Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Before starting an RFC on a previously-discussed source, ask yourself Do we need another discussion on this source? Has something changed? Remember, context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

ChapatiMystery.com

ChapatiMystery is a group blog founded several years ago and maintained by Manan Ahmed, a recent Ph.D in History from Chicago, now teaching at the Freie Universität Berlin. The blog is mostly concerned with South Asian history, culture and politics, and has a fairly decent reputation (especially for its coverage of Pakistan). It has plenty of hits at Google, and is not unknown to either Google Books or Google Scholar. Given tbis background, what is the status of the following two "guest posts", by authors commenting on threads at the site discussing their work:

• William Dalrymple, here
• Wendy Doniger, here.

In particular,

• Is it credible that these posts are by Dalrymple and Doniger respectively?
• If so - i.e. if there is no reasonable doubt regarding authenticity - can these posts be cited under the rules of WP:SPS, WP:BLPSPS and WP:SELFPUB for materials pertaining to their own work? In other words, can these posts be considered statements "on the record", so to speak?
• Are they good enough for the WP:SPS rules but not good enough for the WP:BLPSPS rules?

And, should this be followed up anyway on the WP:BLPN board for the BLP articles? The point being, since they are in a sense "defending" their own work, these posts can hardly be considered derogatory, so BLP issues aren't likely once credibility is established. rudra (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rudrasharman "forgot" to mention how he is using Doniger's alleged post. He is using to say that Doniger is "on record" (Rudrasharman's words) as responding to Witzel's critique, which was contained an an email, thus strengthening the stauts of Witzel's email "critique". The whole idea is to circumvent WP:RS. Doniger's enemies haven't been able to dig up any reliable criticism of Doniger's forty years of Sanskrit translation which is harsh enough to help them draft a reputation-damaging biographical article on Doniger. Rudrasharman has deleted text from the article which was sourced to academic journals, including the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, when it didn't suit his vision of Doniger.[1] The text that his side "needs" for the article is contained in blogs and emails. His side thinks that those sources are more reliable than academic journals. There is a plethora of reliable material available. It just doesn't suit Rudrasharman's agenda. Thus there is no need for the article to resort to the use of a weblog as a source. — goethean ॐ 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore the troll's diversion. Nothing has been "forgotten". The Witzel critique referred to is WP:RS by the WP:SPS rules - we could start a separate thread on such a no-brainer, but there's no real need. rudra (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In which article is the source being used?

What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting?

Where is the relevant talk page discussion? Dlabtot (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the material here. Discussion here, starting with Rurasharman's comment at 21:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC) — goethean ॐ 17:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The article, in this case, is Wendy Doniger (a BLP). Here is the diff where the reference was introduced (there were some tweaks and then eventually the ref was removed.) It is supporting the assertion that the BLP subject has responded to a critique of some of her work by a world-class expert in the field. This section in the talk page has relevant materials. This section may also be relevant, as may some other threads, such as this one. Please ask if more clarification is needed. rudra (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

For completeness, I should mention that I was thinking of adding the Dalrymple reference to the page for one his books, The Last Mughal. Common to the two cases is the issue of authenticity, which depends, in exactly the same way for both, on the credibility of the ChapatiMystery site. rudra (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• The listserv is definitely not RS, and it's also not a self-published source. Likewise the post by Doniger on chapatimystery.com. Dlabtot (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether the listserv is RS is not an issue. The issue would be WP:SPS applied to posts on this list by notable scholars, such as Michael Witzel. This mailing list is very well-known: it is the premier Indological mailing list on the internet, nearly 20 years old. Its membership is a veritable who's who of indological scholars, and its archives are mirrored on other sites. A Google search for the word "indology" returns the site as the very first hit (and has done so for a long time now, for obvious reasons). It doesn't get any more mainstream and established than that. As such, therefore, posts to this mailing list by indological scholars on subjects in their own fields eminently qualify under WP:SPS.

But all that was a digression. This thread is about the Dalrymple and Doniger posts to the ChapatiMystery site. Which of the WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB criteria are being questioned? The only one that I think could be open to question is #4: that there is reasonable doubt as to the authenticity. I'd appreciate further feedback on this from the regulars here. rudra (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As such, therefore, posts to this mailing list by indological scholars on subjects in their own fields eminently qualify under WP:SPS.

...except that they aren't actually published — they are posted to a list-serv. — goethean ॐ 15:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: this editor has been blocked. His attempts to derail this thread should be ignored. rudra (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

To be a reliable source, it has to be published. A listserv, or the emails sent to it, does not meet this requirement. Dlabtot (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

To repeat, the issue is not RS (a guideline), it is SPS (part of a policy). Please review the WP:SPS section for the relevant definition, viz. "...self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., ...". The intent of this ostensive definition is clear: so, e.g., if "forum postings" qualify as self-published, then mailing list posts do too, as there is no difference of consequence between them. The major issue with these forms of self-published media is authenticity: is the instance by the person claimed? (Other issues can be topicality - is it relevant - and finally notability, of either the person or the content; but these details are already covered in WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB and shouldn't need elaboration here.)

Once again, on this thread, the issue is the credibility of the ChapatiMystery.com site and thus the authenticity of the Dalrymple and Doniger posts. I'm willing to accept reasonable doubts, but so far no one has articulated any such concerns. rudra (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been articulated, even though you didn't like the answer you got. Dlabtot (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

However, it would be helpful for someone besides myself to weigh in. Dlabtot (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not reliable enough to be used - we have no guarantee these posts are by the claimed individuals. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue with Kirtanananda Swami article

Hello, I have a problem with the way that certain material has been removed from an article about the controversial Kirtanananda Swami. This matter is discussed at Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami. Basically, someone (User:Wikidas) has removed material that is referenced in a documentary film by Jacob Young (1996) released through WNPB-TV (West Virginia Public Broadcasting) and the WVEBA (West Virginia Educational Broadcasting Authority). The documentary contains various cited references, and it directly quotes court testimony, numerous interviews, TV appearances as well as newspaper clippings relating to the alleged illegal activity that took place over the years at the former ISKCON guru's New Vrindaban Hare Krishna community in West Virginia. This is not the only source of this information either, but nearly every other source is denounced by this individual as "not being up to Wikipedia's standards." I disagree, and I think the evidence that I brought up on this talk page sufficiently demonstrates why the sources are good and why the material should be included in the article. There is court testimony which corroborates these things too (U.S. Court of Appeals, and here). Also, I think the removal of this material may constitute a form of censorship, perhaps perpetuated by (a) former and/or current Hare Krishna devotee(s). So, if others would please review the material discussed on the talk page of the article, as well as older versions of the article itself, and weigh in with opinions on this matter (especially regarding the use of the material from the documentary and whether or not it should be included as a reliable source), that would be much appreciated. Geneisner (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You must comply with not just policies of WP:BLP but also with basic policy WP:V. The documentary film by Jacob Young (1996), is not a verifiable source, not is it suitable as the main source for a BLP. Just because a number of people cite claims on camera, it does not make it reliable source. I have already brough up the discussion on this board for this source and nobody ever suggested that Holy Cow Swami movies you want to include is a reliable source. Don't waste time, use other good sources to support your claims. I have no objections to even primary sources you cite, provided there is support and they are being cited by good secondary sources. The claims are contentious and it's a BLP, while the guy is clearly a criminal. Wikid^as© 20:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In what way is the documentary not verifiable? --GRuban (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Electronic media is not accessable. No evidence of checking or analyzing facts, legal issues etc provided. No transcript, and nothing in reviews that can be used was produced. The only "sources" are some self published books and court records (which can be used anyway and are cited). I have put a notice at the time of tagging it (almost a year ago) on BLP notice board as well. Wikid^as© 21:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Since when is electronic media not accessible? Simply because it is not instantly available on the Internet does not mean it is not accessible. The documentary is available for purchase from Amazon [2] and other sources as well and may be available in libraries. Self-published books have some limitations, but they are not categorically prohibited. older ≠ wiser 18:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The documentary does not seem to be self published, the publisher seems to be Moviefish, which seems to publish all sorts of films.[3] The director seems to be a reputable source, having made numerous directories for many years, which were aired widely, and having won an Emmy. Unless I'm wrong about any of these facts, this looks to meet reliable secondary source standards. --GRuban (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Now hopefully others can see how this information was wrongly removed from the article. I have compiled a large selection of direct quotes from the documentary film on Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami. I mean, since when are direct quotes from a person as seen in interviews on a documentary film not permitted in Wikipedia articles about people living or dead? Are words, exact quotes, that are filmed coming out of someone's mouth not permitted on Wikipedia? In my opinion, that would seem pretty silly, if not downright ridiculous. Geneisner (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

One edit speaks thousand words.

I am afraid it is obligation of the editor who adds information to the article to provide complete verifiable record and defend the sources. I have tagged the sources including the documentary in August 2009. The tag is still there.

I probably will be the least sympatic person towards him, thus censorship claims are quite rediculous. However lets us first read what Wikipedia requires us to do about it in all three cases:

Court Records inclusion:

You insist that we should use the court records, however when challenged you can not show a source that accurately citing them. Again the policy: Do not use public records that include personal details—.. trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. (Suggestion -- find reliables sources that can be confirmed to have mentioned the documents.)

Self published books or a personal dairy:

You have suggested use of such in your accusations please read wikipedia policy: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject.

Inclusion of the tv documentary:

I have tagged and after almost a year removed it as per wikipedia policy (I did leave a tag on it for rather longer than the requirement, to give you and other editors chance to fix it, I could not find any reviews or any transcripts or mentions in good sources of the film) Again please read the policy: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. See other arguments on the RS board.

I suggest you actually read the policy and it is on you to provide sufficient evidence that it complies with BLP, this evidence should be available to all editors who dispute the source and should be able to verify it. I have tagged it in August 09, and removed it April 10, you confimred youself that this documentary "relies on self-published sources", if you seen the documentary you will know that sources in it do not comply with the standard of the Wikipedia for BLPs. I have seen it a number of years back, and only small portions of it are any good for current BLP standard. Please note that standard for BLP has changed since the sources were added to the article.

It is with regret I must note that you refuse to consider good sources I have already added to the article and in the talk page itself as a suggestion and refuse to look for other sources. Wikid^as© 21:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you are the one that is misinterpreting the policy. The TV documentary is a published source, distributed by a reliable organization. It is available for verification and there is nothing in WP policy that precludes use as a source. Similarly, the Brijibais Spirit was an official publication of the New Vrndaban community and is acceptable as source for the positions of the community and its leadership. It may be more difficult to locate an archive of the publication, but that again does not preclude its use as a source. older ≠ wiser 22:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to 'interpret' the policy - the policy is rather clear. About Brijbasis Spirit: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. The question about documentary was already raised on this board at the time of tagging it in August 2009. Onus on the person who adds material to ensure it is verifiable, plan and simple. If he demonstrates how it is and how it satisfies the above critera, "that relies on self-published sources". Maybe areas of the documentary that do not rely on self-published sources can be used, however we need to know which areas they are. I continue giving good faith to all editors involved and will not proceed with RFC or anything like that if that add something unsourced, but I will have to bring up such sources on WP:BLPN. Thanks. Wikid^as© 02:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that Brijabasi Spirit is a SPS in the sense that you are intending. It was a real publication. [4] It's content is verifiable (though not perhaps as easily as you might like). Just because you might have to expend some effort does not make the content unverifiable. And by what basis can you possibly discriminate between portions of a documentary? You can't cherry pick some portions and dismiss others. older ≠ wiser 03:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have started the discussion here and tagged the article disputed until consensus is reached. Please comment if you wish folks, including Henry himself. I would appreciate if expert in BLPs made comments in order to get the consensus that actually reflects the guideline and the policy. Wikid^as© 04:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Would this be considered reliable?

Would this be considered reliable? Given that it is sponsored by George Washington University. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable for what? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Quest asks an important question... we can not know if it is reliable without knowing how it is being used (or how you wish to use it). Could you give us more details? Blueboar (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As used in this article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That source is used twice in Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008#Early stages and currently is reference [1]. I think the problem should be made clearer since the claims in the two paragraphs do not seem unlikely, although it could be argued that they tend towards waffle, while the article should stick to the facts. Is there something unreliable about George Washington University? Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A GA reviewer said that the source was not reliable, but I disputed his claim. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

More pertinently, exactly what kind of page is it? Its hosted on the GWU website but is it a personal user page, linked to something academic, a mirror of something? The actual page says Copyright © 2005, 2006 Eric M. Appleman/Democracy in Action so I'm presuming that it was by Appleman. Is he someone who we would normally accept as a reliable source if it weren't hosted on the GWU site? In politics there is lots of mud slinging as well so if you can't find multiple reliable sources for something is the reference sufficiently mainstream to be worth mentioning and are there issues with Undue. Really, without answers to all this its very hard to say whether or not this source is permissible. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Fully read the second link I provided above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but is this the only source for the material you want to add? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is reliable, and asking whether it would be "if it weren't hosted on the GWU site" is like asking if an article published in the NY Times would be reliable if it weren't published in the NY Times... in other words, it is a meaningless, nonsense question. Additionally, the material that these citations support is in no way controversial or extraordinary, so I fail to grasp why there is an objection. Dlabtot (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

University websites host all sorts of things, of varying provenance and reliability. For that matter, so does The New York Times. An advertisement published by the Times is not as reliable as a straight news story, and the reliability of a guest editorial published by the Times depends mostly on the reliability of the author, not the publisher. This material appears to be self-published by Eric M. Appleman, with the GWU acting as little more than a web-hosting service. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not an advertisement or an editorial, it's a compilation of campaign activities that has been judged to be reliable by all the individuals listed in the second link provided above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

GWU isn't a web-hosting service and it's not self-published, not an advertisement, and not an editorial. Dlabtot (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

All the students at almost any university today gets a personal website. Websites made with no editorial oversight by ordinary students who have not published articles in their respective fields in well-regarded publications are not considered reliable. Nothing has been presented to indicate this is anything more than a student website. And William S. Saturn, if you wish to provide a link to demonstrate otherwise, provide it. Don't send us on a wild goose chase "above". Jc3s5h (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in this case GWU appears to be providing a web-hosting service, and the site itself appears to be entirely self-published. As the site itself points out, "DEMOCRACY IN ACTION is not an official project of the George Washington University and any errors and interpretations are the responsibility of the author, Eric M. Appleman." Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I missed that. So I agree with you now. Dlabtot (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, the link has already been provided above. It's not a "wild goose chase" if you read and follow instructions. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've wasted all the time I intend to on your link. As far as I'm concerned, you have not provided a link and I will not bother reading anything further from you. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It was your choice to get involved. If your time is so valuable, why are you using wikipedia?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Science and Engineering Indicators 2006

Statement by Hans Adler

I have been very reluctant to come here with my question, because it is related to many subtleties w.r.t. sensible interpretation of sources – more than the average editor can deal with, apparently. The core question is whether accidental claims that are present in a source in an almost but not quite explicit form, and which are outside the main focus of the source, may be taken to the context of a Wikipedia article where they are in the focus, and presented in the lead of such an article as if they had high significance.

The claim in question is that belief in 10 subjects – including ghosts, haunted houses, clairvoyance, witchcraft and reincarnation – constitutes belief in pseudoscience. Even though deciding what exactly is a pseudoscience is known as a hard philosophical problem, e.g. scholars disagree whether psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience, there is one thing that all serious definitions agree about: A pseudoscience must have superficial similarities with science; it is not enough to just make claims about physically observable (or rather not) phenomena. It seems obvious that in the large majority of cases, belief in ghosts, haunted houses, clairvoyance, witchcraft or reincarnation is in no way related to anything superficially similar to science. (Sometimes it may be related to such factors, e.g. when people believe in ghost hunting or "scientific" explanations of reincarnation. But typically the belief is just traditional and/or religious.) It follows that the claim itself is obviously wrong.

According to User:BullRangifer, and I can understand how he initially got this impression, the Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 makes this claim. He also makes the somewhat bold assumption that the National Science Board (NSB) speaks for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and expresses scientific consensus – even casually when claiming something implicitly.

Here is an early form of what he put in articles: Template:Blockquotetop The scientific consensus considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead and belief in ghosts and spirits to be pseudoscientific beliefs. [5]] Template:Blockquotebottom

Here is a later, more elaborate version: Template:Blockquotetop The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead, as well as belief in ghosts and spirits, to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They have included them in a list of ten items:

From Note 29: "[29] Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body." [6]

Later we also got the following: Template:Blockquotetop The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead and belief in ghosts and spirits to be pseudoscientific beliefs. [7] Template:Blockquotebottom

The absurd claim about "scientific consensus" was later removed, and by now we are mostly dealing with claims like the following: Template:Blockquotetop The National Science Foundation considers belief in reincarnation to be pseudoscientific. Template:Blockquotebottom

There were so many versions, spread over so many articles, that I can't list them all here. See User:Hans Adler/NSF disruption for details up to 22 March.

The Science and Engineering Indicators is a biennial report with science-related statistics, prepared for US politicians by the NSB, an NSF-related body consisting mostly of statisticians. Editions since 1996 are available on the NSF website. In the 2000 edition, there was a section about Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience. (There was no such section in the 1996 or 1998 edition.) This was one of five sections of Chapter 8, "Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding". In the next three reports the word "paranormal" was removed from the section title:

• 2002: Science Fiction and Pseudoscience – uses belief in astrology as primary indicator for belief in pseudoscience
• 2004: Belief in pseudoscience (subsection of section Public Knowledge About S&T) – uses astrology as the main indicator, but also mentions belief in paranormal as if it was a direct indication of belief in pseudoscience
• 2006: Belief in Pseudoscience – freely uses belief in paranormal instead of belief in pseudoscience, but this is not explained, and the word "paranormal" does not even appear.

In the 2008 and 2010 editions the section no longer exists. Moreover, in the 2010 edition the NSB (controversially) removed a section about belief in creationism and the Big Bang from the draft, "because the survey questions used to measure knowledge of the two topics force respondents to choose between factual knowledge and religious beliefs". [8] In other words: Someone who believes religiously that God created the universe and life on Earth, but also knows scientifically that this is not literally true, may decide to answer in such a way as to demonstrate their faith, rather than their scientific knowledge. The pseudoscience section, which relies mostly on paranormal beliefs strongly related to some religions, may well have been pulled for similar reasons.

The claim that belief in the 10 survey items in question is pseudoscientific belief is not made explicitly in the SEI 2006, but appears in the following form:

Template:Blockquotetop Belief in pseudoscience increased significantly during the 1990s and into the early part of this decade (Newport and Strausberg 2001) and then fell somewhat between 2001 and 2005 (figure 7-8 figure.). The largest declines were in the number of people who believe in ESP, clairvoyance, ghosts, mentally communicating with the dead, and channeling. Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001).[29] In addition, 22% believed in five or more of the items, 32% believed in four, and 57% believed in two. However, only 1% believed in all 10 (Moore 2005b).

---

[29] Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body. Template:Blockquotebottom

Thus the claim that belief in the 10 items is pseudoscientific belief does not even appear explicitly: One needs to combine the main text with a footnote. This is important, because the SEI 2006 (and to some degree the SEI 2002 and SEI 2004) is the only respectable source we know that makes this claim. It is not a claim made by any notable sceptics, because they generally use a correct definition of pseudoscience. (And in fact the SEI 2006 even quotes the following definition by notable sceptic Michael Shermer, without once addressing the obvious contradiction with their tacit assumption that all paranormal beliefs are pseudoscientific beliefs: "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility".)

To get an idea of what the SEI is actually about, and how peripheral classifying a topic as pseudoscience is to it, see User:Hans Adler/Science and Engineering Indicators.

Finally I need to mention several related RfCs:

• Talk:Ghost#RfC: Context of NSF statement about belief in ghosts – This RfC asked in general terms whether the NSF is a reliable source for stating that certain beliefs are pseudoscientific beliefs. Predictably, the consensus said yes it is. According to BullRangifer the RfC was about whether the specific source (SEI 2006), and whether that is good enough for making this claim. I dispute that.
• WT:NPOV – Here BullRangifer tried to add the list of 10 items to the policy as a footnote and asked in an RfC whether "the National Science Foundation is a reliable source to use as an illustration for a portion of an ArbCom statement used in the NPOV policy". The RfC was closed as "NSF is a reliable source", and a subsequent RfC made it clear that in spite of BullRangifer's protestations that this supported his footnote, there was no consensus for including it.
• Talk:Ghost#Is this a pseudoscience topic? – There seems to be a (weak) consensus that Ghost is not primarily a pseudoscience article.

I apologise for this long post and the even longer discussion that is likely to ensue. But so far the disruption has been spread over many pages, with the same questions coming up over and over again from different editors, and as it is not dying down we need to centralise it somewhere. This seems to be the best place. Hans Adler 11:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A few responses to BullRangifer

1. The author of Chapter 7 (the relevant chapter) was Melissa F. Pollak of the Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS). (Most authors of other chapters and the chief editor were also SRS members. The SEI 2006 is a primary source for the claim that the 10 items are pseudoscientific beliefs, because the source they use only says they are paranormal beliefs. I can see no indication of relevant (i.e. philosophy of science) qualifications or interests in any of the "illustrious" NSB board members who according to BullRangifer can be expected to have micro-managed the report down to a level of irrelevant detail where they would have noticed the discrepancy between Gallup's calling the 10 items paranormal and the report calling them pseudoscientific. Academic peer-review often misses problematic details, especially when they are irrelevant to a document's main focus.

   We have no reason to believe that any of the "outside experts, interested federal agencies, NSB members, and SRS internal reviewers" felt responsible for checking that the report uses the term "pseudoscience" to encyclopedic, rather than sloppy common language, standards of accuracy. This was in no way relevant to the report, and there is no indication that any of these experts had an independent interest in pseudoscience or philosophy of science. In fact, that the obvious problem in the report was not fixed is a good indication that nobody noticed the problem, or if someone noticed it it was not found sufficiently relevant to warrant fixing.

2. It is standard practice, and in fact required, for Wikipedia editors to evaluate the credibility of our sources. See e.g. WP:REDFLAG, which seems to be relevant in this case. This often involves original research, which is perfectly proper. The only thing we can't do is write down our assessment of the sources in article space. I am not aware that anybody proposed this – except perhaps BullRangifer with his initial claims about the SEI 2006 expressing scientific consensus, which he has dropped after being instructed about WP:RS#Academic consensus.
3. An exact quotation can be misleading, and even a lie, if it is taken to a different context where it will be interpreted in a way substantially different from its original context. E.g. if a casual remark that a supreme court judge made to his hairdresser was published in a law review journal. This is basically the kind of stunt that BullRangifer is trying to pull here.
4. "Verifiability, not truth" does not mean that it is OK to let articles say absurd things just because they are formally "verifiable". Verifiability is "the threshold". (See WP:V.) Many things pass this threshold, but are not published in Wikipedia because doing so would break NPOV or BLP constraints, or simply because they are outdated or false.
5. "Editorially we should not allow our private opinions about the 'truthiness' of a notable and verifiable statement to trump our sourcing policies." – The word truthiness makes no sense here, so I assume BullRangifer means "truth" and is just trying to be sarcastic. The "verifiable statement" is hidden in one of three subsections of one of three sections of one of eight chapters of a report for politicians. By spreading it over the main text and a footnote, the authors did not exactly go out of their way to draw attention to it. That's not what I would call a "notable statement". For me a notable statement is one that is worth mentioning for having been made and for the public reactions it received, as opposed to those statements which we include to represent a significant POV. Nobody remotely relevant seems to represent the POV that belief in ghosts, reincarnation etc. is pseudoscientific belief – except of course in certain special cases where science is imitated.
6. "I ask editors to not allow this discussion to be sidetracked by OR speculations about the "truthiness" of the statement. That isn't what Wikipedia is about. Force the objectors to only discuss policy. Don't allow their OR to muddy the waters." – This sounds to me like a request not to evaluate the reliability of the source for the specific statement that BullRangifer thinks it supports. Per WP:REDFLAG exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The claim that beliefs that have nothing to do with anything remotely like science are "pseudoscientific" is clearly surprising, it is out of character for the NSF/NSB (especially as it comes immediately after a definition of pseudoscience that stresses the "like science" aspect), and it contradicts the prevailing view within the relevant community (sceptics, philosophers of science). Exceptional claims require high-quality sources. The SEI 2006 is not a high-quality source for this statement because by all standards it is peripheral to the document.
7. Contrary to BullRangifer's continued assertions, the suitability of the source for the purpose of the controversial statement has not been evaluated in the previous RfCs. I am not sure why he is asking this board not to do the evaluation right after he thanked me for taking the question here and mentioned he had considered doing the same thing. [9] Hans Adler 20:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply by BullRangifer

Statement added later to explain my objection to this whole thread.

Firstly, this matter has already been dealt with in two RfCs which Hans Adler resoundingly "lost", so this is a form of forum shopping. The concluding remarks by Gwen Gale sum up the consensus nicely:

• "I'm closing this RfC as National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs." (All emphasis original.)

Secondly, my disagreement with Hans Adler's manner of using the RS/N is that he's using it in an edit war against any use of this source (he refuses to abide by the consensus in the two RfCs). If the RS/N is part of DR, then it's normally proper to use it, but his approach is still very problematic.

Thirdly, even as part of DR, he's misusing the board to discuss the truthfulness of a statement (in violation of "verifiability, not truth"), not to determine whether the National Science Foundation website is a RS, a question already settled in the two RfCs. That's what RS and the RS/N deals with, not the truthfulness of a statement. He can claim that the National Science Board members made a wrong statement all he wants, but his manner of doing so is disruptive. This thread should be closed, but not without strong admonitions for him to drop this matter completely. He's been beating this dead horse for nearly two months and a topic ban on this subject may be the only way to get him to stop.

There is an interesting discussion here where we both participate:

• Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#The meaning of "verifiability, not truth"

He's trying to change the wording in a manner that would make Wikipedia an Orwellian "Ministry of Truth". BlueBoar and I have countered his arguments there. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The relevant parts of the exact quote at the center of this controversy "... about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001).[29] ..... [29]: Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body. Source

Note that the quote under discussion is about "pseudoscientific beliefs" (a broad concept related to faulty thinking), not "pseudo-science" (a more narrowly defined concept related to claims). They're related, but not exactly the same. The source page quotes arch skeptic Michael Shermer's definition favorably. It's an excellent definition with which I fully agree. The page also liberally discusses pseudoscientific "beliefs" and expresses deep concern for the causes of such beliefs: lack of scientific insight, lack of critical thinking, in short just plain muddled thinking. This is discussed at length. The use of the term "pseudoscientific beliefs" is no accident, and it isn't in conflict with the definition of "pseudoscience" since it's a slightly different concept.

The quote is an exact quote (with the necessary added attribution) published on the National Science Foundation website in the 2006 SEI Report prepared biennially by the National Science Board, whose membership is rather illustrious. While statisticians help, that's a far cry from the deceptively worded "consisting mostly of statisticians" mentioned above. (Such misleading comments are characteristic traits in all of Hans Adler's and Ludwigs2's objections.) The depth of the NSB member's involvement isn't "casual" (as falsely claimed above) and is described thus:

• "The National Science Board Members were closely involved in all phases of the preparation of this report." [10]

• "SEI is prepared by the National Science Foundation's Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS) on behalf of the National Science Board. It is subject to extensive review by outside experts, interested federal agencies, NSB members, and SRS internal reviewers for accuracy, coverage, and balance." [11]

My contention all along has not primarily been about the "truthiness" of the NSF/NSB statement, but about its obvious verifiability.

Editorially we should not allow our private opinions about the "truthiness" of a notable and verifiable statement to trump our sourcing policies. Certain editors have indulged in massive and repetitive OR speculations, claimed that the statement did not say what it said, tagged the statement with a "failed verification" tag, claimed that the NSF/NSB made a mistake and are wrong in their 2006 statement, and even speculated about the motives of the NSF/NSB for writing their content. Since we are totally lacking any verifiable sources from the NSF/NSB to the contrary, what the NSF/NSB said should be taken as what they said, regardless of editorial disagreements about the "truthiness" of the statement. Such disagreements are explicitly addressed in the very start of the verifiability policy. OR doesn't trump policy.

Their exact quote is actually their exact quote (!), contrary to what has been explicitly and implicitly stated by the two editors (User:Hans Adler and User:Ludwigs2) who refuse to accept the overwhelming consensus in two RfCs (see below), and which was confirmed by the closing admin:

I'm closing this RfC as National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs." Editors should keep in mind that the NSF position on this is meaningful, notable, reliable and scientific. ... en.Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC) (All emphasis original.)

In contrast to Gwen Gale's clearly favorable statement above ("the NSF position on this is meaningful, notable, reliable and scientific"), Hans Adler had the audacity to call the NSF/NSB statement a piece of "non-notable misinformation." [12]

The vast majority of editors in the two RfCs and the closing comments by Gwen Gale all disagree with Hans Adler and Ludwigs2 and side with the National Science Board and our verifiability policy:

• Talk:Ghost#RfC: Context of NSF statement about belief in ghosts

• Talk:NPOV#RfC: Using the National Science Foundation as a reference

I ask editors to not allow this discussion to be sidetracked by OR speculations about the "truthiness" of the statement. That isn't what Wikipedia is about. Force the objectors to only discuss policy. Don't allow their OR to muddy the waters.

We are to follow our policies and guidelines, and this is about the statement's verifiability, which has been resoundingly affirmed by the majority of editors in two RfCs and by the closing admin, who wisely chose to stick to policy and not back up such speculations. We all stand firm against the concerted efforts of two well-known defenders of fringe POV, one of whom actually wishes to "dispose of the word pseudoscience entirely" in our editing at Wikipedia! -- Brangifer (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A few responses to Hans Adler

1. The NSB members claimed responsibility for the report (see the two quotes above), regardless of who aided them. This fallacious OR objection just doesn't cut it. For example, just because I typed my father's doctoral dissertation and did research for it doesn't make it mine or any less his. He took and deserved the full and ultimate responsibility. The same applies to any secretary and the same applies in this case. The NSB members are just fortunate they have an expert statistician to help them.

   In this type of situation there is no descrepancy in the switching between Gallup's "paranormal" and SEI's "pseudoscience", but rather an obviously deliberate choice of wording by the NSB. It is common practice for skeptics to consider paranormal beliefs to be pseudoscientific beliefs. That section of the report constantly refers to and quotes skeptical sources very favorably, thus elevating their status. It is so much an assumed fact that it happens in a "the earth isn't flat" casual manner all the time. That's what happens in the real world, and Wikipedia's job is to document it, not judge it. The SEI report does the same thing numerous times. The 2000 version does quite a bit of this type of "switching", even in the title: Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience (2000). They could just as well used an equals sign, rather than "or". To really see it with colors is rather interesting and aids the understanding. Use the free Google Toolbar and search the page with these words and phrases at the same time: paranormal pseudoscience belief believe. They are generally used rather synonymously. This practice was followed in some later editions of the SEI report. No doubt much to Hans Adler's dismay, this complaint actually points out that the NSF/NSB report equates paranormal with pseudoscience, that there was no "obvious problem" in need of fixing, and that skeptical sources are excellent sources approved by the NSB. The SEI report undermines his arguments in several ways.

2. I'd say this is a misapplication of WP:REDFLAG. The only reason the statement might seem "surprising", "exceptional", or "out of character" to Hans Adler is his lack of understandng of the depth and breadth of this subject. On my talk page I started a section to discuss this, and Ludwigs2 had very little to say, and what he says is rather uninformative. Take a look. What else can one expect from defenders of fringe POV? As a scientific skeptic I'm very familiar with this subject and the way these terms are commonly used. There is nothing exceptional about them. In fact, it is impossible for Hans Adler to find RS from the NSF to back up his purely OR assertion since the SEI reports are the only known places on their website where they discuss this! Therefore what they say here is the totality of what they say on the matter and should therefore (per FRINGE and the Fringe ArbCom) be taken seriously, not deprecated. You will notice that everything about Hans Adler's argumentation is designed to deprecate the NSF and to elevate his personal OR opinion about the "truthiness" of the matter as his purely editorial reason for excluding the NPOV use of the statement. I'll take their opinion over his any day.

   The reason I used the words "scientific consensus" was because (as a national scientific body) (1) their opinions are expected to reflect such a consensus and because (2) the majority of editors in both RfCs confirmed that they considered the statement to reflect the scientific consensus. I acted in good faith when I wrote that and don't deserve the vicious wikihounding and personal attacks I've had to endure from these two editors.

   Also, I didn't drop the statement "after being instructed about WP:RS#Academic consensus." That's not true at all since that part of the RS policy doesn't even deal with this type of situation. Whatever the case might be, I have no burden to argue over this point. Just using the NSF/NSB statement to document that the NSF/NSB wrote what they wrote is my main concern. That's about as NPOV a manner to use the statement as I can think of, and Hans Adler and Ludwigs2 won't even allow that NPOV usage.

3. That's about as misleading a straw man diversionary argument as can be imagined. There is only so much "straw" in a straw man, and the nature of this twisted argument reveals that Hans is grasping at "straws" that aren't there anymore because he's used them up! How can using the NSF/NSB statement to document that the NSF/NSB wrote what they wrote be such a problem? That's a very NPOV way to use the quote. It only serves the cause of fringe POV promoters to keep this out of Wikipedia. (Whether the actual quote is true or not is an entirely different matter best left to other wikis without our policies. Wikipedia doesn't sit in judgment on the truthiness of a statement, it just reports what V & RS say.)
4. "Verifiability, not truth" is a very fundamental policy. If you want to change that wording, thus allowing editors like yourself to incessantly argue with editors who hold opposing opinions about the truthiness of a statement, and letting the majority determine what's allowed here, then change the policy. That would create a nightmarish situation of POV articles where the opposing POV, even if published in V & RS, would not be allowed any mention because a cabal of editors on one side determine a source should be eliminated because it doesn't jibe with their version of "truth".

   Your version of Wikipedia would be "an Orwellian ministry of truth....That is a pass to which we ought not to come again." (From the British Chiropractic Association vs. Simon Singh appeal case.) BTW, there is nothing "absurd", "outdated or false" about the NSF/NSB statement. It's just as relevant today as it was in 2006. That pseudoscientific nonsense hasn't become scientific since then.

5. More later.

Discussion

• SEI is a major reputable source for many purposes. I would accept its statistics as definitive. I would not necessary accept any incidental comments as being of any special reliability, This includes lists of selected examples in a general discussion , which are no more authoritative than many other sources. Experts speaking outsidetheir area have no particular authority. Among the things the NSF is not an authority for is pseudoscience. Fortunately. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• It is nearly impossible to follow the above. What is the source (link or reference), what is the claim (quote or diff) and what is the article (link). Hipocrite (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry that it is all so convoluted. I would appreciate any help to make the description easier to digest.

Source: Section "Public Knowledge About S&T" of Chapter 7 of Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 (SEI 2006). But note: (1) To some degree this is also about other editions of the SEI - a section about belief in pseudoscience was first introduced with SEI 2002, revised and turned into a subsection with SEI 2004, and abandoned with SEI 2008. (2) Some parts of SEI 2006 are now missing on the NSF website, but still available on archive.org. See [13] for my presentation of the SEI 2006, with links to the missing parts.

Additional source for evaluating whether the NSB/NSF seriously meant to make the claim in question/continues to support it: [14]

Contested edits: Numerous, spreading over more than a dozen articles, including several edit wars. The text went through many editions. Here is the worst current example, from the lead of pseudoscience. I removed all references except the relevant one:

Template:Blockquotetop Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status. [...]
[...]
Professor Paul DeHart Hurd argued that a large part of gaining scientific literacy is "being able to distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition". As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific, or whose proponents state that it is scientific, but which nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method. The National Science Foundation, in reporting on "Belief in Pseudoscience" reports ten examples of paranormal beliefs they consider pseudoscientific: extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channeling.

The main issues in this case are: (1) "beliefs they consider pseudoscientific" in a context that clearly defines "pseudoscience" rigorously as something that is similar to science, (but worthless); (2) taking "houses can be haunted", "ghosts", "clairvoyance", "witches", "reincarnation" from the original context to this context (note the parts in green), made worse by misleading wikilinks that lead to (appropriately) primarily culture/religion-related articles.

Here is the original version [15]. (It is interesting to note that even if we don't count the footnote, the originally added text was longer than the relevant source passage itself, half of which is a footnote in the source.)

For further similar edits to more than a dozen other articles see my overview. Hans Adler 11:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• The only instance I'm familiar with where SEI was used as a source—or the National Science Board or National Science Foundation; I'm confused about the link between them—was in Ghost to say that belief in ghosts and lucky numbers is pseudoscience, which is clearly false. Irrational, yes, but it's unrelated to science. But this was a webpage with no byline and looked as though it had been written up as a press release to justify the organization's existence, so it's not the kind of source we should be using anyway. I think we need to stop doing Google searches for sources who call things pseudo-this and pseudo-that, so we can disparage people or ideas. A Google search will return just about anything these days. It's not how we should be writing articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The relation between NSF, NSB and SEI is as follows: The NSF consists of the NSB and a director. [16] The SEI is a bi-annual statistical report by the NSB for US politicians: "The Board shall render to the President and the Congress no later than January 15 of each even numbered year, a report on indicators of the state of science and engineering in the United States." [17]
  • The webpage with no byline is Section 2 of Chapter 7 of the HTML version of SEI 2006, which is also available printed and as a number of PDF files. Hans Adler 11:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

It is disingenuous to present the 2006 SEI in a vacuum. The NSF has made a similar presentation in the 2002, 2004 and 2006 editions of the SEI. I personally am not willing to present their ideas as 'clearly false' or judge if their ideas are internally consistant. I feel that would be injecting my personal opinions where they don't belong.
Each of the following of the Science and Engineering Indicators refers to belief in ghosts, as well as several other topics as pseuoscientific beliefs.
"SEI is prepared by the National Science Foundation's Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS) under the guidance of the National Science Board (Board). It is subject to extensive review by outside experts, interested federal agencies, Board members, and NSF internal reviewers for accuracy, coverage, and balance."
2002 Chart from 2002 2004 2006 Chart from 2006

Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Off Topic sub thread.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do the NSF think that belief in Jesus is pseudoscientific too? DigitalC (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I don't see his name in the list of ten beliefs. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I think it was Mitsube who remarked in one of these discussions that this source only picks on non-Christian religions to attack. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Which makes sense, because the purpose of the pseudoscience discussion was probably an attempt to get money out of US politicians for fighting pseudoscience, and more specifically creationism. But of course in that country it would never do to say that openly, and so they listed only things that fundamentalist Christians also reject. Hans Adler 18:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Where did it pick on any religions? I know this statement doesn't do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"It is disingenuous to present the SEI 2006 in a vacuum." – Guyonthesubway, I couldn't agree more. I apologise for the length of my initial statement, but proving that a misquotation is a misquotation is harder than quote-mining and takes a lot more space. As I already mentioned above the SEI 2002 had a section "Science Fiction and Pseudoscience", and the SEI 2004&2006 had subsections "Pseudoscience". As I also mentioned above, the discussion of pseudoscience was not yet present in SEI 2000, and with SEI 2008&2010 it was abandoned for an unknown reason. I also linked to an article about a last-minute change in SEI 2010 that makes it appear likely that the pseudoscience section was quietly abandoned because of its inaccuracy.

I hope you realise that it impacts your credibility if you complain that something is being swept under the table if it actually takes up two full paragraphs plus one list with three items (roughly 15-20 % of my presentation). Hans Adler 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hans, it is very misleading for you to write:

• "I also linked to an article about a last-minute change in SEI 2010 that makes it appear likely that the pseudoscience section was quietly abandoned because of its inaccuracy." [My emphasis.]

when you know it has nothing to do with pseudoscience at all. That's your own pure speculation without a shred of evidence. Please don't do that. It lessens your credibility. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is about a paragraph concerning belief in creationism being pulled from SEI 2010 because in the opinion of the NSB it wasn't entirely accurate. And you claim that (1) this "has nothing to do with pseudoscience at all", and (2) this cannot inform our evaluation of why the pseudoscience section no longer appears in SEI 2008 and SEI 2010? Are you serious? Hans Adler 05:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Bull, the following religious beliefs are included in the wording you appear to be insisting on:

1 hindu & Buddhist belief in reincarnation

2 Buddhist (not sure about Hindu) belief in ghosts

3 Protestant fundamentalist belief in the reality of witchcraft

Peter jackson (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what does that have to do with the source? If you have issues with that, take it up with the NSF. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to Bull's remark since relegated to the "Off Topic Subthread".

As I said earlier (not necessarily in this particular discussion), I'm not going to waste time arguing about whether Wikipedia policy requires conformity to common sense. I leave that to others. Peter jackson (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The article you link to also includes the redacted text which has no changes to the Psueodscience section. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean the pseudoscience section that was dropped for unknown reasons from the SEI in 2008 and was still absent from the SEI 2010 draft did not undergo a last-minute change? How amazing. Hans Adler 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A quickie (I hope)

I have just become aware that the leads of five articles still contain language that starts with: "The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation".

Quotations from mediumship, Seth Material, extrasensory perception, clairvoyance, astrology condensed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lead of mediumship Template:Blockquotetop The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead and belief in ghosts and spirits to be pseudoscientific beliefs. Lead of Seth Material Template:Blockquotetop The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified and described ten subjects, including channelling, and they consider belief in those subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. Lead of Extrasensory perception Template:Blockquotetop The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified and described ten subjects, including extrasensory perception, and they consider belief in those subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. Lead of Clairvoyance Template:Blockquotetop The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified and described ten subjects, including clairvoyance, and they consider belief in those subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. Lead of Astrology Template:Blockquotetop The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, is that astrology is one of ten subjects considered to be pseudoscientific beliefs.

All these nearly identical passages were added by BullRangifer. I thought once it was pointed out to him [18] he would accept that this kind of thing is simply impossible according to WP:RS#Academic consensus. But SlimVirgin has recently removed a sentence of the same type from the lead of Jane Roberts, citing a WP:SYN violation, and it appears that BullRangifer is trying to defend this material [19]. I suspect he is under the misapprehension that one of the RfCs he started (I am sure he will tell us which one) supports him.

I should clarify that the problems I see have in many cases (most notably astrology) nothing to do with calling these fields pseudoscientific, but only with the following:

1. Claiming that things that appear marginally in the statistical report SEI 2006 (or SEI 2004) express the scientific consensus, merely because the document is authored by the NSF, but with no regard to the prominence of the claims in the documents, or their relevance to them. Violation of WP:RS#Academic consensus.

2. Claiming that the NSF has "identified and described" ten subjects, when they have done nothing more than copy them from a Gallup poll.

3. Claiming there is a specific list of ten items about which there is scientific consensus that belief in them is pseudoscientific belief. This is particularly absurd in the case of astrology, which is made to appear much less pseudoscientific than it is by putting it in a series with haunted houses, ghosts and reincarnation. And of course it strongly suggests that there is no scientific consensus on highly notable subjects not on the least, such as creation science.

Question

Do the five (condensed) examples above constitute misquotations? Hans Adler 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: It occurs to me that this question perhaps more properly belongs to WP:NOR/N, but I would prefer not to spread this discussion to yet another place. Hans Adler 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Regarding your misapplication of WP:RS#Academic consensus, I've already dealt with it in my response number 2 above. That aspect of the RS policy doesn't even remotely deal with this type of situation, and I created that wording because it was confirmed in the two RfCs, where editorial consensus determines the proper application of policy. I acted in abundantly good faith.

2. The "identified and described" wording wasn't the best choice of wording and has been dropped later. I'm willing to revise it. Just give me some time to get it done after this. (Done.)

3. I only mentioned the list of ten because there was a list of ten. That doesn't offer any form of opinion about scientific creationism, which I suspect the NSF, you and I would all agree is pseudoscience. Since it wasn't in that particular source I couldn't mention it or use the source on that article. It's lack of mention doesn't "strongly suggest" anything at all. That's a logical fallacy.

Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Whether I am misapplying WP:RS#Academic consensus is for neutral editors to decide. I am not aware that you have "dealt with it" above in any meaningful way. "[t]he two RfCs" is not a pointer that a neutral editor interested in verifying your claim can use to make sure that you are not misrepresenting the RfCs in question. Are you afraid of that? You have reason to be, since (assuming I got the right RfCs) one of them doesn't deal with academic consensus at all, and the other deals with academic consensus in the sense of our internal processes (where original research is OK), not with your OR claim that an academic consensus that no reliable source ever mentioned exists.
2. Thanks.
3. I see you have also dropped mention of the list in the leads themselves. Thanks. Of course it doesn't matter whether argument from silence is classically considered as a fallacy, when people actually use it in examples like the following, hypothetical one: "The NSF has identified a list of five heavenly bodies which according to academic consensus rotate around the sun: Pluto, Neptune, Halley's comet, Venus and Saturn." (The odd omission of Earth clearly indicates that it's not clear whether there is academic consensus regarding that.) Hans Adler 05:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If only the unvierse of supernatrual topics were so limited. Your comments would lead us to determine from "The New York Post has identified the following people as being involved in organized crime" that there were no other people involved in organized crime. Nobody is contending that the NSF list is complete or even partially complete, only that the NSF sees these topics as pseduoscientific. If you allow random specualtion (and I know you do) I'd guess the Gallup poll hasn't been conducted in a while, so NSF didnt have the data to cite outside of Astrology. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can't see how presenting essentially random incomplete lists as if they had some huge authority creates the problem I described, then I just can't help you. I am not qualified for discussing with people who have the level of intelligence / reading comprehension.

Your last sentence actually makes a valid point. It does appear that Gallup did not publish paranormal belief poll results after 2005. But the fact remains that three SEI editions are the only reliable sources we know of that make the sloppy claim, and they only make it casually. Under these circumstances it's enough to have a plausible argument that they don't stand behind the quotation you are ascribing to them to make it unusable for our purposes. Hans Adler 20:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My close of the RfC

...has been way over-extrapolated. I have lengthened it. See:

• Talk:Ghost/pseudoscience#RfC:_Context_of_NSF_statement_about_belief_in_ghosts

Gwen Gale (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Three questionable sources in a WP:BLP

Continuing problems on Gilad Atzmon as editor adds these three sources for a claim that some anti-Zionists criticize Atzmon.

• http://www.marxists.de/racism/antisemitism/counterpunch.htm Long rant by a political opponent on a self-published advocacy site.
• http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/01/friends-we-dont-need.html A throw-a-way accusation by a professor who does not identify self in the self-published blog posting.
• http://www.labournet.net/antiracism/0507/ongilad1.html Long rant by political opponent on a self-published advocacy site.

These were deleted before but now are used to prop up a sentence in the lead that infers that only Anti-zionists criticize Atzmon, which obviously isn't even true, as even rest of article shows. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they're all unreliable, especially the second one, as blogs aren't considered reliable sources. As for the rest, they don't look like secondary sources to me. In this case it's the quality of the sources rather than the quantity of the sources.

Update: I removed the second reference, and marked the rest with {{Vc}}. Minimac (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Anybody else want to call for deleting the refs? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In my view these are polemical, and therefore unsuitable for use in supporting controversial material in a WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy. Note there are a number of sources like that in the article and any attempt to include an Atzmon defense usually is deleted. Last spring an Admin deleted most of them, but they and new ones are back worse than ever. Should I bring the examples to [[WP:BLPN}}? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Self-published Youtube video

An apparent former pupil of the Mace-Kingsley Ranch School made a youtube video about her rather unpleasant time at the school, which someone has uploaded to Commons. It's got an OTRS ticket and everything. Is that video file okay to use as an illustration in our article on the school? --JN466 18:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A self published u tube video kept and copied to wikipedia, no way, it is not a reliable source at all. Why do we need it? Are there no independent third party reports? The whole thing is completely unverifiable. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This video in no way satisfies WP:RS, and I can see no reason for it to be kept on the Commons either. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Some people on Commons agree with you. However, those raising such issues over there end up in a morass here. It makes interesting reading.

Given that there have recently been acrimonious discussions around these videos, a Wikiversity resource has been created to justify the presence of all these self-published youtube videos on Commons. --JN466 09:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I had not noticed this thread earlier, as I was not notified by the individual that started it. This issue is misfiled at this board - the file was never being used as a source. It is covered by the external linking policy instead. It was removed from the article by Off2riorob (talk · contribs), and I stated on the article's talk page that I have no objection to its removal. The user that had removed it replied, and the matter is now resolved. -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd editions

When a book is published, and then published again in a second edition a few years later, which publication date should appear in the reference when an article cites the second edition? Eugene (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cite the edition you looked at to get the information (per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT)... noting which edition the information came from in is important, because different editions may say different things.

Thanks, should the reference to the 2nd edition include the date the 1st edition was published as well, or is this superfluous? Eugene (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as you note that you are using the second Edition, I don't see a need to note the date of the first edition (but it is not "wrong" to do so.) I would format the citation along the lines of: "Smith, John, A Study of Stuff, Reliable Pub., New York, 2nd Ed, 2008, p.4, ISBN"

If the publisher has changed (such as might happen with an old book that is reprinted), then I would definitely note both... "Jones, John, Stuff and More Stuff, Respected Publishing LTD. Cambridge, 1875, pp 22-23 (as reprinted by Modern Publishers, London, 2010, ISBN)" Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene has cited your response, Blueboar, to prevent me from adding that the first publication date was 1989 (scroll to the end of the diff, in the References section, and see the edit summary). The reason I want to add the first publication date is that it has a direct bearing on what the source says; he says "currently no one believes X," and it's not clear whether he meant currently in 1989 or currently in 2002. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we know he said it in 2002, because that's the edition consulted, and since it's a pretty important point I think we have to assume he also meant it in 2002 (i.e. it wasn't something from the previous edition he meant to change but forgot about). But if we haven't seen the 1989 edition, we don't know for sure that he said it in 1989 at all. So the honest thing to do is to simply attribute the statement to the 2002 second edition and not distract the reader with mention of 1989. Alternatively, find a copy of the 1989 edition and clear up the question that way. Barnabypage (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If it really is a 2nd edition, not just a 2nd printing, then I think you have to assume that the author has read & approved everything they didn't change. That's a legal fiction, of course, but so is the whole verifiability thing.

Sometimes a book can change publisher even without a new edition, if it's taken over, for example. Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

KMFDM FAQ

http://www.kmfdmfaq.com/faq.htm I don't think this is a reliable source (for information on KMFDM, in this specific case adding information on a single from the album Xtort here), it seems to be a fan-made site, and I don't think it has enough external control for accuracy to be reliable (whether the information is true or not). However, User:Torchiest contends that "That FAQ has been listed as a source on the main KMFDM page for four years, and it's been linked to from KMFDM.net as an official band-endorsed source of information for years as well."[20] So instead of engaging in an edit war I felt some objective viewpoints would help solve this dilemma one way or the other. Thanks! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This does appear to be a fan site (and one that hasn't been updated in 4 years). There's no indication that it satisfies Wikipedia's reliable sourcing requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

{ec} Looks like a fansite to me. Unless the authors are music journalists or something, (I didn't research the site's authors) I would say that it's not a reliable source. The fact it's used as a source for years simply means that it's been wrong for all that time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom of the page it says "The information found herein is © KMFDM Inc." Does that make a difference? Torchiest (talk | contribs) 23:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's because part of the FAQ was taken from kfmdm.net, as per http://www.kmfdmfaq.com/faq.htm#VIII:2. By the way, the link from kfmdm.net doesn't seem to be an endorsement, since that page also links to kfmdmsucks.net, and even our Wikipedia page. --GRuban (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Geist

I'm trying to cite http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4690/125/ in Wind Mobile. You can read up on him here but I believe, as a respected and frequently consulted legal academic on telecom issues that his blog meets the WP:RS guidelines. Thoughts? BordenRhodes (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Extended discussion on the Geist blog entry.

That is more accurately along the lines of a microblog post, which simply mentions that he had heard "criticism" from three (also) unreliable sources. If he were providing actual analysis within his areas of expertise, I would certainly consider investing more time to ascertain the reliability of his personal blog. Instead, this is more akin to someone tweeting that there's some criticism somewhere of something online. Simply not reliable for our purposes and definitely not up to par for encyclopedic content (and I would bet you that Mr. Geist would agree). Wikipedia is not a place for consumer complaints, and using a microblog entry (of an admittedly notable and interesting person) to try to get around our sourcing requirements is not appropriate. jæs (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC) The statement I make in the article is Wind drew criticism for port blocking. I cite this using Geist's site in which he criticises Wind. So I'm not saying anything unverifiable there. I then say which prevented users of their advertised "unlimited" data plans from using services on the Internet. Here, Dr Geist cites http://www.windmobile.ca/community/WIND-news/detail/data-ports-fix/ which was written by a Wind employee and in which he admits to what I wrote. Am I to understand that, for the purposes of proving that Wind is blocking ports, that the company's own employees cannot be trusted?! Please don't assume whose side Dr. Geist would take. If you must know, you may e-mail him at [redacted].BordenRhodes (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Let me try to be clearer: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We are not a collection of online microblog entries and forum posts. We are not a collection of consumer complaints. We love academic journals as reliable sources. Do you see the comparison I'm trying to help you make? In five years time, it's highly unlikely a temporary port blocking scenario will be relevant to Wind Mobile's history. If it is, at that point, reliable sources will have covered it and we will then be able to mention it here. In the meantime, it is not reliably sourced and does not appear to be encyclopedic. I've done my best to try to explain my interpretation of our policy. Whether my view of it is right or wrong, I'm going to step back and let others take a whack at it (if they're so inclined). jæs (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Ah, I see your angle now. You may very well be correct in that, in Wind's broader history, this may not be significant. Unfortunately, Wind doesn't seem be be getting enough high-profile media attention to verify consumer issues on a broader level. I think (hence, opinion, which I too shall leave to the community to evaluate), that in business profiles it is relevant to mention customer satisfaction, in much the same way that articles on politicians will mention approval ratings or significant complaints. Obviously, things change, which is why wikipedia is editable, so there's no reason not to include at least net neutrality issues now and remove them as circumstances change. BordenRhodes (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you're beginning to see my "angle" now, but you're clearly not there yet. If it's not encyclopedic today, and it's not likely going to be encyclopedic five years from now, then it's not encyclopedic. When (or if) The Globe & Mail, the Toronto Star, or other reliable sources dedicate some articles to consumer complaints about Wind, then we'll have something to talk about. See Walmart, for example: every time somebody has a negative experience, we don't go on about it. When there are serious environmental, labour, or consumer issues that receive widespread coverage, we cover it. Some folks posting on online forums who want their torrents unblocked or who are complaining about launch issues simply are not, and are unlikely to become, encyclopedic issues. jæs (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned our back and forth may have hindered outside opinions on the reliability of the Geist blog entry, so I'm collapsing the discussion above. Please take a look at the entry and feel free to share your thoughts. jæs (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• No - Clearly a self-published source that fails WP:RS. If there are obvious secondary sources that cite his blog then they can be used as sources, but this is a primary and self-published source. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• I think I agree with Jaes, but not for Blaxthos' reasons. Geist seems like an expert source, and he's not primary, he's not complaining, he's citing complainers. However, the issue isn't so much that Geist's blog is not a reliable source, it's more that this is a trivial incident. Three bloggers complained about several days of port blocking, and the company responded. There isn't a single large service company that you can't find three bloggers complaining about service occasionally. If Geist had written about a continuous trend, or a firestorm of criticism, maybe, but this isn't that, it's a few lines of criticism over a few days. Unless you can show some kind of larger impact or comprehensive coverage, it's undue weight. --GRuban (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Hmm I like GRuban's take but I'm not sure I agree it's a completely trivial matter, particularly since it appears some applications remain blocked (is there another source on that?). However, I think it could be rolled up into a blanket statement saying something like "WIND experienced teething problems, including service disruptions initial blocking of certain common data applications etc". TastyCakes (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I feel it important to note that my comments are based solely on the evaluation of the reliability of the blog itself -- neither the credentials of the author, nor the content of his statements, were considered. It is still my position that blogs need be cited by secondary sources to pass WP:V and WP:RS. If we can demonstrate that either (1) the blog is regularly cited by secondary sources, or (2) that this specific tidbit is cited in any other reliable source, I'm amenable to it qualifying WP:RS; in that case, deference to proper weight is important (as noted by the other editors above). Hope this helps clear things up.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"It is still my position that blogs need be cited by secondary sources to pass WP:V and WP:RS." It may be your position, but it is directly contrary to our WP:SPS policy. Dlabtot (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Laura Ingraham

Is this gossip column from the Washington Post a reliable source for the article on Laura Ingraham? The content being added is "In July 2009 she adopted a 13 months old boy, Michael Dmitri, from Russia." I'm of the opinion that no gossip column is a reliable source for facts, but another editor disagrees. I'm asking here first, but I can take it to WP:BLPN if that seems more appropriate. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is okay, especially as it is the Washington Post and there's a picture of the happy couple, apparently supplied by Ingraham herself. There's a bunch more on her website too, giving his name etc [21]. The kid is pretty cute, don't you think! --Slp1 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

All kids are cute. But this isn't a question of whether the story is true; it's about whether a gossip column is a reliable source for a BLP. Would you take it as an RS if it was the only source? Celestra (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's the Washington Post. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, you are right that all kids are cute. To look at. Sometimes their behaviour, on the other hand....!! It's a good question. Editors here at this page tend to be cautious about answering general questions, since very often things are not black and white. On the whole, I agree that WP is and should be very cautious about using gossip columns as a source. Partly because they are often of dubious relability and partly because we are enjoined not to repeat gossip per BLP. So, very often, I would say no. What sways me here is that it is the Washington Post, which would have very high levels of editorial oversight, partly because Ingraham appears to have collaborated with the story since she supplied a photo, and partly because similar photos and information are available from her own website. So in this case I would say, yes, it's okay. But for other information, e.g. X has broken up from Y, sourced from a gossip column from a less trusted newspaper, I would say no. Hope that helps! --Slp1 (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Washington Post is a reliable source. Yes this particular citation is fine. Sources aren't disqualified simply for using the word 'gossip', which appears to be the only objection. Dlabtot (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Slp1, that's closer to what I was thinking. And you're right, there doesn't seem to be any harm. Celestra (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

nested sources?

I'm looking at a journal article researching info to use here. The article gives citations for a lot of the information the authors talk about (mostly magazines and newspapers). My question is, when should I cite this article (below), and when should I cite the work they cite in the article? If they say "this magazine said this", who gets cited? —Sebquantic (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Bayus, Barry L.,Jain, Sanjay,Rao, Ambar G. Truth or consequences: An analysis of vaporware and new product announcements. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 38(1), Feb, 2001. pp. 3-13. US: American Marketing Association.ISSN: 0022-2437

You should always cite the place where you get the infomration from, even if it didn't originate there. If they cite an article indexed as Smith (1998, p24) in their article, you would phrase that as: Smith (1998, p24) cited in Bayus, Barry L.,Jain, Sanjay,Rao, Ambar G. Truth or consequences: An analysis of vaporware and new product announcements. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 38(1), Feb, 2001. pp. 3-13. US: American Marketing Association.ISSN: 0022-2437 Betty Logan (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks—Sebquantic (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed but, if you can go to the original source why wouldn't you? Each iteration increases the possibility of error. Can you find the original and quote from it? JodyB _talk 13:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt I would be able to get ahold of most of the originals. They are decade-old issues of things like Computerworld, The Wall Street Journal, etc —Sebquantic (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT answers these questions. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The original source might be a primary source, or an unreliable source. In such a case the source citing it would be the one to cite. Peter jackson (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

1989 Dewsbury race riot

Does the following passage from Alan Sykes, The Radical Right in Britain (British History in Perspective), Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p.131

‘In contrast to the innovation of the NF in the 1980s, the BNP represented more of a continuation of both the issues and the methods of the 1970s. The combination of a sizeable immigrant community and government attempts to foster a multiracial society enabled it to present the native white population as an oppressed people in their own country. The BNP's 'Rights for Whites' campaign, which took off after a major demonstration in Dewsbury in 1989, marked the behinning of a more active approach. 'The real watershed', as John Tyndall observed, 'signifying the party's determination to enter mainstream politics occurred around 1990'.

Support the text

"The riot has been viewed as the beginning of the BNP's more active approach to British politics. John Tyndall called it 'The real watershed' adding that the BNP’s ’determination to enter mainstream politics occurred around 1990"[22] diff in question.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with One Night in Hackney on the article talk page that this is confusing. If the demonstration was in 1989, and all John Tyndall (politician) says is "around 1990", it's not at all clear that he was referring to this event specifically. If we're allowing him to be a year off, surely more than one race or immigration related event occurred within a year of 1990. Sykes is writing about the BNP, but not necessarily about this riot, in the second sentence. Also, as Hackney writes, it's not clear what "more active approach" means, more standing for election, more demonstrations, or more brickbats. You can cite Sykes that the riot had an effect on the BNP, he is saying that, but it would probably be more useful if we were sure what that effect was. --GRuban (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

GLBTQ

Is http://www.glbtq.com/ a reliable source for listing whether someone is GLBT? Woogee (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say so - looking at the personnel involved, it seems to be essentially an academic publication. Having said that, be careful to avoid assuming that the mere existence of a glbtq.com article on an individual constitutes a definite assertion that they are G, L, B, T or indeed Q - the source still has to say explicitly "he was gay". See for example http://www.glbtq.com/literature/lawrence_te.html, a case where it would be wrong to deduce from the presence of the article a definite statement as to the person's sexuality. Barnabypage (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Of the first four contributers in the A catergary one is a PHD student. It seems to be something like a wiki, but with some editorial oversight. But to what level I cannot tell. From their own disclamer "WE DO NOT WARRANT THAT THE MATERIALS AND SERVICES AVAILABLE ON THE SITE ARE FREE FROM ERROR, THAT ERRORS WILL BE CORRECTED EVEN IF WE KNOW OR SHOULD KNOW OF THEM, T" This may apply just to services (they appear to be a comercial (not an accademic) website). I would not rate this as RS without some kind of proof they are regared as reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Advocate and the American Library Association appear to rate it highly - see Glbtq.com. (Isn't it ironic that we so often forget to check whether there's a Wikipedia article on a source before debating its trustworthiness!). I agree not all the contributors appear to be as eminent as the higher-ups, but equally there seem to be quite a few authoritative figures there, plus being a PhD student isn't a disqualification if they're published in a reliable source. Perhaps it would add an extra level of reassurance to check the authors of the individual articles that Woogee wants to cite - can you tell us what these are? Oh, and I think the disclaimer is just a standard liability-ducking exercise - you'll find much the same on the BBC Website, for example (http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/#6), and countless others. Barnabypage (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that the BBC seem to be talking about bbc.co.uk functions, not material. Yoou might be right and its a standerd diclaimer, but I have never seen one that states that material might not be arcuate or corrected. The The Advocate link on the Glbtq.com does not work, nor the ALA one. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven - The BBC disclaimer explicitly covers content - The BBC does not guarantee the timeliness, completeness or performance of the website or any of the content. While we try to ensure that all content provided by the BBC is correct at the time of publication no responsibility is accepted by or on behalf of the BBC for any errors, omissions or inaccurate content on the website. Disclaimers like this are all over the place, in one form or another - so I don't think the presence of one on GLBTQ really says anything about reliability. Barnabypage (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nor do they say they will not correct such mistakes. Thats the point. Its not that they say that errors are not their fault, its that they may not correct them even if they are informed of them. Indead the BBC say they will try to ensure accuaracy. The GLBTQ disclaimer says they are not concearned how accurate material is, even if they know it to be inaccurate. They actualy say they will (or at least may) publish material they know to be inaccurate.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mean they're not concerned, or that they will not correct mistakes, or deliberately publish incorrect material, it means they do not accept that knowledge of an inaccuracy makes them liable for any problems created by it. It's really no different from the BBC saying it will try to ensure (rather than will ensure). Anyway - it's a distraction! Barnabypage (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there even such a thing as a reliable source for listing whether someone is GLBT ? Doesn't it depend on what they have said on the matter per Wikipedia:LGBT#Guidelines ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it also says that is RS say they are then we can say Rs has said they are. But I have been wondering why this source and not another source thats more reliable?Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the guidelines is that inclusion is conditional i.e. 'if they themselves identify as such'. An RS is a prerequisite but it's insufficient in itself without reliably sourced information where they have 'identified themselves as such'. In other words, even if www.glbtq.com were an RS it only gets you halfway there (unless that site's entry happens to contain reliable material where the person has identified themselves as GLBT). Sean.hoyland - talk 12:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sean is correct... self-identification is needed to categorize people as belonging to a potentially controversial group. We also have much higher sourcing standards when it comes to discussing living people (see WP:BLP), and this is especially true when it comes to applying potentially controversial labels. We must avoid rumor or speculation like a plague. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But the criteria are obviously going to be different if the article is dealing with a historical figure (we're not going to ask, say, Michelangelo to self-identify from beyond the grave as GLBTQ). So we really need to know exactly what material Woogee's query concerns. Barnabypage (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

True but he said 'is GLBT'. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I'd overlooked that and kind of assumed he was enquiring about the historical entries. Well, looking at Woogee's recent contributions I'm guessing that he's got work on List of LGBT Jews in mind - and that page certainly does use GLBTQ.com for living people. So the LGBT and BLP guidelines and policies would kick in. Barnabypage (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

OK so lets ask who?Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Living people must be treated with kid gloves and generally self-disclosure is probably the standard (bar noted controversies like Ted Haggard and even then it doesn't say "Haggard is a homosexual", it spends a lot of text tracing events). Michelangelo and T.E. Lawrence are both dead, so the biographies of living persons policy does not apply. Also, with famous dead people like those two, the articles should probably academic sources that discuss this at length rather than webpages (I personally like to mine pages like that for actual sources that could be used to verify the text). I would ask, where did GLBTQ get their information from? And once you find that out, why not use that source instead? Irrespective of the article, we should always use the best sources to substantiate text, which means primary sources when a person is self-disclosing, and highly reliable secondary sources when they're not.

I agree with Sean that the LGBT Guidelines are a good place to look for guidance. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thier articels are not (or at least do not appear to be) sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

At least some are, though the bibliographies are rather well-hidden - see http://www.glbtq.com/arts/mckellen_i,2.html#bibliography for example. Barnabypage (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In my mind, that argues against it being used as a source. If a sexual orientation can only be confirmed by rumour and innuendo rather than widespread consensus (or even widespread discussion as a controversy), I would be reluctant to make a point of mentioning it in the article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Clarets Chronicles

Something a bit different here; this one's about a book, The Clarets Chronicles: The Definitive History of Burnley Football Club 1882–2007. Some information about the book, its authors and its contents can be found here. The problem is, this is a self-published book released by the football club. I have mainly been using it to add statistics and dates of birth for former Burnley players. However, the book also contains a section about the club's stadium, Turf Moor. At that article's recent FAC, User:Laser brain claimed that the book was not suitable as it is a primary source. I can understand this, for verifiability reasons, but inside the book (which the user could not have seen) there is a whole page listing the sources used by the authors. Most of these are secondary books, such as:

• The Breedon Book of Football League Records by Gordon Smailes ([23])
• Complete Book of Football Managers by Dennis Turner and Alex White ([24])
• The PFA Premier & Football League Players' Records by Barry Hugman ([25])
• The Football League: the Official Illustrated History by Byron Butler ([26])
• The Football Grounds of Great Britain by Simon Inglis ([27])
• The Daily Telegraph Football Chronicle by Norman Barrett ([28])
• Guinness Football Fact Book by Jack Rollin ([29])
• The Cassell Soccer Companion by David Pickering ([30])

And there are many more. My point is that I can't see why this book, despite being self-published, cannot be accepted as a reliable source when it is so clear that verifiable research has been conducted in its creation. In all honesty, the Clarets Chronicles is just an updated version of Burnley A Complete Record, a book published in 1991 by Breedon Books and written by two of the same authors. However, because of the publisher's name this one would be accepted as an RS with no questions asked. Do other editors think that the Clarets Chronicles should be accepted as a reliable source or do they think the FAC reviewer was correct? Cheers, BigDom 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You're mixing FA review with RS standards. FA review is a higher bar, it's the highest bar we have at the Wikipedia, it means the article as a whole is the best it can be. The Clarets Chronicles is a sufficient reliable source for a specific fact, even though it's self published, since it's published by the club, who are surely experts on their own field, but the reviewer wasn't objecting to any use of it per se, he was objecting to the fact that you didn't have enough secondary and non-self-published sources total for your article. You can't claim the Clarets Chronicles is a secondary source just because it has a nice bibliography section, since you don't know which facts they took from where, and neither will any of our readers. For the FA, go find some of those nice secondary non-self-published sources from that bibliography, and use them. No one ever said writing one of the best 3 thousand articles out of the 3 million we have was supposed to be easy. (OK, Giano may have said something similar. But besides him!) --GRuban (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg

As per the "About"[[31]] page from the site,

Award-winning STOMP, or Straits Times Online Mobile Print, is Asia's leading citizen-journalism website with user-generated material fuelling its success.

However, there's a editor who claims that the content within carry the same weight as an actual news site [[32]] as per his comments justifying its reliability. A sample of the post (which is the same as the one used by the editor is this one [[33]]. As can be seen from the talk page [[34]], BLP issues have been raised about the article so whether this site meets WP:RS affects how the article is being edited.DanS76 (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say no, user contributed is an issue, no way to see the identity of the person blogging either. No clear indication of whether there is any kind of editorial process or retractions mechanism. We don't allow According to an anonymous blogger on .... Unomi (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Organic Center and Union of Concerned Scientists

Hola,

This question is inspired by this section of the soybean talk page. In essence, can an Organic Center report, funded in part by the Union of Concerned Scientists be used as a reliable source? The OC report contradicts and criticizes the USDA report on pesticide use but since it's gray literature from government and NGO agencies, the reliability is not clear (I would consider the USDA report clearly reliable, the OC/UCS report is more where my question is). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the USDA report is reliable. The Organic Center report actually seems to be written almost entirely by Charles Benbrook. Searching Google for him, he seems to be academically qualified to comment on GM foods. He's published in the peer-reviewed literature before on this topic. However, I'm a bit leery why this is published under the NGO and not reviewed. If you want to attribute something from the report to either him or the NGO, I think that would be okay ("Charles Benbrook of the Organic Center says that..."). I don't think I'd take anything from the report as fact. Also, I'm not sure how much weight I'd give the NGO report compared to the USDA report. My opinion would be somewhere between little and very little. -Atmoz (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's about what I'd give it as well - at most a single line and no substance ("Charles Benbrook has criticized the USDA report for..." without going into the criticisms themselves). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

islam.thetruecall.com

Is [35] a reliable source for the quotes in Islamic view of Moses - a pretty bad article in any case. I removed a couple of other broken/dubious sources Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that article is horrible. I can't see anything on islam.thetruecall.com to indicate that it's reliable for anything and it seems to be used in a number of articles. I assume quotes from the Qur'an can be sourced from wikisource (e.g. 'Has the story of Moses reached thee?' etc) but quotes from the Qur'an seems like the last thing that article needs. It's in desperate need of a pruning and secondary sources about the topic. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. Zero^talk 06:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Uexpress

Uexpress appears to be a syndication service.[36][37][38] They mostly carry word games, puzzles, cartoon, features, and some columnists. I don't see any indication that they exert editorial control over the material they offer. For columns that haven't been published by any conventional newspaper or similar publication are they the equivalent of a self-published source?   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• It depends what one is trying to use it for. Are we talking about something like "Pet Connection" or "Supermarket Sampler", which I would expect to be noncontroversial, or the columns of Ted Rall or Ann Coulter, for whom many readers take at least one of those columnists with a grain of salt the Bonneville Salt Flats? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Uexpress is being used as a source for an opinion of a controversial group, based specifically on a column which does not appear to have been printed in any secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
    • It would still be helpful to know which group, what opinion, which column, and which Wikipedia article this relates to. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of an interview as a reliable secondary source

In the Southern Poverty Law Center article, an editor is using an interview from the WNYC radio program "On the Media". He/she summarizes this interview as follows:

In the last year the SPLC has also expressed concern that hot rhetoric and disinformation is causing a dangerous increase in paranoia and confrontation within the political landscape. There is the concern that overheated speech of pundits and politicians is inflaming hate groups that may pose a viable threat. The SPLC specifically singled out Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Congressman Steve King, and commentators Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs as failing their moral responsibility for the inflammatory effects of their rhetoric on hate group violence.

1. Is a straight interview like this (it is not clips of an interview that is in the context of a news story) a primary source, or is it a reliable secondary source?

2. If the source is a primary source, does the above summary violate the following policy on primary sources:

A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge...Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source.

--Drrll (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Interviews are considered primary sources and can only be used to represent the opinion of the subject. There are certain cases where they are valuable (see #LGBTQ above) but generally you would use them for "In an interview, the SPLC said..." statements. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about using only direct quotes or very close paraphrased approximations, right?--Drrll (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be my interpretation of PSTS, and I would much rather use their own website. I would actually favour using a shorter, less detailed summary, not including the names, stating clearly that it was an interview, and if possible attribute it directly to a person at the SPLC rather than the whole organization. Also, I wouldn't use it at all if it's a lengthy article - that's stub-type stuff and I would expect it to change as more information about the SPLC arises to flesh out the article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would classify the material quoted above as ephemera that really isn't encyclopedic. I wouldn't call it "stub-stuff" as stubs are held to the same standards as full articles. I agree that interview are primary sources, even when embedded within news stories. The exterior news story may be secondary if it synthesizes or brings some objectivity to the topic, however if it just is reportage, it also is a primary source as an eye-witness to the interview. --Bejnar (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack's site

In respect of this site www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket which has been used extensively by user blackjack I would point out that as regard copyright there can be no real issue because the cricket content is in two parts. Firstly scorecards copied from a variety of secondary sources. No issue on reliability here as the cards are available in several books, some dating back 100 years or more. There is no primary source here ie: BLACKJACK has discovered nothing new. Part two is his own opinions expressed as comments and annotations. Some of this is risible and utterly unreliable. The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians which is accepted by MCC and ICC as the main source in this area(ICC co-ordinator D.Kendrick is ACS chairman) saw these comments to BJ's work in the terms I express and have written about them as such. Given the BJ attacks violently anyone questioning his work I believe this should be looked at. Though the scorecards are reliable, the opinions are actually new and held only by BJ and thus utterly unreliable. Distinguished historians Peter Griffiths(Cricketarchive), Peter Wynne Thomas, Keith Warsop, John Goulstone and others would support this view. Incidentally Mr Warsop published an almost identical list of scorecards to the one on www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket twenty years ago and a booklet detailing such scores was published by ACS six years ago. As for using names to sign posts - who is Blackjack or Moondyne?88.108.2.72 (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC) DR A Tillmann

We have already stated (above) that this issue revolves around the question of whether BlackJack (in his real life persona) should be considered a reliable expert on Cricket due to his stated work experience. If so then his opinion would be note worthy and can be included, and his website would be considered reliable and can be cited. Those of us who respond to questions on this notice board are not in a position to judge whether a particular person should be considered an expert in a specific field. That is a question that is better answered by the editors at the relevant project page (in this case Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket) who will be more familiar with the reputation of sources relating to the topic.

If you feel that BlackJack is "attacking" people, or violating another of our behavior guidelines, the place to complain is WP:ANI not here. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Blueboar. Dr Tillmann is none other than Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft. He has already made several posts at WT:CRIC which annoyed the members there but he still persists in his petty vendetta which, as you can see, is because I do not always agree with some of his chums in the ACS. You will note, however, that though he doesn't like my theories, he does agree that the site is reliable for its match reference information and that is what really matters. The site is designed to present a consolidated list of match references and it is on this that its reliability must be judged. I'm happy to discuss it at WT:CRIC as long as the contributors are all bona fide members of this site.

By the way, the ACS has no official status whatsoever. It has, however, used my matchlist as the essential basis of its online "Early Cricket Project" and has designated me as the main contributor. CricketArchive (also mentioned above) has published match references and full match scorecards for the 18th century which were provided by me and, again, they have acknowledged my contribution (I reckon I supplied some 95% of their 18th century material).

I'm rather busy in real life now and can only spare limited time for WP. But I have been sorting out site licensing with Moonriddengirl as above and I said to her that I will instigate a discussion on CRIC when time permits, unless one of the genuine members wants to kick it off first. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 15:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

ACS is the official ICC provider of List A statistics and is used by ICC for all its' official records.88.108.10.67 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

List A cricket started in 1963. The site in question deals with the 18th century. Please keep things in context. ---- No it's used for all records and list A started in 1962Jack | ^{talk page} 20:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Get a clue please... both of you... complaining about each other here on this page will not help. For resolution on the "expert/not expert issue, go to WP:WikiProject Cricket... for resolution on sock puppetry, personal attacks or other behavior issues, go to WP:ANI. Please to not continue your conflict here on this page. Do not respond to each other on this page (we understand both sides of the issue, so there is no need)... take it elsewhere. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't send this back to WT:CRIC, that is where it just goes round and round. A neutral area where reliable sources are debated (i.e. here) is a much better venue. At WT:CRIC, that is where Blackjack and his supporters (including me) all interact, and a fair and neutral assessment of the source will never take place there. You can ask Blackjack and the IP to not comment on the source themselves and leave it to a neutral user, but please take a look at the issue and don't bounce it back to WT:CRIC :) --SGGH ^ping! 13:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - so let's get to the crux of it - why should this site be considered reliable according to our normal policies on RS? I don't want any "he said, she said", let's stick to the site. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. But I am going to have to explain why the site is reliable and also explain to people who do not follow cricket that I am a subject expert. But, I don't know the process here. Please post some questions and I will answer them, if you want to do it that way. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's start with that - which reliable sources note that you are an subject expert? Newspapers, specialist cricket publications etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Just noting in passing that IMO this is the proper venue for this discussion, not the cricket project. Cameron Scott's quesiton above is precisely the one I'd have asked, and is the most relevant here. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, here is a slightly easier question that may be helpful: What reliable sources have attributed information to the site? That is, it is not suitable for Wikipedia to use information from a site if no relevant authorities regard the site as reliable. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The essential sources which may be considered reliable are CricketArchive (CA) and the Association of Cricket Statisticians (ACS), both of which qualify as "specialist cricket publications". CA is an online source only while the ACS mainly produces printed material in the form of handbooks, although it does have a website which includes its Early Cricket Project. CA is widely quoted for its statistical content but note that it contains very little in the way of narrative or historical content. The ACS is less well known but, as its article shows, it does attract recognition.

If we accept that these are reliable sources then the next thing is to ascertain where they got their 18th century coverage from and, although my contributions were not exclusive, they were extensive and the bulk of the 18th century material published online by both these sources is derived directly from the match references that form the fundamental part of From Lads to Lord's (LTL). The acceptance of this information by CA and the ACS effectively confirms their view of myself as an expert in this area of cricket history.

If you look at CricketArchive contributors you will see that John Leach is one of many people who contributed the thousands of scorecards and match references to the site. The page is not specific re contributions given but I can guarantee that these people did not merely write in with a question or two. For example, I believe that Peter Wynne-Thomas, who has an article on here, contributed massive amounts of information about Nottinghamshire CCC. My contribution amounted to about 95% of the site's 18th century coverage including nearly all the detailed scorecards.

Contributions to the ACS Early Cricket Project are recognised in detail. If you look at the list of contributors you will see my name and if you follow the matchlists (one per year) you will see that I contributed the vast majority of references given. Taking one page at random, you can see that the Matches in 1730 were contributed exclusively by me.

The information I gave to CA and ACS was based on the list of match references that forms the fundamental core of LTL but admittedly it is me personally rather than the site which is acknowledged as the source by CA and ACS.

I have been extensively published by the ACS both online and in their printed material: e.g., their main publication is the Cricket Statistician which is a quarterly journal. Examples of my ACS online work are this and this. I was also published by The Cricket Society whose secretary Mr Hignell personally invited me to contribute historical material based on my work in the ACS publications. I resigned from the ACS in 2007 due to differences with the committee about its policy towards cricket history and I decided not to remain in the Cricket Society because I have limited time for writing and I wanted to concentrate on the internet.

(addition) I've been reminded that my article The Monster Bat Controversy of 1771 was published in the Autumn 2006 edition of The Journal of the Cricket Society. Various articles about cricket in the 18th and early 19th centuries were published in the ACS Cricket Statistician from c.2004 to 2007 when I resigned from the ACS. I'm afraid I don't have those journals any longer so can't check the precise details. Since spring 2007, my writing has been confined to the internet.

Re Peter Wynne-Thomas who I mentioned above, he performed a review of LTL in its initial form although I should point out that he got someone to print it for him instead of viewing it on the internet. As a result, he took it out of its "comfort zone" and lost all sense of layout and presentation. However, it is the content that is important. His review is in the Cricket Statistician in either the 2007 autumn or 2008 winter edition. This was after I resigned from the ACS and the editor added a little note to the review which rather unnecessarily mentioned my resignation. Mr Wynne-Thomas recognised that the fundamental aspect of the work is the consolidated match references and he praised my industry in completing this and commented upon its usefulness (at that time a consolidated set of 18th century match references did not exist with references distributed across a number of not easily obtainable books). ACS reviewers tend to be very strict and do not hesitate to cite errors when they see them. Mr Wynne-Thomas did not cite any match references that were incorrect and I am sure that he did check them, or at least a substantial sample of them. Given that he is acknowledged to be an expert in the field, this finding says a great deal about the site's reliability. I have to admit that he did have some criticisms in other areas but they do not imply a lack of reliability and are effectively his opinion versus mine. He suggested a couple of extra sources (one of which I found useful, the other less so). He complained somewhat testily about the lack of original research (which must suit WP) but, as my preface clearly points out, the key purpose of the work is to consolidate existing match references. He disagreed with some of my opinions such as my view that Neville Cardus was the "wisest of all cricket writers", which is hardly significant. And he objected quite strongly to the geopolitical and general history coverage which he sees as irrelevant, whereas I would point out that the scope and theme of the work are clearly outlined in the preface and it does say that I consider the geopolitical and cultural background to be of great importance, so that is a matter of whether to present precise detail only or provide a big picture too.

LTL has received mentions in other media although I can't be specific about dates. The mentions were not unfavourable and were included in pieces about cricket or sporting websites in general. For example, the Daily Mail in c.2008 had an article about sporting websites and said that LTL carries a compendium of early cricket match references, or words to that effect, but made no comment about its quality. There was something in a similar vein last year in one of the Sunday papers, The Observer I think. The Wisden Cricketer had a piece sometime in the last couple of years which mentioned LTL among sites that cover cricket history but said nothing specific. I don't buy papers or magazines so I only know of these mentions after being shown or told about them by other people. The site is still quite new and early cricket has only a limited market, even among cricket fans, so I would not have expected even that much "media coverage". These mentions are only worth noting in passing: it is the CA and ACS connections that are key to this discussion.

I might add that Wikipedia itself has given credence to the site because, although I am biased, the core members of WP:CRIC are subject experts although most have only a passing interest in the sport's early history. However, none of these people have challenged the reliability of LTL apart from an interested question or two. I think this post by one of the most respected cricket contributors is an excellent summary of the overall CRIC position.

In addition, in his latest missive to WT:CRIC, my opponent actually states: Firstly scorecards copied from a variety of secondary sources. No issue on reliability here as the cards are available in several books, some dating back 100 years or more. Precisely. And, as I have said all along, it is the key purpose of the site to consolidate match references from all these old books (by the way, I don't use detailed scorecards there as they are out of scope and I have uploaded them to CA where they are appropriate). In another place, he complains that "There is no primary source here: i.e., he has discovered nothing new". As I have said, OR is out of scope and, given that the existing match references have been reliably sourced and reliably presented by someone who was indispensible to the CA and ACS sites re their early cricket coverage, the LTL site must itself be considered reliable.

Thanks for taking time to read this. I'll be happy to answer more questions but do please note that I don't have as much WP availability now as formerly. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 06:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The desire has never been to question Blackjack's industry but he has raised three points:

1) The review of his web book and his article (which I accepted) in the ACS magazine was unfavourable.

2) It did not question the scorecards which were copied from other sources and sent to the ACS early cricket group where his contribution was noted. He sent the same cards to Cricketarchive which actually already had them.

3) The crux. BJ has undertaken no original research. His work is second hand. He is not an expert but an informed amateur. All the sources were research by others years ago. As a result:

4) He shows ignorance of context when adding comments and making observations about pre 18th Century Cricket. It is this that is at question. Thus he has a list of pre 18th Century County Champions. No one else has this list because it is his own little piece of fantasy. No one recognises it. His analysis of early cricket is so badly flawed as to require several pages to illustrae. The names he has mentioned, including Mr Wynne-Thomas concur with this view as do the ACS Early cricket group.

5) Upon being criticised by ACS he engaged in a series of aggressive emails to myself, Mr Wynne Thomas and others. He did not fall out with the committee.

6) Blackjack was not indespensible to the ACS or CA coverage. Mr Griffiths(proprietor of CA) has all the cards submitted by BJ to hand anyway. BJ was kind enough to transcribe them. The ACS ECP has all the cards and more. Again BJ transcribed them after which they were check for the inevitable typos and errors.

7) In summary BJ knows a lot about C18th matches but very little about the context, histography, research, primary souces(A point he is keen to make) or the methodology of interrogating such sources.

LTL is a reliable source of scorecards but the use he has made of his conclusions is simply so lacking in the items listed, as to be untenable for school homework. 88.108.10.117 (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)(On behalf of MA, PWT, KW, JG)

Let's have a few truths here. The writer of the above is called Mark Asquith (I am not "outing" him: he has admitted in his Richard Daft guise who he is) and he was briefly the editor of the Cricket Statistician. He was then dismissed by the committee for whatever reasons and he promptly resigned his ACS membership. This happened a year or more before my dispute with the ACS committee which was about their procrastination in moving the Early Cricket Project forward. None of that has anything to do with the reliability of my website and the thing you have to watch with Mr Asquith is random comments going off at tangents. So you can ignore his point (5) which is a complete fabrication.

The review by Mr Wynne-Thomas was as I have said above and was only unfavourable in terms of his views about no OR, the use of geopolitical and cultural background and a few minor differences of opinion. As far as the fundamental match references are concerned, Mr Wynne-Thomas did not find any faults at all and this is what matters in terms of site reliability.

CricketArchive may already have had 18th century match references but they did not publish them until I provided the definitive list which is why I am on their list of contributors.

Again with his point 3, he has completely missed the point that the intention of the site was NOT to do OR but to consolidate the existing references which were distributed across several old books. Why he cannot get into his head that you can write a book without doing OR, I do not know. He has previously complained about articles on WP because no primary sources are quoted even though he knows full well that we do not allow them.

Re point 4, no one else but him has questioned the context of the site and he is hardly one to question that. His own work on this site has shown a complete lack of context, especially Golden Age of cricket when he was using his User:Fieldgoalunit alias. That article had to be dismantled and restarted. Similar comments were made by the then ACS chairman about his editorship. And you will note how I have had to edit his above post to make it readable. In Mr Wynne-Thomas' review, nothing was said about context and, if the ACS Early Cricket Project shares his view, why did they acknowledge me as their main contributor? The assertion that a proposed list of champions is a fantasy must apply equally to the people who were involved in the production of a similar list for the 19th century, which is where I got the idea from. In fact, the official championship began in 1890 and any and all prior lists are merely mild speculation with the benefit of showing who the most competitive teams were over a given period.

Re point 6, the facts are as I stated them in my previous post and the evidence is in the online links.

Point 7 is just speculative rubbish about someone he doesn't even know.

And his final line is typical of the childish taunts he so readily adopts as in this post where he resorts to describing a good WP:CRIC member as "mental". His allusion to school is appropriate for someone who acts like something in a school playground.

I did hope that this discussion would be reasonable and mature and would involve genuine members of the site, but here we are dealing with a troll yet again. Where are the ground rules for WP:RS which will ensure reasonable and objective discussion? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 15:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I resigned in fact(See the appropriate Journal). The 19th century list was arrived at over several years from contributions of distinguished experts. I didn't call anybody mental as the post shows. In fact in all these dealings have been temperate.

The 19th century list is pure speculation based on looking at known match results, exactly like the 18th century list. However, they both have the merit of highlighting who were the most competitive teams at the time. And, I'm sorry, but if you think your comment to AssociateAffiliate was not a childish insult then you have a problem. If you think you can ask someone if they are ill and then suggest they are showing signs of mental instability, then you have a problem that goes beyond being rude. That sort of cheap taunt is right out of order and we have had it on this site ever since you first came on. If you recall, the first admin who blocked you, User:Orderinchaos, did so inter alia because you threatened someone. But of course you are always so "temperate", aren't you?

Can we have an admin here to sort this character out, please? This is supposed to be an objective discussion about a site's reliability. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Dollywood.com a reliable source for the article about Dollywood?

This may sound like a stupid question, but is it? I ask because on Dollywood.com, things are geared more towards promotional stuff, rather than neutral information. Regardless, all the articles on Dollywood need citations, for example there is only one on that page. So if Dollywood.com does turn out to be a non-reliable source, would it be okay to use it temporarily until more reliable sources can be found? Thanks, Donatrip (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Only for uncontroversial facts. Obviously you could not cite it as a source for, say, it's own awesomeness. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha yeah I see what you mean. This helped; thanks Guy! :) --Donatrip (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mulberry Harbour

I served with the Royal Navy in WWll on Deep Sea Rescue Tugs. While serving aboard HMS Jaunty we towed the Mulberry Harbour Blocks, in tandem with HMS Stormking from East India Docks in London where they were built, to Beachy Head. This meant we towed them through the narrow strauts that are between Dover and calais and known as E-Boat Alley. These blocks wer submerged and floated for towing to Arromanches following D-Day. Our ship was not involved in towing them as we were part of the group on the eve of the D-Day landings who went over to tow any hazards that would impact on the Troop landings. We were also there when the storm wrecked much of the Harboir at Arromanches and totally dismantled the Harbour at the American Omaha Beach. The US Deep Sea Tug USS Partridge and the Royal Navy Tug HMS Sesame were torpedoed on June 10 towing parts for th Mulberry Harbour off Arromanches. Harry Greenwood <email address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.16.170 (talk) (talk • contribs) 05:50, 16 April 2010

I assume you are asking whether "you being there and seeing it" can be considered a reliable source for an article. The short answer is: No. You would have to write up your account and published it before we could use it... but we can not include material that is not published. The objection to your adding material to Wikipedia from your memory of events has less to do with WP:RS as it does with our policy of WP:No original research. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Harry, is this covered in, for example, Pawle's Most Secret War or some other source? Guy (Help!) 19:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Harry: As mentioned above, statements from editors are not suitable in articles. While that policy unfortunately excludes many useful contributions, you may appreciate that the policy is essential if you contemplate the many thousands of "unusual" people that populate the Internet and who would claim anything if the policy was relaxed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Kelly O'Donnell

An IP user has been adding some controversial info to this article (diff), citing newsbusters blog.

I do not believe that this is an acceptable reliable source.

Fortunately, following some warnings, the user has taken the discussion to the talk page.

I would greatly appreciate it if others could comment, in Talk:Kelly O'Donnell#Controversy.

I have posted here specifically as it is a source reliability issue, so I hope that I will not be accused of board shopping if I cross-post to the BLP noticeboard; I am not involved with the issue, but am a neutral third-party trying to keep the discussion on-track.

To keep the thread clear, please comment on the article talk. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  20:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Query

Is it alright to use some tabloid sources for non-controversial facts in a biography? I've done-up Ben Thompson (actor), but was wondering if this is an alright practice for facts not covered in any other sources. Regards, Pyrrhus16 00:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

TorrentFreak

Is TORRENTFREAK.COM a reliable source for technology news, specifically in relation to file-sharing and to establish the notability of computer software? [39] It appears to be a small advocacy outfit, promoting copyright infringement, with no oversight or fact checking department. The Guardian and a host of reputable technology websites such as Wired News and CNET cover the same topics, including lawsuits, with greater impartiality. Wikispan (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources used in new edit to Platine War article

An editor in the Platine War article has made edits here citing works by Pacho O'Donnell and Diego Abad de Santillán. The most troubling to me is the use of the former to justify a lowering of the number killed by the dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas from a figure of between 2,000 and 20,000 to "80". As this seems to be quite a radical departure from the sources I've read, I'm wondering if this author/source is pushing a fringe view?

I've not come across materials from either author touching on this period, so guidance would be appreciated as to whether they are RS for the statements in this edit. There is some back and forth on Talk:Platine War that may or may not be enlightening. • Astynax ^talk 03:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)