more so. Morphh ^(talk) 19:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rule

How about this

1. Advocacy groups publications can always be used so long as they are attributed to the source. i.e. "Citizens for the Idolization of LBJ's John Doe writes, ..."
2. When a particular piece by and advocacy group meets the requirements of scholarly work (cited by other scholarly works) it can be considered to be a scholarly work.

I think this is in line with RS and allows for inclusion of information that an advocacy group publishes, but it also makes it clear to the reader that the source should be considered in the text if the work has not been generally accepted--similar to an op-ed. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I demur. By definition, the work of advocacy groups tends to be biassed in nature in favor of the advocated positions. Readers do not generally understand nuances in articles - if a "fact" is given, they tend to believe it implicitly. We have sufficient problems already with editorial opinions -- treating something similar to them as a "reliable source" would likely increase disputes by another order of magnitude. Collect (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Now op-eds are unreliable? The point is bias.. every source is bias.. it's just a matter of degree and who is doing the assessment. That's not how RS works. Don't mix RS and NPOV. They are two different policies to address two different things. NPOV needs to be able to use sources with bias to present a neutral article (or multiple points of view) in many cases. The point is not to use sources without bias, that's impossible, but to use bias sources to write a neutral article presenting available viewpoints. Morphh ^(talk) 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Morphh, from WP:RS, "A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author." 0¹⁸ (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I misread his intent. Opinions should generally be attributed - this is part of NPOV policy. Morphh ^(talk) 23:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think works by advocacy groups should be considered on a case-by-case basis, considering that the term "advocacy group" can cover a wide range of organisations. So I don't think any specific rule will be helpful. The Campaign for Real Ale may be a good source for information about ale (depending on what the info is and in what context). Fathers 4 Justice is unlikely to be a reliable source for information about family law in the UK. Advocacy groups will often misrepresent facts, and often this will not be apparent. This is why we should be cautious about using them as sources for factual content. --FormerIP (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, not sure I see the part where my rule doesn't allow for case by case basis. I think your examples fit into the rule very well. Can you elaborate on that point? 0¹⁸ (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the bit where it says "can always be used", for one. But that's not the point. I can't see any reason to judge advocacy sources any differently to any other sources, taking into account their possible bias. Certainly, a rule encouraging their use is not a sensible idea. --FormerIP (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"Now op-eds are unreliable?" IIRC Op-eds are not considered RS for anything other than the editor's opinion without any new rules being put in. Oh and, btw, got around to reading up on the "fair tax". If this were some other forum I'd probably spill a few dozen pages on everything wrong with this bizarre proposal. As this is not a forum I'll just say that I'd suggest an advocacy group proposing any nation actually follow this plan walks dangerously close to WP:FRINGE territory. Simonm223 (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so to summarize the views here, Ravensfire and Morphh feel that advocacy groups produce lots of material that is written by generally respectable university faculty and so they are an indispensable source. Collect, Simonm223, and FormerIP generally think existing policy is sufficient and want to see continued case by case basis judgment. Is that right?

I went through trying to figure out a particular case with Morphh, saw only one contributor comment (which neither of us found very satisfying) and see that there are lots of other pages where this applies that I could end up spending lots of time trying to pair them down to something that is more in line with what it looks like Collect, Simonm223, and FormerIP think the RS guideline is. If it were just the editing and I could point to something that put said, "advocacy groups are at best given op-ed status unless they meet the scholarly work requirements" I think I would do it. But I don't really want to get RVed and then have to discuss ad nauseum the relative merits of peer-reviewed work and secondary sources versus paid advocacy papers with every page/section's Wikipedia editors. 0¹⁸ (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What about for example, a group advocating for evolution over creationism and a group advocating creationism over evolution? Do we say one is more reliable than the other? And if so on what policy grounds? eg- If a group calls itself a "human rights watchdog" does that mean it is inherently a RS and not possibly an advocacy group advocating for only one side's human rights and masquerading as a "human rights" watchdog? If it advocates only one group's rights is it still a RS for that group? Is an organization that is advocating for a highly popular opinion more reliable than one that advocates for a less popular opinion? With respect to the Fairtax vrs IRS -- the IRS could be seen as having an advocacy position with respect to taxes. Just some questions that are brought out by this discussion. Stellarkid (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. This has to be done on a case-by-case basis. I wouldn't cite a Klan-backed research paper for anything but showing what the Klan's opinion is, for instance. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to say in response to the above comments by Stellarkid and HandThatFeeds. How does, "advocacy groups are at best given op-ed status unless they meet the scholarly work requirements" not address these issues? Just in case, let me lay it out for you.

Q: Popular versus unpopular?

A: advocacy groups are at best given op-ed status. BUT if their publications meet the scholarly work requirements, then they can be considered scholarly works.

Q: What about the KKK?

A: advocacy groups are at best given op-ed status (this is essentially what you said, I think we agree). But I would argue the KKK, like the Nazis, are pretty much always an exception and are easily identified as such.

If this is unclear, I'd really like to know how. Why is having a policy that advocacy groups are given op-ed status by default bad? 0¹⁸ (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To correct, I feel advocacy groups can produce useful, reliable material. I don't think guidelines should be written as advocacy/non-advocacy groups, but in more general terms - peer-reviewed / non peer-reviewed maybe? I absolutely agree that there is (or should be) some inherent distrust of material from a group that openly states a position. So what happens if that is published in a peer-reviewed journal? You've got something in a respected journal, but the source is a known advocacy group or someone connected to a known advocacy group. I honestly don't know the answer to that one. Ravensfire (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In some cases, it's good to have a group that openly states a position. Then you can easily present that point of view for proper article balance. Bias is often, after all, in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't seem like a proper method for exclusion as a reliable source. An advocacy or op-ed point of view (or bias) is the purview of NPOV. It's our job to represent multiple viewpoints in relation to weight in reliable sources. If we exclude particular points of view from reliable sources based on their apparent advocacy, then we've negated the inherent balance of the NPOV policy. Similarly, restricting sources to peer-review journals can also hinder NPOV. As we know with recent Global Warming e-mails, peer-review journals can be controlled by biased interests. Sources must be flexible enough to allow sufficiently for non-mainstream views. Morphh ^(talk) 20:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Potentially false information in a reliable source

What should one do if the information provided in the reliable source is potentially false. Should it be tagged with some template? Is there any relevant template? I cannot find any appropriate one in WP:TC. I am specifically referring to article Sultan Rahi. This guy surely made many movies, but whether he was included in Guinness Records is not confirmed yet. I found this source from [www.dunyanews.tv Dunya News TV] but i believe it may potentially be false as imdb shows many actors with more prolific work. But they have not defined the word prolific. I mean in terms of movies, or soaps etc. Dunya News is a full fledged proper Urdu news channel. I have no doubt about it being a reliable source. But i think their team may have made a mistake here. I cannot see the Gui. Records book either because they don't mention all the records in each edition. It may be very pain staking to go through all editions. Same is the case with their website. Let me know if there is some easier method to do so. Do these particulars justify creating a new template for such situation. I mean, a template that should say further verificaton needed. Hamza ^{[ talk ]} 04:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hamza, I think the language used by Dunya News is wrong with a nationalistic overtone. But Sultan Rahi definitely has entry in the Guinness Book as I can see from a neutral reliable source (Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh by Om Gupta, pp. 2336-2337). [21] The correct language is, "He is in the Guinness Book of Records for acting in more movies than anyone in the world. He appeared in a little more than 500 movies." Hope this helps! --Defender of torch (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. What would you have recommended if there were no sources available? How would've you tagged the sentence reference? Hamza ^{[ talk ]} 09:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, interesting question which I will also like to know! Does anyone know how to deal with such situation? --Defender of torch (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You can tag the sentence with {{dubious}}, and then you open a discussion in the talk page, and you call the discussion "Dubious". The tag displays the words ^{[dubious – discuss]}. If the discussion already exists then use {{dubious|name of discussion in the talk page}}. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Rahi does not appear in Guinness World Records 2009. I haven't checked 2010 yet. The best source for Guinness records is Guinness. --Bejnar (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all records are mentioned in each edition. Did 2009 edition had entry for actor with most films?  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 10:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility of source

Could someone please confirm that sources do not need to be available free online? I've had this edit reverted on the basis that the Wall Street Journal article, which was available free online when I read it and updated the article based on it, is no longer available for free, so there is "no reference".[22]. Yes, I know this is standard, but on the basis of past interaction with this user, the chance of them accepting it based on my saying so is approximately zero. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 10:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL Sean.hoyland - talk 10:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Rd232 ^talk 11:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As you quite correctly state in a later edit summary, "references do not need to be online, never mind *free* online". If you removed the link altogether, it would still be a valid and reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

everyhit.com

The issue of finding reliable chart sources for British positions has come up again. In a nutshell, British charts are produced by the Official Charts Company, with the BBC being the first publisher of the chart. They are then republished in numerous physical media. Online, they are archived by the Official Charts Company for 100 weeks. This leaves us in the unfortunate situation that the primary and best online source converts into a deadlink in slightly under two years.

Various online archives keep information for longer. At WP:GOODCHARTS, the recommendation is to use chartstats.com, a recommendation that has been a source of controversy due to the anonymous nature of the archiver. These objections were primarily brought up by Goodraise.

Recently, Goodraise has objected to the use of everyhit.co.uk, specifically in the featured list reviews for the Pussycat Dolls and the Black Eyed Peas. This archive, while once again being an anonymously archived copy of the data, can be demonstrated to have been treated as reliable by multiple news sources. It was

• Used by the BBC as a source for movie theme chart positions
• Used by the Telegraph for information about Eurovision chart positions
• Used by Reuters in an article about Thin Lizzy
• User by the Norwegian newspaper "Aftenposten" in an article about the Beatles.

This level of use in my mind establishes the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by WP:RS. At the very least, I think it qualifies as a legitimate convenience link because the original source of the data has an impeccable reputation.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources expected to go dead can be archived case-by-case by editors using WebCite; obviously this doesn't help with links already dead. Rd232 ^talk 17:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a somewhat related topic to whether we can treat everyhit.com as reliable, but it is generally untrue with chart sites. All the archive facilities I am familiar with have difficulty recovering data retrieved from databases and searches, as opposed to be directly encoded in the source HTML.—Kww(talk) 17:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

the use of everyhit.com in those undoubtedly reliable sources as a source of information proves reliability. They would not use the source if they didn't think it was reliable, they have their own reputations to protect. and there are many more examples of its use. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump on this a bit, but can this discussion group clear up for me if Zobbel and αCharts are considered reliable? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In terms of fully meeting every requirement of WP:RSN, no. In terms of literal accuracy, in that they seem to correctly archive the things they archive, yes. Zobbel has problems with conflating charts: it can be difficult to determine which chart an album charted on unless you know the qualification rules for each chart beforehand. Acharts accurately archives charts that are unofficial charts to begin with, WP:GOODCHARTS is silent on Zobbel, and recommends against using acharts for good and featured articles. There are some times it is hard to avoid using Zobbel, as they are the only archive that preserves position 101-200 on the UK charts. Allowing its use is a case-by-case matter with me. Acharts is wholly unnecessary: every piece of data it archives is available on an official licensed archive as well.—Kww(talk) 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay I see that aCharts can be replaced, but with what? Going by everyHit, this seems to only archive no's 1-40, is there another website i should be looking at? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 01:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

British charts excepted. WP:GOODCHARTS recommends chartstats.com, but everyhit.com is arguably better when dealing with the first 40 positions, because of the usage noted in this discussion. It would be nice to get back on the original topic: the reliability of everyhit.com, and whether the references from news sources establish a reputation for reliability.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I will start a separate discussion elsewhere. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there books that provide these lists? Couldn't you just provide a reference to a relevant ISBN, then it would be valid for all time? Hibbertson (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the books over cover up until 2006/7, so anything after that still needs a web-based archive. Mister sparky (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Mister sparky. The days of large paper tomes detailing the complete histories of a chart are gone.—Kww(talk) 01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Convenient lists may not exist in book form, but the UK charts are still published on paper, aren't they? On a side note, it would be nice if this thread received some feedback from editors not involved in discography articles or FLCs. Goodraise 02:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Weekly trade magazines, yes. Technically possible to reference? Certainly. Reasonable? Not very, especially when there's an archive available that reliable news sources feel is reliable enough to use. Would you please respond to that point?—Kww(talk) 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have preferred to simply abide by the consensus of uninvolved editors, but since you're asking for my opinion, I'll state it. Is it reasonable? That's not the question. We need to cite reliable sources. EveryHit.com is either reliable or it isn't. Whether it's inconvenient not to use it is irrelevant. So, is it reliable? Since in this case, outside citation is the only indicator of reliability, I'd like to see more than just a handful of links. Goodraise 06:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to get some outside voices. At this juncture, it seems unlikely. We agree more than you think, BTW. I'd love to have some rock-solid, fully licensed and attributed permanent archive of these charts. The vast majority of my edits are eliminating poorly-sourced information and correcting sources. I'm between a rock and a hard place on this one, though. If I go 100% purist, I would be pushing for citations to the physical charts. In practice, those are unverifiable, though: very difficult for editors outside of the UK to get access to, and not easy for the average UK citizen to access, either. If someone cited a position in a UK chart to ChartsPlus, I would wind up verifying it against Everyhit and ChartStats, and, if it mismatched, I would wind up either deleting the information or correcting it to match the information found in the archives because, whether they meet WP:RS or not, their accuracy has not been brought into question: if the mismatching information was referenced to the physical chart, the odds are that the information is incorrect, not that all three archives got it wrong. Worse yet, I can see people forging the physical citations as the path of least resistance: look up the date on EveryHit, and forge the reference based on the information retrieved from there. Of course, when people verify it, they will look at ChartStats or Everyhit to verify, completing the loop of forgery.

I've asked Mister sparky to search diligently for more high-quality references to everyhit.com. Hopefully, we can find enough to make you feel more comfortable. I would also like to hear your views on these cites with regard to WP:CONVENIENCE. That's a guideline that I have tried to engage in discussion with you about multiple times, but you have never replied.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since WP:CONVENIENCE leads to an essay, I'll ignore what is being said there and instead assume that you meant to link to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Convenience links, which, by the way, is a style guideline, as opposed to a content guideline. First off, pages given as convenience links need to be reliable sources. They are not exempt from that. Secondly, it's "convenience links", not convenience references. When the original source goes offline, you place a link in the reference to the original source (in {{cite web}} this is done using |archiveurl=), not replace the whole reference. ChartStats and everyHit.com may accurately archive the raw data of the official website, but their pages are not true copies of the originally referenced ones.
If you're saying that we should rather openly use inferior sources than risking forgery, then I'll have to strongly disagree. Since we are all volunteers, it makes no sense to call any one of us lazy, but if an editor is unwilling to do the proper footwork to write the kind of quality articles that our readers deserve and instead resorts to such improper methods, then the project would be better off without that editor. I'm not willing to accept bad sources for that reason, let alone supporting the promotion of an article using it to featured status.
At this point, the only two things that I can picture persuading me to accept everyHit.com as reliable is a substantial amount of high quality, third-party usage/recommendation and/or advocacy from several uninvolved editors. Goodraise 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say allow it. We have to have some flexibility in how we do things, and I think you've made a good case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good link: BBC Radio One specifically recommends using everyhit.com to search British chart history.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources at Dorothy Kilgallen

As an option to attempt to solve a situation about whether appropriate for use as external links, the website http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/kilgallen.txt was insterted within the article as a reference. It seems even more clear to me that the use of the website as a source within the article is even more troublesome. MM207.69.139.142 (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is Eric Paddon and where has he published this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not reliable as it stands; however, it may be published elsewhere as Jayjg notes above. It appears that Eric Paddon is an instructor (of some type) in the History Department at the County College of Morris in Randolph, New Jersey. He may well be a professor, associate professor or assistant professor. --Bejnar (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be allowable under selfpubs by an expert? The subject of the biography passed away in the 1960s, so the provisions of BLP do not apply. As appears in the diff, the material is properly cited and attributed, I would only suggest some NPOV tweaks to clarify that this is an "opinion", a "claim". Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question

There is currently a dispute on this page about the following passage of text:

Authorship proponents also note new research by Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter which they believe confirm the earlier sources cited by Kermode and Bullough.[139] Alden T. Vaughan, however, has challenged the conclusions of Kositsky and Stritmatter in his 2008 paper "A Closer Look at the Evidence", particularly in charging William Strachey with plagiarism - a charge that Vaughan concluded was in error.[140] In 2009, Stritmatter and Kositsky further developed the arguments against Strachey's influence in a Critical Survey article demonstrating the pervasive influence on The Tempest of the much earlier travel narrative, Richard Eden's 1555 Decades of the New World.[141] CS editor William Leahy commented that "the authors show that the continued support of Strachey as Shakespeare's source is, at the very least, highly questionable."[142]

The dispute concerns the last sentence (which I have bolded). There is no dispute that Critical Survey constitutes a reliable source, though of course that does not mean that arguments of its contributors are therefore "true". Academics often propose POVs attacking the POVs of other academics, and this is the case here. The question is whether the opinion of the editor of the journal should be quoted as significant, or whether this, in effect, constitutes advertising for the journal, "puffing" its contents. Can the editor of the journal be considered to be a reliable commentator on the value of articles contained within it? Paul B (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a difficult question. Given the conflict of interest, I'd say it should probably be avoided. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't avoid it, as above, but I would treat it as an editorial opinion. --Bejnar (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Whosdatedwho.com?

Is this site a reliable source for birthdates? Someone has used it to cite a birthdate in a BLP (a biography of a minor in fact) See Daeg Faerch and [23]. LadyofShalott 03:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User-generated content, no evidence of editorial oversight. Not a WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my impression, thanks. LadyofShalott 04:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fein, Rummel, Midlarsky,Valentino

in order to remove material from wikipedia [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] it has been claimed that following scholars have never used such terms and/or "there is no proof that these terms have ever been introduced"

• Helen Fein, a chapter on "Soviet and Communist Genocides and 'Democide" in Genocide: a sociological perspective; "Contextual and Comparative Studies I: Ideological Genocides". Sage Publications. p. 75. ISBN 9780803988293. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• R.J. Rummel on "communist democide" in Totten, Samue; (2002). Pioneers of genocide studies. Transaction Publishers. p. 166. ISBN 9780765801517. These books on communist democide are packed with figures and graphs... {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link);
  

Rummel, R.J. (2007). China's bloody century: genocide and mass murder since 1900. Transaction Publishers. p. 100. ISBN 9781412806701. Next to be considered is the communist democide... {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Manus I. Midlarsky on "communist politicide" in Midlarsky, Manus (2005). The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century. Cambridge University Press. p. 310. ISBN 9780521815451. Indeed, an arc of Communist politicide can be traced from the western portions of the Soviet Union to China and on to Cambodia. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Benjamin A. Valentino on "communist mass killings" Valentino, Benjamin (2005). "Communist mass killings:The Soviet union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. p. 91. ISBN 9780801472732. Understanding communist mass killings is of vital importance not only... {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

unless I'm completely missing something with this, in case the scholars listed above have never used such terms indeed like claimed, the sources where its printed on black and white must not be reliable?--Termer (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear it is not a question of reliability of sources. The proper venue for this discussion is an RfC. (Igny (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

Agree with Igny. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you agreeing with him. --FormerIP (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Igny, TFD and FormerIP. And wonder why Termer started this thread without notifying people on the talk page of the article? Again? If any admins see this, please note how Termer keeps following the patterns of Wikipedia:DISRUPTIVE#How disruptive editors evade detection.--Anderssl (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ask that AGF be observed where an editor has sought to use noticeboards for a specific query. The use of accusations here is not warranted, and may lead others to determine that those making the attacks are indeed the attackers. Collect (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In case anything was unclear from my behalf: I'm only interested in the question if the sources listed above are considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, and based on it either those sources can be used or not for the material in question that's getting removed from wikipedia? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the point implied by Igny is that no-one disputes that they are reliable, but that is a different question to the broader one of whether they are suitable for the article. If you do get approving opinions about the reliability of the sources, this would in no way entitle you to re-insert material into the article. An RfC would be better for getting comments on the wider issues. --FormerIP (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

a note to editors who voted for deletion of the article and now attempt to delete the article in bits and pieces by removing sourced materials. I'm already aware of your opinions, there is no need to keep repeating it.--Termer (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Letters to the editor

An editor at Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying patient is insisting on using letters to the editor of a newspaper as a source. Is this permitted here? --Reef Bonanza (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would think not since anyone can write into it. And besides, the letters don't support the claim. A nurse agreed, but the doctor didn't. Soxwon (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The only situation where a letter to the editor might, possibly be considered reliable is if it could be clearly established that it was written by a recognized expert in the field that is the topic of the letter (and even then it would only be reliable for an attributed statement as to that expert's opinion on the matter). Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Even the Times has been taken in by false letters - if the opinion is notable, it ought to be somewhere else. This, by the way, does not apply to Op-Ed pieces whiere the newspaper is certain of the source. Collect (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In this case it looks as if we have a piece that references the letter and the letter itself. Does not the fact that The Telegraph has chosen to print an article about a letter it has received give the letter higher level of notability than it would otherwise have? You could look at it that the letter is not being presented as an RS here - the statement is supported by the newspaper article alone - but just as footnoted further information. --FormerIP (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A letter to the editor of a top newspaper should be a reliable source for the assertion that the author holds the views that are expressed in the letter. It must not be used as a coatrack to assert those views, though. Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The third letter, in particular, is from one of the doctors the original press piece rested on, clarifying his position, which he thought was otherwise not sufficiently clear. That seems to me extremely relevant, and worth citing -- incientally passing Blueboar's criteria.

Regarding Soxwon's point that the letters don't all support the claim, that is exactly one of the reasons I thought it was so useful to cite them -- to make clear that qualified respondents had widely different responses to the initial Telegraph article. Including the citation makes clear that there was no universal or even groundswell agreement with the rather scare-mongering tone of the original journalist's piece.

Regarding Collect's point, if this had been the case, that somebody was deliberately impersonating one of the doctors quoted in the original story, there would have been a furore, the Telegraph would have published a retraction, and you can be sure it would have been all over the press. None of this happened.

Finally, I'd note that a story by a medical journalist working for a mass-circulation newspaper which might have been quite happy to create a circulation-reinforcing moral panic about the NHS, at a time also when the U.S. health reform proposals were at a particularly sensitive stage is not necessarily the last word in absolute reliability. (See Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, anyone, for some of the constraints such journalists have to work under). In my view, a direct statement from one of the doctors who actually started the story rolling actually constitutes at least as reliable a source. Jheald (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already commented at the article. To me the issue isn't so much about reliability of sourcing but of notability of the issue. Perhaps the reasons that you're having to have a discussion about reliability is an indicator that the issue isn't sufficiently notable to talk about in the article.

Taking a pretty dispassionate look, there are many thousands of palliative care clinicians practicing in both the NHS and the private sector in the UK. The LCP is widely used. there are five signatories to the letter, one of whom felt it appropriate to clarify his position. The Telegraph article is 4 months old and there is little to corroborate the issue.

I think you need to work harder to substantiate the assertion that this is worth talking about, that way the sourcing should sort itself out.

ALR (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that the doctor who signed the letter that the story was based upon felt the need to comment further on how their views were presented, I think this is valuable information for the article. Their views are already being cited in the article if you include the Telegraph piece, so this would be directly relevant. However, in the larger scheme of things, we have many more reliable sources that this tabloid newspaper, so including more than this single reference to the story and a response from The Times would be undue weight. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Since when is the London Daily Telegraph a "tabloid"? At any rate, the letter to the editor is only cited to show that some doctors have criticized the guideline, not for facts. In general a letter to the editor would fall somewhere between a secondary and a primary source; an editor has decided the opinion is notable enough to print, and there may be some fact-checking. Also, a practicing physician writing on a medical topic should qualify as an expert. I'd say if the opinion is worked into the fabric of the article and not just a tangent, then it should be a fine source for the way it's used. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Human_Rights_Foundation

Could someone (Spanish required) please pitch in at Talk:Human_Rights_Foundation#moved_from_article? I see no evidence that the statement is supported by the sources. Rd232 ^talk 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Shochu

Please confirm the following two sources are unreliable and should not be used for Wikipedia. The disputed point is the description about history of Shochu.

1. "Shochu". Practically Edible.

   The Terms of Use says "The articles provided on this website are for entertainment purposes only and should not be relied upon for any purpose other than entertainment." Is Wikipedia entertainment?

2. "What is Shochu?". Cocktail Times.

   Curiously enough, there is exactly the same description in both articles; "I was disappointed that the manager didn't offer us a glass of shochu for all the hard work we've done for his shrine." This description is a translation of Japanese document. So it cannot be the same unless either of them copied another or both of them copied other article. The corresponding description in Shōchū is "The high priest was so stingy he never once gave us shōchū to drink. What a nuisance!". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

mako.org.au

Is the website mako.org.au ever a reliable source? It is a kind of public list of convicted (or not) criminals (" 98+% of offenders listed in the MAKO/Files Online and MAKO/Files Online- (WTC) have been convicted by a court of law."), without any kind of official backing, reputation for fact-checking, ... As this is used for extremely sensitive information (identifying paedophiles, murderers, ...), I don't believe that this source is good enough. It is currently used on 36 pages.[29] Any ideas?

Original US gov't or academic sources, and excerpts from those sources

• ORIGINAL US GOVERNMENT SOURCES

Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/

FRUS is a good research tool for persons interested in foreign policy and related issues. FRUS is the official documentary historical record of major US foreign policy decisions, produced by the US Dept. of State. Is this a reliable source? I would think so, but would appreciate some verification.

• EXCERPTS FROM US GOVERNMENT SOURCES

Additionally, when doing research in the FRUS, some of the relevant documents may extend over several pages, and the portions relevant to the particular research subject at hand may be scattered here and there, etc., etc., over various pages, so for various reasons it is desirable to produce a series of excerpts of the FRUS, with a LINK back to the original page or pages. Is there any rule against quoting from a US government source in this fashion? The following would be an example -- http://www.taiwanbasic.com/state/frus/frus1948aa.htm

Continuing on in this line of inquiry, as regards what constitutes RS, we have some US government documents which are very difficult to locate online, or if located, are quite lengthy. The 1971 Starr Memorandum of the US Dept. of State is one good example. It is actually online at -- http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/One-China.cfm in PDF format, and is thirteen pages in length. Such a format, and length, makes it less than "convenient" for the access of many who use the internet. Nevertheless, I believe it meets the requirements of being an RS . . . . . so is that affected if a page of excerpts are presented in friendly html format? For an example, see -- http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/starr.htm (I don't believe that a collection of a few excerpts presents any kind of copyright problem.)

• ACADEMIC SOURCES

Long before the days of the internet, a very important article discussing the international legal status of Taiwan was published in the Yale Law Journal. See Who Owns Taiwan: A Search for International Title, by Lung-chu Chen and W. M. Reisman, The Yale Law Journal, March 1972. Is this a reliable source?? I would think so, being in such a prestigious law journal. However, it is very difficult to reference this article, because neither I nor my associates have ever been able to find a complete copy of the article in a publicly accessible internet site. I did manage to find a copy in a library once, and it was 73 pages long. I did photocopy some portions, and put those excerpts on a webpage, whereupon a friend was kind enough to fix it up in html format and post it on the web, see -- http://www.civil-taiwan.org/cairo-potsdam1.htm Does presenting the information in this way violate any rules?

• TREATY SOURCES

Is an international treaty considered an RS? When making reference to a treaty, are we required to quote various articles of the treaty to back up our statements? For example, in the Treaty of Peace with Italy (1947), there was no authorization for transfer of the sovereignty of the Dodecanese islands to Turkey. For someone who has read the treaty, this is common sense, but others might argue that this is an "interpretation" or violates NPOV? How do we deal with such claims of other Wiki editors?

In a similar fashion, the Treaty of Paris (1898) did not cede the Philippines to New Zealand. But, if I write this on some Wiki page, and someone challenges my "assertion," and quickly deletes my statement(s) from the relevant Wiki page, how should my response be made? I am presenting the material objectively, and yet I am being challenged!!! This is very disturbing. Are there rules against "propaganda"? (I don't find any page for WP:Propaganda) My point is that there may be some people who believe that the Philippines are a long-lost island chain of New Zealand. From my point of view, that appears to be propaganda, but the people who promote that view obviously don't question it very thoroughly.

So . . . . where do verifiability and objectivity end, . . . and propaganda and political posturing begin?? I find myself often having this problem when quoting from US government sources and also from international treaties. Arguably, for someone with a lack of expertise on the content of a particular treaty, it might be necessary to read the entire treaty to comprehend one fact. What one fact? Well, an example would be if I wrote that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) did not cede the Mexican state of Tamaulipas to the United States. (Obviously, some treaties are long and somewhat complicated.) So, what is the correct course of action for me when I am challenged on something like this which (from a straightforward reading of the treaty) is an objective fact? And/or when I can offer verifiable commentary from prestigious sources (law journals, US government documents, etc.) to support my writing?

Significantly, in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco (1952) and Treaty of Taipei (1952) there was no authorization for transfer of the sovereignty of "Formosa and the Pescadores" (aka Taiwan) to China. This is quite clear from a straightforward reading of both treaties. The Starr Memorandum (mentioned above) also clarifies this point in detail. And yet when making simple references to such matters on various webpages, I often see my contributions deleted by other Wiki editors or moderators who claim that I have violated the rules for Verifiability (RS), NPOV, or OR.

I don't think that I have violated these rules. Can someone explain the rules/guidelines in more detail? Hmortar (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources you list above all seem to be primary sources. They may well be reliable, but being primary they require a secondary source to interpret them, establish their notability and put them in context. If you already have such a secondary source, then using these primary sources to add details would generally be OK, as long as there is no interpretation or analysis required. Even selecting or highlighting a specific piece out of a primary source can be viewed as advancing a position, so this too can only be done if it is backed up by a secondary source. In summary, per WP:NOR, primary sources should be used very carefully, and never to establish notability. Secondary sources should be used to establish the big picture, with primary sources in a supporting role to add non-controversial details. Crum375 (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly as Crum375 says. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am not going to be able to address all of the original poster's questions, but I do have some comments. With regard to the Yale Law Journal mentioned under "Academic Sources" above, there is no problem with citing a journal article that is available in print but not online. As stated at WP:RS, "It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." In this case, the Yale Law Journal is likely to be found at law libraries throughout much of the world. According to WorldCat.org, it is collected at hundreds of libraries throughout the United States, as well as some in Canada, Ireland, the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Argentina, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, and Singapore. So anyone who wants to take the effort to track down the article and confirm the citation should be able to do so. The link you provided to civil-taiwan.org is at best just a convenience link. Looking at that page, one cannot be sure if it is an accurate reflection of the Yale Law Journal article because it is a very unofficial reprint -- the only way to be sure is to compare it to the original article, but if one had the original article, one wouldn't need the convenience link page. Finally, I note that the Yale Law Journal article most likely takes a position in support of one particular side of the dispute over Taiwan, and so Wikipedia should not take the opinions expressed in the article as the definitive truth due to WP:NPOV concerns. Rather, it should present the opinions in that article as one perspective on the dispute. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Also, with regard to the Starr Memorandum, I note that its appearance at heritage.org is itself a reprint (presumably there is some official U.S. government publication where it previously appeared), although the Heritage Foundation is an established organization (notwithstanding it may take a particular point of view on this dispute) and can presumably be trusted to reprint the document in full accurately. Putting up excerpts from the document at taiwanbasic.com would be getting even farther from the original source -- an unofficial reprint of an unofficial reprint. I don't see why the 13-page PDF at heritage.org is considered so inconvenient; as computers get faster, even much longer PDFs can be read without much difficulty. So I would strongly recommend citing either to the PDF at heritage.org, or even better to a reprint at an academic site, or best of all to a U.S. government site, for this U.S. government document. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday - sources.

An editor of Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday is attempting to use the following sources to verify the scale of the event.

• UfA TON-WOCHE, Hitler's 50th Birthday - Documentary film
• http://www.ihffilm.com/16.html

The first appears to be a Nazi propaganda film, which he maintains is "an official record". The second appears to be advertising blurb on a site selling a DVD of the same. Hohum (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If the film backs up what it is being sourced for (the leader of the Slovak republic attended the celebrations) then I see no problem with that (though I would prefer an English language source)t. As to the second, there is a problem I think here. It does not contain any information beyond this event happening. Nor does it strictly reflect the passage it is used as a source for, but this may be a translation problom (demonstration as opposed to parade).Slatersteven (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in the film being termed "an official record". An official film record in Nazi Germany will, after all, be a Nazi propaganda film. Indeed, any official records that take a point of view are going to reflect to some extent of the regime it is an official record of. The film can certainly be used as a source - although as Slatersteven notes, as and I am sure you know anyway, it does take a biased view. The second link, as Slatersteven says, is not actually a source. It merely shows that you can acquire a film called "Hitler's birthday parade". It shouldn't be used as a source for anything other than that fact. I don't really have a problem about the film not being in English. Hibbertson (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Does a site that has been claimed to be copy violating automatically non-RS?

Whether or not truckads.com is a RS on its own is not the question right now, it is only an example I have handy for this question, so please dont get sucked into tangents, as I know there are other issues about this site. The question is- it is claimed that this site doesnt have Nielson's permission to use its data and therefore it is a copyvio problem and therefore we cant use it, because the site we are citing is a copyvio even though we arent violating any copyrights because we are simply citing non-copyrighted information that happens to also be on the site. But is that an issue for us? Do we automatically not use legitimately accurate information because the site we link to MAY be copyviolating? I have no proof other than others say "it is claimed" that it is a copyvio site, I assume since we've had this link for quite some time now and the site still exists and hasnt been sued and removed that these are just "claims". I dont believe it is a matter for us to consider in considering whether or not this or any site is a RS. Along with the problem that we use neilson information ourselves, so do newspapers, there's nothing proprietary about the information that it cant be used on another site, so I'm not sure what the copyvio issue exactly since the articles in question do say that the description given is of Nielson geographic DMA's, it isnt claiming that they are something else, it is giving credit to Nielson. But anyways, in my opinion the only thing that should matter is in regards to being an RS or not is- is the information being cited accurate? If so, it's a RS for that piece of information; if not it is not a RS for that information. The NY Times for example if it gets a piece of information wrong it can not be cited as a RS for that information because the information is not accurate. We throw around things like "verifiable, not the truth", but ultimately it DOES come down to- is the information accurate? I am talking about information in which there is in fact a truth, eg- Nielson's DMA geographic area either does or doesnt cover certain counties; I dont want to get into an argument about "there is no truth" on this issue, I want to keep it to topic please.Camelbinky (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the issue some have is they claim the maps are copied from Nielsen, and are copyrighted, when looking at the truckads DMA maps it appears they are created by truckads.com itself and not copy/pasted from a Nielsen website, it is similar to us creating our own maps based on the boundaries seen on copyrighted maps. I find that us linking to those said maps to cite a prose description of what counties are in a DMA to not be a copyvio problem. Would like many opinions.Camelbinky (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the context of your question and purely address the hypothetical. Yes, a copyright violating site can be a reliable source, though empirically it would be quite uncommon for a site to be reliable while also violating copyright. The copyright provisions say we cannot link to copyright violating sites, so don't link to them. The site could still be referenced as a source in much the same way that dead tree media can be referenced, i.e. with no url or other online link. Hence, there is no strict connection between the legality of the content a site hosts and the reliability of that site (especially when the content being cited may be strictly separate from the content that is subject to a copyright dispute). However, as I said above, it would be very unusual for a reliable site to host copyright violating material, and the reliability of any site suspected of doing so would have to be reviewed carefully. But the reliability of the content is, in principle, a separate issue. I'm not personally interested in considering the specifics of the case you outline above, but perhaps someone else will be able to do so shortly. Dragons flight (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a question of RS, it's a question of WP:LINKVIO. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Stifle, from what I've seen you write elsewhere I believe you think it is a copyright violation because you think Truckads.com is using maps directly from Nielsen, this is not true as far as I can ascertain. The maps on the site are those created solely for use by Truckads.com, this would not be a copyright violation then. Please explain if I got things wrong, if you have proof that the maps are copy/pasted directly from Nielsen then you would be correct. If you are saying that no one can create their own maps showing what counties Nielsen puts in their DMA's then you are incorrect, as anyone can do that, we do the same thing on Wikipedia all the time. In fact I bet there are several throughout Wikipedia showing DMA's of Nielsen. Please explain why you believe the site is a copyright violator. If it isnt then I'll be putting the links back.Camelbinky (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a link to one of their maps. It is the map itself that is being called a copyvio. The map is clearly labeled being the copyright of Truckads.com and I have found no evidence it is lifted from any other site. This isnt a copyvio issue. Anyone can make a map of anything they want. You cant copyright the information presented in a map, only the particular map you created itself. Prove me wrong.Camelbinky (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to claim a copyright in a determination of what counties/regions/cities come into a region, as this is a judgment of opinion and is creative authorship. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Source I used on Apache Ain't Shit

I used a website set up by Jared Taylor to illustrate that the track "Kill D'White People" is hate speech against whites. Whilst the source may or may not constitute a reliable source, I hope there's no one here who does not consider a black rapper saying "kill the white people" to be a form of hate speech.--HulolsIam (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In principle, I think you'd be better off using a neutral source, than one racist bad-mouthing another. Crum375 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless an RS calls it that we cannot, no matter what our views may be.Slatersteven (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

List of review farm websites?

Is there a wiki page or project that holds a list of known "review farm" websites?

Every week I am contacted by about twenty different websites wanting to write reviews on software my various companies sell. All they want in return is a reciprocal link. Such reviews are never neutral as they want to get as many reviews on their websites as possible and ideally you to publish the article on your own website. eg: cmswire, cmswatch...

There are also a number of websites that allow marketing managers to publish articles themselves. eg: pcworld.com, pressdispensary.co.uk...

In terms of quickly establishing and flagging non-notable references, if such a list existed the wiki system itself could be made to highlight such references. Sendalldavies (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Pseudonymous news column

I just inserted in an article in which I'm the main editor, United States Senate election in California, 1950, a tidbit from a political news article from March 1950, from the Los Angeles Daily News, about a bid for the Senate being dropped. The article consists of a number of various political tidbits, but the byline is given as "Frank Observer", something which was not unusual in Southern California newspapers of that era (possibly elsewhere too). I've put a comment in the reference stating "obviously a pseudonym". Anything else needs to be done?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be OK, as long as the publisher is reputable, which is what we focus on. I don't see it different from not having a byline at all, which would still be reliable if the publisher is. But I don't see the comment there at the moment. Crum375 (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The only caveat is that the publisher of the Daily News, in fact the day of this article, began his own run for the Senate seat. However, there is no mention of that in this news article, it would not have been in until the following day's edition. And there is no indication in this column that there is anything but straight news being reported.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is reliable sourcing for a potential conflict of interest by a source, it should be mentioned, in my opinion, but does not disqualify the source (POV is allowed). Also, I still don't see the comment about the pseudonym in the footnote. Crum375 (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It is there now, I had it as a hidden comment and made it a visible part of the footnote. How's that?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Come Softly to Me" appears to have been performed by Delta Rhythm Boys in 1955, several years before the Fleetwoods!

I have seen some references from Billboard Magazine dated March 9, 1959, P 52 and 53 referencing the Fleetwood's release of "Come Softly to Me."

Also can see the video clip of their appearance on the Dick Clark Show on Youtube the same year 1959.

But "Come Softly to Me" appears to have been performed by Delta Rhythm Boys in 1955, several years before the Fleetwoods! Karlamorningsun (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A youtube video of the song, with the only claim to have been performed in 1955 being the title chosen by a random person on the internet, is not a reliable source for that claim. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Someguy. There's no way to know that the YouTube poster put the correct year on the video. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be 1961 from the cites I can find - Scopitone was still alive then, so the video could date from that time easily. Fun looking it up <g>. Collect (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Are Amicus Briefs Reliable Sources?

Are amicus briefs from relevant experts reliable sources? Phoenix of9 03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Amicus briefs are designed to advance a particular POV. They exist solely to advance a particular position before a Court of law. Instead of relying upon Amicus briefs, one should link directly to the sources contained within the briefs. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Amicus briefs are reliable only in terms of stating what party X believes about a question of law. Stuff that is on point is reliable in terms of what party X believes. Beyond that, then no. Ngchen (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, are amicus briefs from American Psychological Association a reliable source with respect to LGBT parenting? Phoenix of9 03:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think they would be fine in suggesting what the APA believes about a position. However, research within the brief should be linked directly. It is important to remember that an Amicus brief exists only to assert a particular POV. That's why they are created and filed. They are inherently biased towards a certain position. It is best to extract the scientific research directly. Science > advocacy. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The American Psychological Association is the association of psychologists in the USA, therefore an official statement by the APA is a reliable source for facts about psychology. It should be regarded as a secondary source, whereas the individual scientific papers are more likely to fall into the category of primary sources. The only caveat that applies is that there may be more than one view among psychologists, in which case all major viewpoints should be mentioned. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Weekly Standard a Reliable Source for Facts in a BLP?

To those not involved in the Bill Moyers article, would The Weekly Standard be regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of a BLP citation about facts on the subject? The author of the article, Stephen Hayes, is a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a former director of the Institute on Political Journalism at Georgetown University. The article cited is used for simply describing the earnings of the subject of the BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 08:54, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

As much as I dislike the Weekly Standard's ideology, I would say yes. Just because a source is partisan doesn't mean it can't be reliable. Ngchen (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RS for that sort of factual material (the WS does have editors). Opinions, however, must be cited as opinions. Collect (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Weekly Standard is a RS for facts, but opinions should be cited as opinions. THF (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What does the article actually say, and why would it have access to the information it provides? Are there other reliable sources available for the same information?

Although not relevant to the question as to whether The Weekly Standard is a reliable source for the information you wish it to support, I do wonder why a subject's earnings (presumably for a particular period of time) are relevant or notable enough for inclusion in the article. Hibbertson (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Some excerpts from the article about earnings (it has access on some specifics because they're public record; the rest don't come with specifics):

If I have it wrong, so does the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Their records show that over the past decade, Moyers took a total of $969,377, though nothing since 1994. Some might call this nitpicking. After all, PBS was created with federal funds, and the indistinguishable streams of taxpayer, corporate, and foundation money that flow through public broadcasting makes the Enron partnerships look simple in comparison. What's more, many of the shows Moyers produces for public television come with companion books, and Moyers sells most of his productions in video after they air on PBS...What he will tell us, though, is that with the production of "Now with Bill Moyers," he has decided to suspend his privatization...When I asked Moyers if he sees any irony in the fact that he's a wealthy man owing in no small part to his long association with public television...He quietly earns $200,000 a year as president of the Florence and John Schumann Foundation...

The issue of earnings is relevant because he earns quite a bit from publicly funded public television.--Drrll (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

First, the excerpt seems quite old - presumably you can date it. If he took that amount over the past decade, but nothing since 1994. It suggests it is information from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. If WS is usually considered reliable, I'd say this info appears to be reliably sourced - but be careful about the year. Even if the 200k figure is correct for the Florence and John Schumann Foundation, it is not clear where this info came from (could it have come from the Foundation itself?), nor is it clear what year it refers to. Did he receive 200k once for one or more years, and which years? The article seems as though it ought to be treated as reliable for the info from the CFB, but be careful over what you actually distil from it given its apparent age. In the absence of some idea as to where the info on the Foundation would come from, I wouldn't want to use the 200k figure. Hibbertson (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I also note this [30], which offers greater clarity on dates. I do not comment on its reliability though it does appear to have been written after an interview with him. Hibbertson (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Weekly Standard is a partisan source, but it is completely reliable to use in BLPs. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the founder and editor in chief of the WS is neocon Bill Kristol, a well known GOP apparatchik who has had his errors and slanted reporting revealed numerous times (look it up, but for example Kristol Fails To Check His Sources, And So Bungles Key Fact In Anti-Obama Column), I find it hard to believe editors here are okaying his partisan periodical as RS for the BLP of one of his hated enemies. A RS is defined as known for fact checking and accuracy, and there are numerous examples where this has not happened in the Weekly Standard. ► RATEL ◄ 05:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RATEL, an isolated case of error reporting by a single individual does not make the entire magazine unreliable. And your claim "there are numerous examples where this (fact checking and accuracy) has not happened in the Weekly Standard" is unsubstantiated claim. --Defender of torch (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You want I should dig up a long list of refs for that claim? Because they exist, rest assured. ► RATEL ◄ 09:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And moving on from Kristol, what about the author of the piece, Hayes? From his biography on wikipedia:

Bill Moyers dispute

Hayes also gained some attention with a piece attacking former PBS host Bill Moyers whom he claims interviewed "Cornel West, O.J. Simpson attorney Alan Dershowitz, and Vagina Monologues playwright Eve Ensler. Bill Moyers replied in a letter to the editor, "He gets it right only once. I have never met or interviewed Alan Dershowitz or Eve Ensler." Moyers summarized the piece famously as "replete with willful misrepresentation, deceitful juxtaposition, and outright error, with a little hypocrisy thrown in for flavor."Bill Moyers Responds."

Now that's what I call the exact diametric opposite of a reliable source. ► RATEL ◄ 09:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Moonfruit.com

I recently afd James Hyland who seems to me to be self-verified. But is moonfruit.com OK as a source? If not, should it be added to a spam list? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Moonfruit.com looks like it is just a platform for people to build their own Websites - what is the specific page which is being used as a source? Barnabypage (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

James Hyland official website] Kittybrewster ☎ 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's his website, then it should be fine as a source for content about him. Such a source can be used for a biography when it belongs to the person being written about. However, I don't think it would have much weight for Notability with regard to an AFD. Morphh ^(talk) 16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Barnabypage. If there is an article hosted on a subdomain of moonfruit.com I personally wouldn't trust it to be independant or a notable source. Subdomains are given away to anyone using their website development platform. Regarding "spam list": I have a topic on the reliable sources noticeboard#Review Farms page asking if such a list exists in wiki. Sendalldavies (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

$10 and you can spin up your own domain name.. where the site is hosted is of little relevance. Follow the RS policies and you should be fine, regardless of where the site is hosted. I'll also note that independent is not a requirement, particularly if you're talking about the website of the biography person, which would also be notable for that person. So again, it all depends on what it is being used for, which the RS policy should already cover. Morphh ^(talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Resolved

A request for clarification: the article is about some people hacking into an academic server and the resulting investigation of both the crime and the reaction to the content of the released email. There have been two self published books about this incident - they are obviously not reliable sources, but the fact that they were published seems to be notable to the reactions section. What constitutes a reliable source to make such a claim? Simply the fact that the books exist would be trivially cited. On the other hand, there have been no news stories about the publications in a reliable source. But that is the case for most books. What is the correct way to go about this? Ignignot (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The existance of the books cannot be verified from a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated (quoted from Hipocrite and my discussion on his talk page): "Nothing about the books except their existance is verifiable. They exist and have titles, publishers, whatever. They are not notable untill a reliable source mentions them. That's all we know. This is like wikipedia 101. It's the same as if I made a blog. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)"

So then the question is - is the fact that two books were published about the article topic notable to the article if they have not been mentioned in a newspaper? It seems like a high hurdle for information that a reader would want to know. One of the main uses for wikipedia is to find more in depth information regarding a topic. I have not read the books, and I suspect that they have some seriously fringe ideas in them, but I am not sure that excludes them. Ignignot (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What information do you want to put into the article, and what is the reliable source that leads you to believe that information is verifiable? Please don't commit WP:OR by WP:SYNTH, for instance, by subtracting dates and stating that the books were published "very quickly" or anything. Hipocrite (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In the reaction section, something along the lines of "Since the incident occurred, two books, (blah) and (blah blah) have been published by climate skeptics, alleging that the behavior of the scientists is worse than is being portrayed in the media." Or something like that. That's just a paraphrase from the amazon editor's notes on one of the books. Ignignot (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So you'd like to paraphrase an unreliable, self-published source to assert the notability of a book that has no reliable secondary sources that mention it. Are there other articles where you see books about the topic referenced in this way? Hipocrite (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The back cover of the book and title are reliable enough to determine what the subject of the book is, I think. Since that subject is identical to the wikipedia article's subject, that makes the fact that people wrote books about this subject notable enough for inclusion (although obviously not reliable as a reference for content). I believe that the notability hurdle is lower because I am not suggesting that a separate article be written about these books or that they be cited for other article content. Ignignot (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that it's at all notable. Bear in mind that self-publishing is trivially easy now - there are plenty of websites that do it - so this is really no more noteworthy than some random individual creating a web page or uploading something to scribd.com. If these books get coverage by third parties, then we might consider it, but as it stands they have zero notability. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: since this has changed from a reliability question to a notability question, we should take this to the verifiability talk page? Ignignot (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there is quite a bit of argument happening on the CRU hack page which may be taking up your time I will wait until tomorrow to resume this discussion on that page. Ignignot (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't get the answer you wanted, but the policy is absolutely clear and no 'clarification' is necessary. All content must be verifiable to reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The source for verifying that the books have been published and their names (and subject) is [31] and [32] - note that climategate is a redirect to the article we are discussing. The book database is one of the links from wikipedia's how to find books search. We weren't talking about adding information into the article with these books as a citation, but instead adding that these books were published by skeptics about the incident, with the book database as the citation. I am completely clear on the policy of not using self published books as sources of information, since they are not reliable. But what is a reliable source for the title, subject, author, and publication date of a book? Ignignot (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I understand that repeatedly being told the same answer that you don't want to hear is frustrating. But the answer will remain the same no matter how many times you ask the question. Dlabtot (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The frustration is from different answers. I would be quite willing to drop the issue, and I think the books are probably crap. But the answer moved from "we cannot verify that the book exists" to "the books are not notable" to "don't perform OR or synthesis" back to "not notable". And I can see the case for not notable. I get it. I'm not trying to wikilawyer or just ignore the answer. If it is a question of notability then this is the wrong place to ask the question (I think, could be wrong...) But as for the others, what would be the right way to prove that a book exists? What sort of synthesis would it be to say, "this book is about the same subject as the article"? I'm begging you - don't just say WP: something. Please just say, "oh, it is a notability problem, and if the new york times reviewed it, then it would be included" or, "because it is not notable, then we cannot verify anything about the book". Anything along the lines of a concise answer.

Also, I see how this could be viewed as being intentionally obtuse. I assure you that I am not feigning confusion on this issue, and your AGF earlier was much appreciated, believe me. I took it to talk:Hipocrite specifically because I was trying to avoid an argument about this. And then when that didn't remove my confusion, I took it here, with the hopes that it would be laid to rest. I failed at avoiding an argument, so I apologize. Ignignot (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confused because you were asking so many different questions at once. No one here said anything about the books not existing; your "summary" of the books' contents would fall afoul of WP:SYNTH as written; and notability seems to be a key problem with these books. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Would these sources be considered reliable?

All of these have been published in written form:

^ The American Naturopathic Association, Inc, Newsletter Jan, 1948

^ The Platform of the American Naturopathic Association as drawn up by the Golden Jubilee Congress. July 27th – August 2nd, 1947

^ American Naturopathic Association Certificate of Incorporation and Standing, Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division. (Continuously Incorporated since 1909)

^ National Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA Certificate of Incorporation and Standing Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division. (Continuously incorporated since 1952)

^ Wendel V. Spencer, U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia (1954)

^ Naturopathy, A Definition by Dr. Benedict Lust, MD, ND, DC, DO, March 1936, American Naturopathic Association, Washington DC. ^ Standardized Naturopathy, Dr. Paul Wendel, ND, MD, DC, DO ©1951

^ “Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare. (December 1968)

^ _ Study of Naturopathic Licensing, State of Florida, (1986)

^ Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, State of Utah, 1979

^ Sunset Report on Naturopathic Licensing, Arizona Auditor Generals Office, September 16, 1981

^ Study of Naturopathic Licensing, State of Florida, (1986)

^ Oregon Educational Coordinating Commission: Summary of Staff Findings at National College of Naturopathic Medicine (1985)

^ Correspondence from the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians to Hon. Tom Vail, Chief Counsel, Senate Finance Committee (September 10, 1970)

^ “Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, (December 1968)

^ Self Study Report, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland Oregon (1979)

^ School Catalog, John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine, (Volume 4 Spring 1982)

^ Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, A report to the Legislature, State of Utah, 1979

^ State of Arizona, Attorney Generals Office, Special Investigations Division, Report # AG191-0511.

^ Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, Founders list.

^ (NPLEX)Oregon Educational Coordinating Commission: Summary of Staff Findings at National College of Naturopathic Medicine (1985)...

^ NEPLEX Board Roster (1991)

^ https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=147E&view=chapter&year=2009&keyword_type=all&keyword=Naturopathy

^ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=36135910197+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

^ http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title54/T54CH51SECT54-5106.htm

--Ndma1 (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the above mentioned sources (1,2,6,,15,16) are fringe and conflict of interest sources. These sources should never be used for a general statement on medicine. These can be used only in the article Naturopathy or topics directly related to Naturopathy to elaborate the view of Naturopaths with proper attribution. For example, "according to Naturopathic viewpoint" etc. However these sources can be used to mention non-medical facts like budget of a Naturopathy institute etc with attribution. The other sources are non-Naturopathy government sources and can be used as reliable source to mention the legal status/situation/infrastructure related to Naturopathy. --Defender of torch (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, The "fringe" sources were only used in the naturopathy article for the purpose of relating how naturopaths view themselves and defined their profession. The governmental sources were used generally for historical background related to the profession or to document the legal status of an organization or group (for example the corporate status and history of an organization) I thought I was using these correctly but kept butting heads with somebody does not like what the sources say and so dismisses them as unreliable. Just wanted to make sure I was operating according to policy. --Ndma1 (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As Defender of torch correctly implies, it is never correct to refer to a source as being generally "reliable". The real question is whether it is reliable for a particular piece of information. Without knowing what that particular piece of information is, how that source supports that information, and why it is reasonable to take the view that the source would be right about that information, it is impossible to say anything definitive. Hibbertson (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the question of reliability, these sources are so poorly cited that the question is premature. Most of those have online versions if not controlled archival versions. They should, at minimum, be linked in order to aid verification before posing the question of reliability. LeadSongDog come howl 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

For instance, the first listed appears to refer to either

• Nature's Path. January 1948. ISSN 0028-0909. OCLC 24298005. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) or
• The journal of the American Naturopathic Assn. January 1948. OCLC 24225069. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

but gives no author, article title, volume, issue, or page numbers that would clarify the intended work. Please do the groundwork needed to help others help you.LeadSongDog come howl 05:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Source

Please tell me whether the follwoing sources reliable or not:

1. Czech-mates: The Sex Machines Museum viscom.miami.edu
2. Sex Machines museum prague.tv
3. Sex Machines Museum prague-stay.com --Defender of torch (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have rechecked the sources and found that prague.tv is a user edited site which makes it unreliable. I am not exactly sure about prague-stay.com, but probably a poor source. However I think this is perfectly reliable because it is published by the School of Communication of the University of Miami. I am using this source in the article Sex Machines Museum. --Defender of torch (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What piece of information are you seeking to support by reference to these sources, and why is it reasonable to conclude that those sources would be reliable for that piece of information. No source is reliable for every piece of information - without the piece of information you are looking to support, it is impossible to answer your question. Hibbertson (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Freebase.com - circular and unreliable references

About 144 links or references to Freebase (database) - a user generated database that also scrapes content from Wikipedia leading to many a circular ref. FYI and for folks willing to clean up. N.B. Freebase itself may be using reliable sources - in those cases, those sources should be referenced directly. –xeno^talk 20:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Freebase.com should be removed as reference from the article in which it is used. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have started to remove Freebase from articles as I also agree that it is an unreliable source.   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-published and hard to verify primary sources

How to deal with self published and hard to verify primary sources (i.e. catalogs, press releases not found online or in any libraries) that are provided by the subject of the article? The usual procedure would be to accept them on good faith, if the claims are uncontroversial and plausible. That was done in one article, Richard Tylman initially. As there was a conflict of interest at least two editors tried to verify some of the more accessible sources and were not able to verify the claims (see [33] and [34] in particular]). Either the individual was not even mentioned in the source, or the source did not support the claims. Note that at least User:Victoriagirl was a completely uninvolved editor, with no prior contact to the subject of the article and not editing in his topic area (i.e. Eastern Europe, apparently a quite contentious topic area).

The question now is of course what to do with the other sources which are almost impossible to verify (not in libraries, not published, let alone anywhere online). For some sources the subject of the article provides convenience links to copies on his webpage. Compounding the problem is that whenever a claim in the article is questioned, new (and for all practical purposes inaccessible) sources suddenly appear. What to do? Can we trust the sources; should we stub the article to the most basic biographic information; should we stub the article to only include what at least allegedly though unverified third party sources published and exclude everything in primary sources (i.e. press releases and the like)? Pantherskin (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's reasonable to ask whoever has added the information what the source actually says (ie to provide a direct quotation), and why it is reasonable to assume that the source is accurate. If they are not able to satisfy others with those answers, then that information should not be used.

I should add that, to the extent that the usual procedure is to accept them in good faith, the usual procedure is wrong. People can easily, in good faith, make a mistake about what a source is saying, and how reliable that source is. We should not just readily accept a source in good faith. I note it is not contrary to the "good faith" rule to ask questions that would allow you to be able to determine whether the source is reliable. Hibbertson (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, a source must be published - in that it must be possible for someone (possibly with time and money on their hands) to see that source. A pamphlet that is thrown away, and not kept in any library, is not accepted as a source. It is not enough for someone to upload the pamphlet onto their webpage. Also for a source to be used, you must be able to question who wrote it and why it should be treated as reliable for that information. Hibbertson (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is 'Africa News' a reliable source?

An editor has been inserting information into the article on the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, based on Africa News. Leaving aside the fact he's using a two month old source saying he's been alive for three months to say something about now, I don't think Africa News is a reliable source, based on this [35]. The linked article [36] does say "The editorial team of Africanews.com supervises the content in the news section." but I still don't think this is an RS. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It is hard to see what controls they have to ensure the veracity of their content. --FormerIP (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like they support self published news : "Simple. When you think something is news, it is news. Please post your article or photos to us and we will publish. Or not."[37] --TheMandarin (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Horus and Jesus comparison sources

There is an ongoing content dispute as to whether the article on the Egyptian god Horus should include a comparison to Jesus. The sources that have been added detailing the comparison have been called out as unreliable by User:Farsight001. The question involves this edit: [38] from three separate editors, which was then reverted here: [39] due to "rampant use of unacceptable sources." These are the sources being used:

1. William Ricketts Cooper (1877). The Horus myth in its relation to Christianity. Hardwicke & Bogue.
2. Gerald Massey (1907). Ancient Egypt, the light of the world: a work of reclamation and restitution in twelve books. T. F. Unwin.
3. Thomas William Doane (1884). Bible myths, and their parallels in other religions: being a comparison of the Old and New Testament myths and miracles with those of heathen nations of antiquity, considering also their origin and meaning. J. W. Bouton.
4. D. M. Murdock; S. Acharya (2009). Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection. Stellar House Publishing. ISBN 0979963117.
5. Tom Harpur (2005). The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Walker & Company. ISBN 0802714498.
6. Charles, Larry; Maher, Bill (2009), Religulous, Lion's Gate Entertainment
7. Gasque, W. Ward (2004-08-09). "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada ... Does He Know What He's Talking About?". History News Network. George Mason University. Retrieved 2010-01-20. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Are these sources demonstrably unreliable? Or can they be rightfully used as references for a section of the Horus article detailing the comparisons made between Horus and Jesus? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well a comedy show is unlikely to exercise the same level of editorial control as a high end newspaper or scholastic journal. Nor is it likly to be written by a notable expert in the field of theology. So no its not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Religulous wasn't a comedy show, it was a documentary. And what about the six other references? Remember, this isn't a question of whether the claim is accurate, but, rather, whether the claim has been made in a reliable sourced reference. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a comedy documentary not a pure piece of scholastic (or even popular sociological) filmmaking. Gerald Massey was a self taught Egyptologist, And there have been some doubts raised as to the reliability of much of his work. The HNN article does not support the claim, it dismisses it, and so any use of it should reflect that (it also heavily chritisises Tom Harpur basicly accusing him of poor scholership). The others I would have to see. D. M. Murdock appears to be self published, so no its not RS [[40]].Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So the context of this section is to establish that the comparison has been made by reliable sources, it was not written to address the veracity of the comparison, which is more of a NPOV question than a WP:RS issue. The HNN article is used to rebut the comparisons in the article. Also, Religulous is a "comedy documentary," and should not be scrutinized as a serious piece of research. But in the article, again, these references are being used solely to establish the existence and of the comparison. So, in that context, are these sources reliable? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Now a comedy/documentary is not an exceptional source for anything, for all we know he just looked for the bigest loonys on the block. Nor (I would argue) is a source RS for a view it says is silly, its only RS for the fact that that person thinks that view is silly (and that is definalty fringe).Slatersteven (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Again...forgive me if I sound like a broken record, here is the claim being made in the diff: "Several authors have written about possible similarities with the origins story of Horus and Jesus Christ." How on earth does that qualify an "exceptional claim?" It seems downright pedestrian to me. You're arguing that there are not several authors claiming a similarity? We're discussing the existence of the premises, not the validity of the conclusion (which is a WP:NPOV issue). That's basic WP:V stuff: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". It doesn't matter if they're loony, silly, or even fringe. This is not intended to be an article called Horus and Jesus Comparisons, this is simply an attempt to establish that, yes, this belief is repeated in reliable publications. And yes, it deserves inclusion in the Horus article. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG makes it clear that we should avoid claims not covered by mainstream sources and claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them. It also says that Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources See [[41]] as an example of the same claim (but about a different Egyptian god). The sources used here are recognised Egyptologists and biblical scholars. Not comedians and self published self-proclaimed experts. An exceptional claim is not one that is weird or extreme, its one that goes against mainstream theory. Nor does it matter hoow its worded in the article, its the status of the claim outside the wiki community that makes io exceptioal.Slatersteven (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I should point out, at one of the sources quoted in the Osirus article (Stephen Benko) has said similar things about Horus / Jesus in his book "The Goddess: Studies in the Pagan and Christian Roots of Mariology." Also, noted Egyptologist Erik Hornung, in his book "The Secret Lore of Egypt", page 60, says: "There was an obvious analogy between the Horus child and the baby Jesus and the care they received from their sacred mothers..." If you deem the evidence for the Osirus article sufficient, then you must surely accept that identical sources would be sufficient for inclusion in the Horus article, yes? You would consider those two to be reliable scholars? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dartmouth

Is The Dartmouth considered to be a reliable source for a BLP issue?

It's a college newspaper (Dartmouth College's official student newspaper), but it's 211 years old (the oldest student newspaper in the United States) and has interviewed substantial figures such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden; it's not tabloid-ish or exploitative.

The article I wish to use as a reference is this news article from 2008, discussing a speech given at the college by Deroy Murdock, a conservative columnist and fellow with the Hoover Institution. The article notes that Murdock is gay, a fact which had been in his Wikipedia bio (unsourced) but was removed, citing BLP concerns. While it shouldn't be a particularly controversial point (several of Murdock's columns are available at Independent Gay Forum, which explicitly identifies its contributors as gay or lesbian), Murdock doesn't discuss his personal life all that much, and finding a reliable citation without wandering into the realm of synthesis proved to be difficult.

There have been quite a few discussions about the reliability of student newspapers on this noticeboard, and there has never been a definitive statement one way or the other on the topic. Due to the sensitive nature of the material I intend to use the article to source, I'd like to see if there is a consensus that The Dartmouth is a reliable source on this issue. Horologium (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gonzaga Journal of International Law

This is a law journal, edited by students to "Law Review standards" (http://www.gonzagajil.org/content/view/123/37/). Can material published there be used on WP? Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it a blog?

The web site http://blog.taragana.com/politics/2009/12/21/russias-communists-urge-nation-dont-criticize-stalin-on-his-130th-birthday-9548/ looks like a blog. Can it be used as a RS in the article about Stalin?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a blog maintained by this person who is the founder of this outsourcing company. Actually it is the blog of that company and you will find a link to the blog in this page. This is why the web site you mentioned is not RS. But the article you cited is a newspiece by the Associated Press and you will find this same newspiece in other reliable sources. Try this reference, it is Milwaukee Journal Sentinel which is a reliable source. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Q&A website

I ran across an artile using the site Islam Q&A [42] as a source. According to the site, "Responses are composed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, a known Islamic lecturer and author. Questions about any topic are welcome, such as theology, worship, human and business relations, or social and personal issues.All questions and answers on this site have been prepared, approved, revised, edited, amended or annotated by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid, the supervisor of this site." While the sheikh may (or may not) be all he claims, I'm not comfortable with the reliability of the site. Much of the site is devoted to issuing new fatwas. Would someone else mind taking a look at this site and seeing what kind of impression they get? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The site is definitely a pro-Islamic advocacy site as can be seen from this. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Definately not NPOV. I just don't know enough about Islam to know if the guy is much of an authority. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Blog used on Westboro Baptist Church

Hey. On the Westboro article, someone recently added the following text and used http://www.gayindynow.com/news/?id=news&item=136 as a source:

Some targets of the church's protests assert that counter protests provide publicity and encouragement to the church, and serve to foster continued protesting.

Some groups against whom the protests are directed have used it as a fundraiser, getting their community to donate money to combat intolerance.(ref) One method used is to get donors to pledge money for length of time a given protest lasts.

The reference is a blog belonging to the Indy Rainbow Chamber of Commerce. Aside from the issues of weasel words in the quotes above, I'm pretty sure that the given reference doesn't back up the text in the article. And it's a blog, so it's not really a reliable source as it's self-published. Or am I mistaken? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I interpret WP:SPS is that it can be removed as an unreliable source.   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 04:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we use SPPI Blog

[43] is written by Christopher Monckton. Is it a reliable source to confirm his Graves disease? Kittybrewster ☎ 06:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No sources for Sectarianism

The sectarianism page claims that

Sectarianism is bigotry, discrimination or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion or the factions of a political movement.

There are absolutely no sources for this claim, and none of the dictionaries that I checked agreed with that definition. After mentioning this on the talk page and stating my intention to move the page to a more appropriate article name, and waiting nearly four months (!) without anyone objecting, I did so. Then Dr.enh, who apparently has developed a vendetta against me, reverted my edits without any reason. He also forged a comment by me at the bottom of the page. Then Nate showed up and threatened me with a block if I continued with my editing, citing absolutely no wikipedia policy. Seems to me that unilaterally telling other people what edits they are and are not allowed to make is a clear violation of wikipedia policy. When I rejected Nate's right to tell me what to do, Jauerback showed up, accused me of vandalism, and then blocked me for a week. This is completely unacceptable. Jauerback's accusation of vandalism is completely without foundation, and a blatant violation of civility.Heqwm2 (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)