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. 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

Scopes Trial

A content dispute has arisen at Scopes Trial involving multiple questions of policy (WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). For lack of a better idea, I'll bring it here and seek some outside opinions on whether the sources are reliable vis-à-vis the statements they're being used to support.

• Sources in question include Answers in Genesis, Creation Worldview, Evolution News, and (strangely enough) About.com.
• Diff: [1]

Thanks for any guidance. Rivertorch (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither AIG, not CW nor EN is remotely a reliable source. They are all promoting quite particular (and particularly implausible) interpretations of one religion without regard for reality. They could be used as sources for their own opinion, but I very much doubt that these opinions are notable. I don't know how good or bad the editorial policy of About.com is, but again, I fail to see this comment as notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

AIG, CW, EN are not reliable sources and should not be used - expect in the very limited circumstances described by Stephan. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Right. I alluded to that on the talk page. Many thanks to both of you for your help. Rivertorch (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand about CW, which I mistakenly left in, and also EN, even though the writer is from the Discovery Institute.

What I don't understand, though, is why a creationist perspective can't be given on the play/film Inherit the Wind if it is clearly labelled as such. It isn't a matter of science, but of historical fact, which the play/film clearly distorts in the favor of the evolution side. For just two things, it never mentions the ACLU's involvement, making Scopes seem persecuted, and it made the creationist lawyer traumatize the teacher's girlfriend on the stand when Scopes had no girlfriend and no women were part of the trial. If the serious inaccuracies in ITW aren't addressed, then WP seems to be approving the play/film as fairly-accurate history and a reliable source itself, when it's not. As one of the sources, Austin Cline of the atheism page on About.com, acknowledges, ITW is taken as history. People don't know what the difference is since most will never actually study the trial.

I also proposed, although maybe not clearly enough, that if the research in AiG's article on the discrepancies wasn't allowed, then at least a straight opinion from the article on what creationists see as its bias against creationists be included. Something like, "creationists believe that the play/film is biased in how it portrays the trial," along with Austin Cline's comment on his view that it is not historically accurate. I also want to mention, too, that I haven't seen a comment on including Austin Cline's remarks and if they are considered RS. Psalm84 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

None of these sources are reliable for the claim. The standards expected for sources here would be scholarly literary criticism, scholarly history of science or scholarly applied theology / religious history. None of the sources meet this standard. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

In that particular section the article, which isn't on the actual Scopes trial but on film/plays about it, there are two sources to Bryan.edu and Allegedthemovie.com, which don't meet that sort of standard.

In the section on plays/films it seems the standards should be closer to those for plays/films/documentaries would apply, wouldn't they? And About.com seems to be a frequent RS for WP. Psalm84 (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I also am wondering, too, are there any RS that are creationist, so that there could be a creationist reply to how creationism is portrayed in the play/film, even if it's just a remark that they find it biased? I am also wondering if the historical inaccuracies and the bias in the film are clear to others. I placed a couple of examples here of the inaccuracies, and there are more in the diff in the original post. Psalm84 (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How can gutter presses evaluate the historical accuracy of a fictive work? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Film critics often do it. A lot of the inaccuracies are blatant. And it is objective that creationists object to how they're portrayed in the film and believe it distorted what happened. That belief is also backed up by those discrepancies. I mentioned a couple, but there are more. Psalm84 (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

So find it in an appropriately edited press, and bring it to RS/N. Bring your sourcing out of the gutter. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Right now since I dropped two sources I'm just talking about Answers in Genesis and About.com. I'm not sure why either are "gutter sources"? And there is a problem with finding such a source that isn't creationist that talks about the inaccuracies in a play that attacks creationism. As I wrote on the talk page: "if AiG is so objectionable, how about a quote from the article which is clearly their opinion that they find the film to be biased and inaccurate?" Psalm84 (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would we give any credence to such a fringe unreliable source and their opinion? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If a play/film negatively portrays a certain group of people and they object to it, why shouldn't a comment on how they believe they were falsely portrayed be included? And in this case, comparing the trial to the play shows that. Psalm84 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.answersingenesis.org/: 1114 external links.
• http://www.creationworldview.org/: 2 external links (including this discussion).
• http://www.evolutionnews.org/: 207 external links.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources listed have a suitable fact checking editorial policy. In particular the religious sources listed are sub-tabloid. About is a link farm with an open door policy on content and no expertise. If serious scholarly literalist theologians have engaged with the subject of the subsection of the article, then please bring those sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

We are starting to go in circles - there is no consensus to include your fringe sources in any form and unless you bring new sources to the table there is nothing left to discuss. That other pages need clean-up means nothing to this discussion (leaving aside that 95% of the usage are to talkpages) --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about the play specifically, and right in the article, when it gets to the play, it says it was "was loosely based on this trial" and "... not based on any actual event", ergo, it's fiction. It does not need to portray historical accuracy, and certainly does not need any clarification from a "creationist perspective". That's absurd.

• AIG not RS.
• CW not RS.
• EN, I would like to see the specific article cited, it's possible the author may be credible (for his own opinion only), but the site is not RS.
• About.com not RS.

In response to your question about finding a suitable film review, if you can find a film critic who is RS and points out the creationist view flaws in the movie, it may be RS, but may still fail under WP:WEIGHT or WP:FRINGE concerns, admittedly, you're in a very tough place to advance from, at least that's how I see it.

As an aside, many articles here have poor sources, that doesn't mean we should add one more, it means those other articles with poor sources should be written better, WP:OSE is never a good argument. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. My previous post wasn't meant to illustrate that these sources are reliable. Instead, it was meant to illustrate that the problem is more widespread than this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Widespread use of potentially inappropriate sources

I'm going to keep this up here for a bit, so as to specify the problem and allow RS/N editors to examine test cases from these publications. I resolved the single inappropriate use of creationworldview.org already. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/: 1114 external links.

Is Wright, David (2012). "Feedback: Timeline for the Flood". Answers in Genesis. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) a reliable webpage to act as a reference for Flood geology. Flood geology is a FRINGE science, and so in an article on a FRINGE science, participation in standard scholarly peer review may not be a reliability criteria, as long as the work has been reviewed by the FRINGE community and is used for discussion of FRINGE beliefs. As the work is used as a general reference in Flood geology, no specific claim is sourced against it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say no, unless it is to back up reliable sources. Fringe beliefs that have not been discussed in reliable sources t of the fringe community are probably not noteworthy of inclusion in WP articles. First of all, we have the problem of weight. We cannot tell how prominent a particular belief is within the fringe community based on the say so of highly partisan promotial, advocacy or apologetics sources that do not have a reputation of being neutral sources of relaible information, and in fact have a reputation for misrepresentation.

The question is topical as I was just considering removing this section [[2]] and the second paragraph of this section [[3]] because they are entirely sourced to fringe sources. In my view, creating material based solely on in-universe fringe sources is tantamount to OR based on primary documents. I would appreciate your input.

Furthermore, whether something has been "reviewed" by the fringe community is irrelvant, as the "review" is not truly independent, nor does it resemble in any aspect real scholarly review. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If there's a peer reviewed journal of Flood Geology, then the papers contained within are probably useful for explaining the beliefs of Flood geologers, edited anti-science is still edited and it would be reliable for the views of that FRINGE anti-science community. It would obviously be completely and utterly worthless in explaining geology. Regarding the two sections you noted, if "Robert Larmer" is a scholarly theologian, or highly esteemed professional practicioner with widespread publications in professional theological presses, his views might be noteworthy. The rest looks like garbage. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Robert Larmer, "Is there anything wrong with "God of the gaps" reasoning, " International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52: 129–142, 2002. is reliably published, and appropriately peer reviewed afaict, the question would be, does it support the supposition in the text, or is the supposition OR? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I was not talking about the Larmer paragraph, but the next paragraph starting with "Christian young Earth creationists". That paragraph does look entirely like OR.

As for "peer reviewed journal of flood geology", I trust that you mean genuinely academically peer reviewed, and not a sham pseudo-academic journal that claims to be "peer-reviewed" as described in the first paragraph of WP:PARITY. I'm not sure, but it seems that you are saying that "editing" is sufficient to make a source reliable. The "editing" that takes place solely within a fringe community does little to add credibility to a source, the same as with "review". An editor has to have a reputation for sound editing within the mainstream community for a source to be considered reliable, and a belief has to be discussed (whether favorably, unfavorably or neutrally) by the mainstream community to be considered noteworthy. Your thoughts? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You would be correct if the topic were geology, or the scientific correctness of flood "geology," but when representing faithfully the beliefs of flood "geologists" themselves, we should use the best available flood geological sources. Let us consider three sources (Guttersnipe 2011) a christian YEC link aggregator with no authors for the article and no editorial policy, (Fringe 2002) a "peer" "reviewed" Flood "geologist" journal, and (Geologist 2010) a peer reviewed geologist in a normal magazine. We would use them such: "Flood geology is a pseudo-science whose views are utterly rejected by the scientific community. (Geologist 2010) Flood geologists believe X, Y and Z. (Geologist 2010; Fringe 2002) These beliefs fail to account for observed phenomena A, B and C. (Geologist 2010) Flood geologists mainly collaborate through a yearly conference held in East Timor. (Fringe 2002)" Do you understand what I'm getting at here? We should never use guttertrash link aggregators, even when using them to source the contents of the beliefs of FRINGE groups. Some FRINGE groups, such as Flood Geology may have internally consistent systems to verify that Flood Geologists actually believe X, Y or Z; when such systems of confirmation exist, we should use such sources when explaining the content of FRINGE beliefs. Such sources can't speak to the validity of FRINGE beliefs, but they can speak to the content of FRINGE beliefs. Do you get me? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm talking about any content, not just scientific content. The beliefs of fringe groups are a topic of scholarly interest, and thus require sources deemed as reliable by the scholarly community, whether the source itself originates from within the fringe community or not.

I do, however, agree that the best sources from within the fringe community can be used, with "best" defined by their standing outside of the fringe commnunity. That is, have real serious scholars found the source reliable and used it in their discussion of the topic. A source that is valued and referenced solely within the fringe universe is probably of little value here on WP. I would reject your recognition of "peer" "reviewed" as adding credibility to the source (Fringe 2002), though, if that credibilty is entirely self-assigned or recognized only in-universe, and not by the scholarly community at large.

The example you gave, "Flood geologists mainly collaborate through a yearly conference held in East Timor", is particularly troublesome, because it's not necessarily non-controversial. Fringe communities tend to be extremely factionary, and their publications tend to be exceedingly partisan in this regard. The source you picked may repesent a small off-shoot of the community that does indeed meet in East Timor, but ignores the BIG pow-wow attended by most other factions in Ouagadougou (the infamous "no true Scotsman meets in Ouagadougou" fallacy). Without recourse to out-of-universe sources, it would be impossible to evaluate the reliability of their claim without violating WP:OR. Unless I had out-of-universe confirmation, I would not allow the sentence as you posted it. I MIGHT allow clearly non-controversial statements about themselves in a very limited sense, though, based on such sources, but not about the fringe community as a whole.

Indeed, the reason that I am removing the first section I mentioned above is that it is factionary, and limited to the Seventh Day Adventist element of the YEC community, which promotes vegetarianism. The rest of the YEC community does not really care one way or the other about vegetarianism.

Last of all, please give me your opinion on the SECOND paragraph of this section [4]], beginning with the words "Christian young Earth creationists". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to use all caps by the way. I would pull the second and third paragraphs in their entirety. There's no indication that the opinions in the second paragraph are weighty (particularly as the article is YEC, not Answers in Genesis, etc.). The third paragraph appears to have no sourcing other than tripe articles. (You'd think a fucking fringe community would at least be a coherent whole—obviously the "about oneself" exemption only applies to the organisations publishing such organs.) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Agree with third paragraph as well. Fringe communities are very rarely unified and uniform. I've been workign on sourcing for the articles on astrology for the past year, and it's almost impossible to identify significant figures or movements in that "community" at all because exremely few reliable out-of-universe sources exist at all. Much worse than with creationism, for which we do have abundant reliable out-of-universe sources. Thanks very much for your input! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It gets worse. Their stuff is in general unedited shite from non-notables, but they have run a "Technical Journal" with no about information, on which one paper at least claims review prior to publication (cf: Bombardier_beetle#cite_ref-am_5-0); and actually run a "peer reviewed" publication, ARJ to publish pseudo-science. ARJ looks like it would contain "weighty" opinions by biblical literalist pseudo-scientists; if the opinion of a pseudo-scientist would otherwise be weight-worthy in a particular article (noted controversy in non-FRINGE sources, etc, involving the FRINGE). So we can't just nuke this, because occasionally there might be "good" stuff there, but most of the 1000 links are either going to be talk space or utter crap. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Vis a vis 'flood' geologists, J Harland Bretz was no Biblical literalist, but his regional catastrophism was scorned by the American Geological Society, probably from vehement distaste for any form of catastrophic explanation, until his more rigorous interpretation of the data vindicated him - test propositions carefully.Cpsoper (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how Bretz is relevant to the discussion of a link aggregating website that publishes unpeer reviewed magazines? If you want to start a discussion of the use of a particular Bretz work in a particular Bretz article I suggest you start a new section in RS/N at the bottom. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I quote, 'Flood geology is a FRINGE science' - precisely how the AGS myopically reacted to Bretz. The relevance of neglecting a wealth of important data and of a blinkering paradigm like gradualism should be obvious given this and other historical antecedents.Cpsoper (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't have the privilege that original researchers have of reacting myopically or with good long sight to novel or non-standard hypotheses. We represent the preponderance of scholarly knowledge. If you wish to change the preponderance of scholarly knowledge, then a geological, theological or history and philosophy of science doctorate and subsequent scholarly publications is only 10-15 years away. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This item has been accepted as a large scale clean-up at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups Fifelfoo (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Links starting: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/

These represent articles reprinted from Journal of Creation, formerly Technical Journal; a product published by Creation Ministries International. Journal of Creation / Technical Journal has no indication of peer review and has a mission to publish pseudo-science. Answersingenesis.org makes no acknowledgement of Journal of Creation/Technical Journal's copyright, and these items should probably be deleted as copyvio links, when they're not deleted for being non-noteworthy FRINGE science or FRINGE humanities.

Example article: Bombardier beetle

Example source: Armitage, Mark H.; Mullisen, Luke (April 2003). Preliminary observations of the pygidial gland of the Bombardier Beetle, Brachinus sp.. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 9 July 2007.

Actual source: Armitage, Mark H.; Mullisen, Luke (2002) "Preliminary observations of the pygidial gland of the Bombardier Beetle, Brachinus sp." Technical Journal (Christian Ministeries International) 17:1

Claim supported, "Others such as intelligent design proponent Michael Behe and Answers in Genesis, accept most of the scientific view but contend that "complexity" suggests an origin by design."

Claim fallaciously claims weight to this FRINGE view, and misattributes it. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Vis a vis 'flood' geologists, J Harlen Bretz was of course no Biblical literalist, but his regional catastrophism was foolishly scorned by the American Geological Society, till his interpretation of the data vindicated him - be careful to test things carefully.Cpsoper (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And that's relevant how? I see that what you identify as your "home page" on your user page contains an array of links to some of the unreliable sources under discussion here. Rivertorch (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, please give an example of unreliability in the citations quoted.Cpsoper (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Technical Journal isn't peer reviewed, it fails to meet the basic criteria for science articles. The claim "Others such …Answers in Genesis, accept [fact]" is manifestly unverifiable from the article as Armitage and Mullisen (2002) was never published by Answers in Genesis. Even then, it is a misweighting, as AiG's opinion (a religious lobby organisation) means sweet fuck all on a scientific article. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Foul language betrays weak argument - to avoid clogging up this noticeboard, see rebuttal on my talk page shortly, where you may reply.Cpsoper (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't wish to participate in a consensus forming discussion, do not be surprised when your opinions are not included in the consensus formed. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Fifel. It is a valuable comment, looking at some of the expressions in the section above.Cpsoper (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with yourself—mass suspected copyright violation external links are a serious business. Also, as you would know from detailed policy discussions; that while I am sad that your variant of English is so limited, I am not going to go and erase my own variant of English to meet your personal needs. I will perhaps avoid using my own variety of English's natural emphatics, mate, but your decision to withdraw from consensus formation and your use of an effectively ad hominem attack are not particularly good engagement with the policies of our community. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through this link series, generally replacing these links with citations to Technical Journal and only removing content when the claims were that content cited against Technical Journal was representative of Answers in Genesis' views. Cases where these were indicative of YEC community views as a whole were tagged with an inline weight template, and discussion started on the talk page for the community of editors there to evaluate. Outside of a few scientific articles, these links were on YEC related pages. Links starting http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/ should probably be blacklisted due to the copyvio element; could someone advise on this? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Links starting: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/

Represent a peer-reviewed FRINGE "journal", Answers research journal, which I believe indicates that these views may be weight worthy within the FRINGE science community represented; such that they would be reasonable to use when commenting on the FRINGE practice itself (but obviously not its validity) in articles solely dedicated to FRINGE practices. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Any other links in article space

Represent unedited or at best "popular" magazine articles representing FRINGE science or FRINGE humanities from non-weight worthy opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/: 207 external links.

Is the headpage of evolutionnews.org reliable for the claim, "According to the Center for Science and Culture's weblog,[3] at least 10 state legislatures are now considering legislation reconsidering how evolution is taught." in Intelligent design in politics? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Holocaust Denier Led the Charge Against Academic Freedom on Evolution in Alabama Casey Luskin. Discovery Institute, Evolutionnews.org. reliable for the claim "A notable characteristic of this [free speech on evolution] campaign is the [Discovery] Institutes framing the issues as a confluence of free speech, academic freedom and discrimination," in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Such sites are reliable only as primary sources to describe themselves, and then only in the most basic terms. The subjects of articles don't get to decide which of their own characteristics should be termed notable. On a broader note, it looks as if you've uncovered a potentially widespread sourcing problem here. Do those counts include both inline citations and standalone external links? Rivertorch (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't uncover them, another user did. They appear to be at least 50% article space, and most of them references rather than External Links. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

At first sight it looked terrifying, but I see that quite a lot are on talk and project pages. Then there are articles that from their titles are about organisations and individuals involved in this perspective. These probably need a long trawl through to see how many are notable, and whether we have a huge walled garden here or not. The references on science articles, like Bombadier beetle can never be justified, as far as I can see. That creationists evoked the B. beetle might be a notable fact in creationism but isn't a notable fact about the B. beetle. The material should simply be deleted. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This item has been accepted as a large scale clean-up at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups Fifelfoo (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This large scale clean-up is causing problems for articles like Objections to evolution and Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism that cover the Creation–evolution controversy, which may be notable as a scientific controversy because of the psuedo sicence nature of creation science, but is quite notable as a cultural/political/religious/sociological phenomenon. Anyone with any sense knows that Answers in Genesis is never a reliable source for any scientific topic, but it is a reliable source (and an important one) for what creationists say and think and it is widely cited as such by postings on websites that are reliable sources such as National Center for Science Education, TalkOrigins Archive and NMSR. If we can't cite sources from organizations like AiG or Creation Ministries International it is hard to cover the controversy, especially since those organizations are significant players in the controversy. It is a long established principle that sources that would not otherwise be considered reliable for anything else, are in fact reliable sources for their own viewpoints. Let us stop and discuss this a little before we continue to hack up perfectly good articles like the two I mentioned. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

We are trying to bear that factor in mind. You'll have seen that I divided the articles into categories; that was to help cleanup and allow people with subject expertise to help out with the articles most relevant to them. I see the use of AiG to illustrate the YEC position as an open question. If their position is notable in regard to a topic, it can go in. It isn't always notable. Often, there will be a better source for the same position. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are trying to keep that in mind, but the edits at objections to evolution in particular don't seem to be consistent with that, and it has sparked a mini edit war. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimapia

See also - Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Wikimapia Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've recently been commenting out references made to Wikimapia, because I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source.

The reason I don't think it qualifies is because it's user generated, and in past discussions 'user-generated' content hasn't been considered as 'reliable'.

What are the views of other people? (Please note that Wikimapia's use of Google Base Layer for it's dataset is a different issue entirly). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiki does not cite wiki. There is a lack of appropriate review over edits to Wikimapia which means that we cannot consider it as a reliable source. It may be valid for external links, you'd need to consult the external links people. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I already did that, see Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, and got back a comment implying that it failed the criteria established by WP:EL. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

right, it has 5600+ potentially violating links. I'm proposing that this go to the large-scale clean-ups as a candidate. I suggest that it be mooted for blacklisting in the meantime. The blacklist is here. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The link for large scale cleanup requests being? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added it to the candidate list here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Large_scale_clean-ups#Candidate_clean-ups; it would probably need to wait for one or two of the current clean-ups to clear. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

For reference the usages are here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.wikimapia.org Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it a reliable source and so we should not use it as such by citing, etc. However, there may be very good reasons to link to it, just as a link to another WP page or a file on Commons. The problem is only if the link is to support some assertion. So, please do not blacklist it and please keep the bots in their kennels. Thincat (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't use bots, for instance, Wikimapia is a potential reliable source on Wikimapia. But in general, as Sfan00 IMG has demonstrated at WP:EL/N, it is an ELNO—and it certainly isn't like a link to a wikipedia or commons page. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I've been removing Wikimapia sources & ELs for many months, thinking that it was already ok to do so. Sorry if I have overstepped the mark by doing so. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some links I have seen may indeed be inappropriate—for example, one used to support a claim that two urban communities have now coalesced. I'm sure some thoughtful cleanup is useful. However, I do doubt the wisdom of blacklisting (if I understand it fully). Vast numbers of articles importantly link to http://toolserver.org/~geohack/ (an "unreliable" site"?) via geographical coordinates and this in turn links to "unreliable" sites such as http://www.wikimapia.org/. If this is acceptable (and it is) then I do not see much sense in blocking a direct link. Thincat (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a fairly strong policy against supporting any single service via article specific external links. Why not add external links to google maps, open street map and open cycle map? Users are mature enough to select their ISBN resolution service of choice, or their geolocation resolution service of choice. We ought to supply the ISBN or geo code, and let users determine which service they prefer for themselves. (Sfan00 IMG already made this precise argument in the EL/N discussion btw). Fifelfoo (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen the WP:EL/N discussion and don't really have a problem there. And I certainly think broad menus for ISBN and coord sources is a very good thing. However, if a book source is on Amazon but not Google Books we should link to the right place and such citations are ubiquitous. Can the same properly apply to mapping sites? Thincat (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate place to make an ELYES argument about additional information not available from other geolocators would be EL/N; but, I'd be very happy for you to report back here regarding the outcome of that one so it can be factored back into any large scale clean-up (which probably has to go ahead for reliability / prodding anyway). I am happy to go as far as "It isn't a reliable source," but I very much understand that external links do not have to meet wikipedia's reliability criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This looks not be not a sourcing question at all, but one about ELs. I don't think we should have it in the candidate cleanups unless we see it frequently used as a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It is used regularly as a source, Check the refs I've commented out in my contribs Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

My removals - referred to above - have tended to be citations rather than ELs. Of course, most of my edits relate to India stuff and it may be some quirk that causes them to be used more often as sources in that sphere than perhaps happens elsewhere. Regardless, I doubt that it will take long to get things in order - if it takes a month or so then that is nothing compared to the time that most of these things have been sat there. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, it does come under our remit. By the way, I don't know how to do the search for websites and what articles they appear in, as in the Answers in Genesis cleanup. Could we find an automated way to work out whether the web address appears in a section headed External links? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We may need to tout for toolsmiths. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

... or give me a month to do it the hard way. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There's that... there's that... but there's also the next 5000 unit external link problem. I can grep and sort non-Article space links from Article space links based on the current external links search, but I can't do much about where the object lies inside the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this article space only? - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It is, but the multiline output is less useful for group problem resolving over longer periods of time? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to provide an example of why Wikimapia should not be considered a reliable source: Recently, a small settlement (identified on no online maps, including Wikimapia) near Maarzaf, Syria, made the news as the site of the Al-Qubeir massacre. Within a day or so, there appeared on Wikimapia a polygon identifying a settlement at 35°10′47″N 36°33′28″E as "Maarzaf Al-Qubair"; but about a day later another polygon appeared on Wikimapia at a somewhat different location, 35°10′37″N 36°30′53″E, identifying a settlement as "Qubair Farm". (Both labels appear on Wikimapia to this day.) Which coordinates should we use on WP to identify the location of the settlement and event? Clearly the answer is "neither" unless some reliable and independent source is found to corroborate the actual location. Deor (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that Sfan00 IMG has been commenting out the references and links to wikimapia, but I have been removing them. I think it is difficult enough to go through so many articles once; I see no reason to do it twice, the first time commenting out and the second time deleting. Binksternet (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The intial commenting out rather than straightforward deletion is because in the past, 'deletions' have been challanged.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

(Note) A previous disscusion on using coordinates from copyright sources was here -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Using_coordinates_from_copyrighted_map_sources Sfan00 IMG (talk)

Owing to certain comments in threads elsewhere, it appears that no consensus exists. I'm therfore reverting most of my attempted cleanup efforts, If other people feel WikiMapia links are not sutiable, please convince the rest of WikiPedia first.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Assam#Etymology

This is with regards to a claim and reference used in the Assam#Etymology section. The claim and reference are given here:

The academic consensus is that current name "Assam" is based on the English word Assam [16]

The reference given is

S. C. Bhatt, Gopal Bhargava, Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories, Gyan Publishing House, 2005, p. 147. "The word Assamese is an English one, built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese, etc. It is based on the English word Assam."

This issue has previously been discussed on the talk page (Talk:Assam#Etymology_of_Assam), submitted to Wikipedia:Third Opinion, and lastly to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_33#Assam.23Etymology. When the discussion at the last instance failed, it was suggested that the issue be submitted here.

The issue

The phrase in the above claim---Assam is based on the English word Assam---is nonsensical. The quote the editor has provided from the cited source is making a statement on the Assamese language, not the name Assam. The editor has used the phrase "English word Assam" to claim that the name Assam originated with the English.

The quoted sentence should actually read somewhat like:

The academic consensus is that current English name "Assam" is an anglicized version of a native name.

This is because the cited reference quotes directly from the seminal work: Banikanta Kakati (1941) "Assamese: Its Formation and Development" p1 [5]. Banikanta Kakati has himself clarified the above statement in a later work, where he writes, with less ambiguity: "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century." (Kakati, Banikanta, Aspects of Early Assamese Literature (Gauhati University Press, 1953) p1 [6]).

The editor makes a narrow and literal reading from a phrase in the cited source, and choose to ignore the rest of the scholarly literature available on the subject. As a result the editor has produced a nonsensical statement. Past attempts to correct this have failed because the editor has been resisting changes to the above text.

Chaipau (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Kakati 1953 is a reliable academic source. Only include conflicting views if they are backed by a source of equivalent quality. Reflect sources properly, don't cherry-pick small phrases out of context. Using Kakati you are on safe ground to say "Assam" is an anglicised form of "Asam"... You don't necessarily have to say anything about academic consensus. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes actually saying that something is an academic consensus requires very good sourcing which actually says this or demonstrates it in an obvious way, but it is rarely necessary to use such language.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your inputs. In lieu of the current unwieldy and confusing section, this was a suggested alternative alternative. Your comments on this alternative text would be very valuable. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Much better. Getting there but some tweaks may still be needed. Try to avoid using Gait directly as it is so old. Your other sources are all good, I think. There is an art in writing them up. Avoid using terms like "accepted", "consensus". Just follow the straightforward Fact - source model. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased the text and removed all use of "accepted" and "consensus". I could not avoid Gait for two reasons. One, he's is still a standard work; and two, because states clearly that the British used a name other than "Assam" and that a similar name was used by the Mughals earlier. I haven't seen any other reference that does this pointedly. Chaipau (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Better still. Now, this would be nitpicking were it not that the text has been challenged, and also we are on RSN and the archives may be used for reference. You don't need Gait because you have Kakati, you don't need to attribute. British Raj sources are a perennial headache on India articles, full of ethnocentric assumptions and haphazard methodology. Perhaps Gait is better than the others, but post WW2 is a useful rule of thumb on history articles. Fact, footnoted reference to Kakati, done and dusted. The only other tweak, not a sourcing thing, is that I would take out the "the" before "medieval". Then good to go. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. As a post-war scholar Kakati can critically read Raj texts, and make scholarly claims. As an encyclopaedia we are not a post-war scholar like Kakati—we should most certainly avoid using Raj texts due to their manifest deficiencies and their general rejection as appropriate scholarship by the post-war scholarly community. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have now removed Gait and the "the", here. I shall make more changes, if necessary. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Haven't been involved before but I sometimes work on etymologies. Your latest text is fine I think.

My impression (could be quite wrong!) is that this long dispute has been caused partly by the desire to place on Wikipedia a justification for the Assam government's proposal to change the name. Unfortunately the misleading statement that "Assam is an English word" became a sticking point. It isn't an English word, it's an English spelling ... but there may still be good reasons for changing it. Andrew Dalby 12:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This and a similar dispute some time ago on Wikipedia seemed more personal, pushing a POV.

After the disputing editor acknowledged a note I left on his talk page about the discussion here by blanking it, I went ahead and replaced the text in the section. He has now reverted the change, claiming the decision here is not binding. Where should this go now?

Chaipau (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As subject is controversial in nature, we may put POV's of some scholars and specialists as per Wikipedia's policy.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

After the disputing editor acknowledged a note I left on his talk page about the discussion here by blanking it, I went ahead and replaced the text in the section. He has now reverted the change, claiming the decision here is not binding. Where should this go now? When i reverted the change my actual words are like this Additions should be made without removing scholarly POV's and existing important data. Discussion is on going on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard though not binding in nature by which i refered to removal of large amount of important data by that change and advised to add without removing any existing data alongside mentioned about Wikipedia's policy of differences between order and recommendations.

I like to add here that i claimed "Assam is an English word used by British to refer Brahmaputra Valley and adjoining areas without refering to any inspiring word which may be matter of another discussion. And i said that same word was used by British to refer to a piece of land not any tribe adding that same word was never used natively before arrival of British". Due to this fact, present scholars of state recommended the change of name, which is accepted by state government. So i recommended that we may put in POV's of scholars due to controversial nature of subject, which already in place. And what last change by disputing user has done is removal of such POV's of specialists.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• It has been accepted here, and the references in Alternate Text 4 aver, that "Assam" is not an English word, but an English spelling
• The section is about the etymology of "Assam", and the changing forms and meanings of the word/name are all within its ambit.
• The proposal to change the name to "Asom" has stalled, mainly because it was based on false premises. A later proposal to change the name "Orissa" has completed the process and it is now "Odisha". The appropriate place to discuss the proposal and the controversies in probably the main article Etymology of Assam.

Chaipau (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting comparison. The situation seems to me very similar. "Orissa" was not an English word, but an English spelling/rendering of the name, and it was perfectly reasonable to say that it is inaccurate, reminiscent of a former colonial regime, and should no longer be official. Wikipedia can be quite neutral on such matters.

The difference is merely, I guess, that someone in Assam has claimed that "Assam is an English word". If so, we can surely say that in explaining the proposed name change -- "it has been claimed that Assam is an English word" -- and we can cite a politician who said it. It seems to me not likely that a linguist or scholar would have said it, but, if any have, we can obviously cite them too. If the assertion is notable, as it evidently is, there need be no difficulty about any of this. As you say, the best place for such an explanation is the full article Etymology of Assam; once it's set out fully there, it'll be even easier to decide what should be said in summary at Assam. Andrew Dalby 09:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Any official statement of the Assam government is notable enough to be included. We should avoid the word "claim". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The is that "Assam is an English spelling" is itself in doubt. Evidence has surfaced that the spelling "Assam" was initially used by the Dutch, not the English. A person in the Netherlands have produced a map from late 17th century that shows the modern spelling "Assam".[7] Around the same time an Englishman used the spelling "Acham".(Bowrey, Thomas, A Geographical Account of Countries around Bay of Bengal, ed Temple, R. C., Hakluyt Society's Publications,, p143) He presented this and other at a meeting where local scholars were present, and this is his account of the meeting.[8] In the published account, he mentions that the Director of the Historical and Antiquarian Studies (an Assam government department) was taken aback by the new evidence. It is not clear to me how this can be presented as reliable sources. I did refer to the map in the section as it currently exists, which User:Bhaskarbhagawati has marked as "not in citation given". I would agree that a weblink is not a very reliable source, but in this case it seems to have credence. This map was submitted as evidence in a petition to the Chief Minister of Assam.[9] This petition and the meeting with the scholars were probably instrumental in stalling the name change effort by the government.

The other problem is the proposed new spelling "Asom". It does not represent the way the natives call the state, which would be "Oxom", where the "x" is a velar fricative as "ch" in "Loch Ness". This would confuse the issue further. An alternative would be "Osom", which would be no better than "Asam". In fact in the linguistic literature, we have seen the name of the language spelled not as "Assamese" but as "Asamiya".( George Cardona ed. (2003) "The Indo-Aryan Languages", Psychology Press) Taking this lead, the proposed name should indeed have been "Asam", which differs from the current spelling in just one redundant letter 's'.

Chaipau (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been accepted here, and the references in Alternate Text 4 aver, that "Assam" is not an English word, but an English spelling Please refer to discussion at Talk:Assam and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The section is about the etymology of "Assam", and the changing forms and meanings of the word/name are all within its ambit. Separate article is there for it to discuss in depth. The proposal to change the name to "Asom" has stalled, mainly because it was based on false premises. A later proposal to change the name "Orissa" has completed the process and it is now "Odisha". It is pending due to opposition by an particular tribe, but what is important is proposition by scholars and acceptance by government both of whom are generally wiser than layman's. The appropriate place to discuss the proposal and the controversies in probably the main article Etymology of Assam. So what i am saying keep only mutually accepted facts and scholars POV's and keep the rest for main article.

The is that "Assam is an English spelling" is itself in doubt. Evidence has surfaced that the spelling "Assam" was initially used by the Dutch, not the English. A person in the Netherlands have produced a map from late 17th century that shows the modern spelling "Assam".[10] Around the same time an Englishman used the spelling "Acham".(Bowrey, Thomas, A Geographical Account of Countries around Bay of Bengal, ed Temple, R. C., Hakluyt Society's Publications,, p143) He presented this and other at a meeting where local scholars were present, and this is his account of the meeting.[11] In the published account, he mentions that the Director of the Historical and Antiquarian Studies (an Assam government department) was taken aback by the new evidence. It is not clear to me how this can be presented as reliable sources. I did refer to the map in the section as it currently exists, which User:Bhaskarbhagawati has marked as "not in citation given". I would agree that a weblink is not a very reliable source, but in this case it seems to have credence. This map was submitted as evidence in a petition to the Chief Minister of Assam.[12] This petition and the meeting with the scholars were probably instrumental in stalling the name change effort by the government. Please refer to discussion at Talk:Assam and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The other problem is the proposed new spelling "Asom". It does not represent the way the natives call the state, which would be "Oxom", where the "x" is a velar fricative as "ch" in "Loch Ness". This would confuse the issue further. An alternative would be "Osom", which would be no better than "Asam". In fact in the linguistic literature, we have seen the name of the language spelled not as "Assamese" but as "Asamiya".( George Cardona ed. (2003) "The Indo-Aryan Languages", Psychology Press) Taking this lead, the proposed name should indeed have been "Asam", which differs from the current spelling in just one redundant letter 's'. It is because only one or two languistic groups in world used that X pronounciation that includes Eastern Assamese (included maybe due to corruption of S) which is exposed on others in state. S should be S not X and Asamiya is not from Asam but Sanskrit Asama.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati makes some tendentious remarks, but relevant nevertheless.

• His contention, that "Assam" is based on Sanskrit "Asama" has been rejected by Kakati and others (referred to in Alternate Text 4)
• The use of the velar fricative is common through out Assamese, not just in eastern Assamese. ("xaneri" Kamrupi; "xonari" St Assamese in Upendranath Goswami (1970) "A Study on Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese", Department of Historical and Antiquarian studies, p19). This book, based on a PhD thesis, is replete with the use of "x" in Kamrupi words.
• The petition against the change in name was signed by a cross-section of people that included not just people from a particular tribe. The list includes novelists such as Mamoni Raisom Goswami, who belonged to western Assam, and who has pioneered the use of the south Kamrupi dialect in standard works.([13]) "The Assam Tribune" newspaper that had adopted "Asom" soon after the government proposal, has since reverted to "Assam".
• It seems to me that User:Bhaskarbhagawati's objections are primarily with associating the name "Assam" with this "tribe" (called shan invaders in Alternate Text 4). If so, his objections are nothing but POV pushing.

Chaipau (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Remember, we are only advising about sources here. It's not up to Wikipedia either to justify the Assam government's decision or to criticise it. Articles in the Assam Tribune may be reliable for the article, it depends. It seems to me that the article you link to (What's in a name? by Wahid Saleh) could support a short statement something like "an article in the Assam Tribune reported the finding of a Dutch map of the 17th century bearing a label 'Assam'." But it may not be necessary, and other editors may take a different view of this. The petition itself is a primary source, but a newspaper report about the petition would probably be reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

His contention, that "Assam" is based on Sanskrit "Asama" has been rejected by Kakati and others (referred to in Alternate Text 4) I said Asamiya is from Sanskrit Asama like Assamese is from English Assam not Assam is from Asama.

The use of the velar fricative is common through out Assamese, not just in eastern Assamese. ("xaneri" Kamrupi; "xonari" St Assamese in Upendranath Goswami (1970) "A Study on Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese", Department of Historical and Antiquarian studies, p19). This book, based on a PhD thesis, is replete with the use of "x" in Kamrupi words. I already mentioned about imposition of X pronounciation.

The petition against the change in name was signed by a cross-section of people that included not just people from a particular tribe. The list includes novelists such as Mamoni Raisom Goswami, who belonged to western Assam, and who has pioneered the use of the south Kamrupi dialect in standard works.([14]) "The Assam Tribune" newspaper that had adopted "Asom" soon after the government proposal, has since reverted to "Assam". Noted persons signs as sign of goodwill when approached. What matters is that majority involved is particular tribe. Newspaper done so because decision remain pending due to objection.

It seems to me that User:Bhaskarbhagawati's objections are primarily with associating the name "Assam" with this "tribe" (called shan invaders in Alternate Text 4). If so, his objections are nothing but POV pushing. No, my objection is regarding wrong glorification of something on false grounds which defeats neutrality policy.

It's not up to Wikipedia either to justify the Assam government's decision or to criticise it. But decisions of governments on the advice of scholars are considered as valid sources.

Articles in the Assam Tribune may be reliable for the article, it depends. It seems to me that the article you link to (What's in a name? by Wahid Saleh) could support a short statement something like "an article in the Assam Tribune reported the finding of a Dutch map of the 17th century bearing a label 'Assam'." But it may not be necessary, and other editors may take a different view of this. The petition itself is a primary source, but a newspaper report about the petition would probably be reliable.

Newspapers as source are conditional. An event reported by newspaper can a valid source but if newspapers reports that somebody objected on something does not mean this objection is correct.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Eddy Brothers

Editor says the article is "based on material copied with permission" from Virtual Vermonter. I'm not sure this is a reliable source for the entire article, or that "copied with permission" is a valid claim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right to doubt these things :) Virtual Vermonter doesn't appear to meet our criteria as RS. If I'm right, no need to worry about the permission thing because the material should not be used as our source.

The Olcott book, mentioned on the web page, would be a primary source: we might use it with care, if someone can find a copy, but we can't base a whole article on it. The Williams book listed under "sources" on our Eddy Brothers page, published by Knopf, is probably OK: ideally, that's the kind of source we want. Maybe the Cranston book also, but whether it contains much relevant material I don't know. Andrew Dalby 14:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Having recently been fragged for copyvio myself, I know how easy it is to misunderstand and run afoul of close paraphrasing. This article seems full copyvio, to my eyes. The Virtual Vermonter page has no copyright-free notice but it does have an "all material copyright Virtual Vermonter" notice. In addition the story itself is listed as being "excerpted from" a separately copyrighted book by Rich Gray. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, the answer on that is that we would need full and precise documentation of any claimed "permission" given by Virtual Vermonter. We can't take an editor's word, because breach of copyright is a legal matter. But, as I said above, I don't see Virtual Vermonter as a reliable source, so we shouldn't be using it to build our text. And the style is not encyclopedic. That's three reasons to delete any substantial material taken from Virtual Vermonter. If we're to retain our article as more than a small stub, we need to consult other sources. Andrew Dalby 11:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The talk page comments suggest that there is no copyvio: the author and owner of the original work submitted the article himself in 2004. The article should therefore not be blanked on copyvio grounds. It should, instead, be treated like something written by any other editor that happens to be in need of better sourcing and some copyediting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

National Conference of Black Lawyers

Is this pdf linked to on the homepage of the National Conference of Black Lawyers a reliable source for the birthdate of Hugo Pinell? I cannot find his exact DOB in what would normally be considered "neutral" sources, however, it does correlate with his age noted in those sources. (I am not interested in citing the NCBL for any other information in the pdf.) Thanks! Location (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the NBCL as a political advocacy body of long standing, official purpose, and obvious coherence would be suitably trustworthy for the date of birth for Pinell in a formally released document released under the organisation's name. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Location (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Blogspot

Strange as it may seem, this fella is claiming that Blogspot is a reliable source... Talk:Golden_Dawn_(Greece)#blogspot Shii (tock) 10:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of the page, or in the edit window. Some unedited blogspot sites or posts may qualify under SPS or About Self. Others may be fully edited publications in the traditional sense, merely uttered by blogspot. (most, of course, are not) Fifelfoo (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it appears to be just a random blog being cited as a reliable source for photos of old magazines. Shii (tock) 10:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The reliability of the magazines is quite a different question. A library catalogue would probably be a reliable source for the existence of a magazine. We do have such a thing as a "convenience link", as well, but a Blogspot blog is not ideal even then. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

To be honest Shii, I'm not leaving this page, digging around in an article talk page (possibly the article) to interpret which source I should look at. Could you provide a link to the source in question as asked for at the top of this page and in the top of every edit window. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Here it is: http://jungle-report.blogspot.de/2012/03/blog-post.html Shii (tock) 13:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Shii. This is an unedited pseudonymous blog with no indication of an Expert exemption to Self-published sources. It is manifestly unreliable for the extraordinary claims that a group is a Nazi front. Moreover, it is not reliable as an archive of magazines as there are none of the standard features of a trustworthy archive present (named archivist, deposit policy, accessions system, register, etc.) Not reliable for that article, probably not reliable for anything notable. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

idebate.org

I was instructed on talk for the spam blacklist to first start a discussion of this topic here. I hope that's correct. iDebate is an essential source for articles about university debating societies and international competitions. It recently absorbed the other major news source, as can be seen there. Unfortunately, it was blacklisted in 2007 because at the time it had only one editor, and she was believed to be spamming links. I'm not in any way affiliated with the site, but I think it's a valuable and reliable resource. For example, it hosts the up-to-date 8 list of past world champions and the current world rankings. I posit that these things are valuable to Wikipedia because they provide information vital to the existing articles on university debating societies such as the Yale Debate Association or Oxford Union. Because of flynn.debating's move to iDebate, and iDebate's current blacklisting, both those articles are out-of-date. Insofar as the world university debating championship is a major international institution with thousands of participants and much media attention in Europe and Asia, if not in the US, I think iDebate should be relabeled a reliable source. Wardpackard (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

First, it must be recognized that we do not arbitrarily proclaim sources to be reliable or not; either they are reliable or they are not, based upon the definition of a reliable source set out in the verifiability policy and various supplemental guides. Second, the question, "Reliable for what?" must always be asked. iDebate.org might well be a reliable source for self-published information about that organization itself or its practices or activities, but it does not appear to be the kind of fact-checked source which can be used for information about third parties. Moreover, we prefer secondary sources over self-published ones whenever information is available in that manner and it would appear that most of the competitions actually held by IDEA itself are well covered in reliable news media accounts. To the extent that IDEA reports competition results from competitions held by clubs or organizations other than IDEA, it would not appear to be a reliable source for that information. Merely because third party information reported by iDebate is useful or important for Wikipedia articles is not enough, even if it is the only or best source for that information, unless iDebate meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source for third party information. It does not appear to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that this classification is not arbitrary. I also completely disagree with your characterization of IDEA. To the best of my (pretty extensive) knowledge, it doesn't host any of the major competitions about which it provides vital information. For example, the World University Debating Championships, the European University Debating Championships, the North American Debating Championships, and a number of international conferences on debate pedagogy are all covered mainly by iDebate, but not in any way affiliated with IDEA. It's true that these events are covered by other sources, but for the most part those sources are blogs of considerably lower credibility than iDebate. When covered by the brick-and-mortar media, the coverage sources are usually university newspapers or media outlets in the host countries (i.e. not in English). The WP standard for a reliable source includes the following: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." To the debate community, iDebate certainly constitutes a respectable publication--thousands of people read it every day, and all of them have the ability to quickly and painlessly call factual errors to the attention of the editors. To the debate community, it is the most reliable source available. As far as "mainstream" goes, it seems to me this is a term that is inescapably arbitrary. It's true that iDebate is a specialized source for a certain value of specialized, but then so is ESPN. Insofar as Wikipedia has over fifty articles on university debate, and as iDebate is considerably more reliable than the sources currently used for many of those articles, I feel this really is a case of bureaucracy triumphing over sense. Wardpackard (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The iDebate website has different sections. We can't make a blanket ruling on it, but should judge case by case depending on what information it is to support. The blacklisting could be lifted. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I fully concur that we must judge case by case; as I said, "the question, 'Reliable for what?' must always be asked." @Wardpackard: Note that in "Material from reliable non-academic sources" (emphasis added) that "reliable" relates back to the preceding paragraph of WP:SOURCES which defines what "reliable" means in general. It also qualifies the subsequent reference to "respected mainstream publications". Therefore, the quoted phrase only really distinguishes between academic Wikipedia-reliable sources and other Wikipedia-reliable sources; it does not mean that "respected mainstream publications" are necessarily reliable. As for iDebate being a more reliable source than sources used in existing Wikipedia articles, it is entirely possible that those articles are not properly sourced and that the sources used there ought to be removed (and, indeed, if reliable sources cannot then be found to adequately source those articles, the articles themselves should then be deleted); but also see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Bringing some of those instances up here at RS/N would be a good way to test whether iDebate might be reliable for some purposes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: I agree with that approach. @TransporterMan: Fair enough. For instance, the article on the World Universities Debating Championships currently cites just one source, a source that no longer exists due to its absorption into iDebate. Much of the history of the WUDC is summarized on iDebate, on the basis of old tournament packets which are not in general circulation in the present day. Obviously, some of this information may thus be dubious, but I see no reason why the article couldn't simply include a note on the somewhat problematic chain of transmission. Institutional lore ought to figure into an article about an institution, even if it may to a small degree be apocryphal. Similarly, I think it it would be useful to include in the same article a list of past champions, information available on the websites of some past hosts but aggregated by iDebate. (I obviously can't link to any of this because the site is blacklisted...) I think the logical consensus would be to lift the blacklist and let individual editors have the conversations about what is and is not acceptable. If I were to correct the woeful lack of citations on the WUDC page, there are a number of acceptable sources I could use, but not being able to use iDebate would leave a glaring hole. Wardpackard (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Better Business Bureau

Wescom Credit Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I went through the archives and could not find if a Better Business Bureau rating is considered a reliable source. An IP editor has been adding the BBB rating of Wescom Credit Union here and here. This rating does not seem appropriate for a Wikipedia article but I would like to refer to a specific policy or guideline if I remove it. Any advice or pointing me in the right direction to a previous discussion would be appreciated. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. BBB is a legitimate, respected organization. From a reliability perspective, I don't see an issue, particularly if in-text attribution is used ("According to the Better Business Bureau..."). That said, there might be MOS or WikiProject guideliness regarding BBB, I don't know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's incorrectly formatted, doubtless due to the editor being inexperienced, but it's a perfectly fine source (none better for this fact) and a reasonable enough thing to say about a large business. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. I was kind of questioning the BBB citation because of the controversy over its rating system (see Better Business Bureau#Criticism) and I also wasn't sure if this fell under WP:NOT. The formatting is an easy fix. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Christian Post as reliable source on abortion

Is the Christian Post a reliable source for the claim that Zhang Wenfang, a woman (BLP) in China, was forced to undergo an abortion? I argue that based on the CP's history of what could generously be described as failure to fact-check and less generously described as deliberate propaganda on abortion issues, they are not a reliable source for any story relating to abortion. They regularly report, for instance, that studies show abortion causes breast cancer (all major medical bodies completely reject this), that the morning-after pill prevents implantation, which anti-abortion advocates consider to be abortion (modern studies agree that the pill works by preventing fertilization), and that the recent American healthcare law will fund abortions (this is legally impossible, which is why real news sources agree that these claims are nonsense). Given their obvious subordination of fact-checking to an anti-abortion agenda, they clearly fail WP:RS's requirement that a source have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and are unsuitable for use in WP article space.

Particularly suspicious is the fact that it's been two weeks since this story broke and reliable sources just won't touch it. Mainstream media has been all over the forced abortion of Feng Jianmei, and news outlets are starting to pick up similar stories from other women (eg. the BBC on Pan Chunyan). But Zhang Wenfang is only in sources with an anti-abortion agenda such as LifeNews, National Right to Life News, Christian Post, and OneNewsNow.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to Christian Post's demonstrable inability to fact-check to the standards required by wikipedia in this area, this article which falls into this area is unreliable for the extraordinary claim that a state forced an abortion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. A minor political newspaper that places its political mission above its responsibility to fact-check in a particular editorial area is not reliable, and not extraordinary. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the Christian Post is not used as a source in the article. The dispute is whether it is appropriate to have an external link to a story about a woman who came forward with her claim to have had a similar experience as the actual subject of the article. The external link is presented as a claim only and the reader can decide for themselves the reliability of the story. I feel this is the appropriate way to handle the situation. (Note also that the BBC story is a likewise a publication of a claimed story - again presenting it as an external link allows the reader to decide for him/herself.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Stating that the Christian Post has an anti-aboriton agenda is itself an unproven assertion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

RS/N deals with editor evaluations of sources according to a depth of consensus and understanding of sourcing issues that the community has developed over an extended period of time. Regarding External Links, you'd want the External Links noticeboard, they have their own criteria that they're obliged to evaluate external links by that differ significantly to the reliable sourcing criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've re-posted the Q on the EL noticeboard as the dispute is over using CP as an external link, not as a source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

“ Whereas the Nazis were responsible for the wholesale murder of more than 6 million Jews, those today who support the practice of abortion homicide are no less complicit in the systematic slaughter of 55-million-and-counting equally precious human beings post Roe v. Wade. ” — Matt Barber, Christian Post

If you want more info about the Christian Post views on abortion it may be useful to read this page. Arcandam (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable. The CP is terribly biased with its facts in servitude to its agenda. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Stephen M. Cohen

Main page: Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Stephen M. Cohen

A question has arisen about the reliability and nature of a record by the California department of Consumer Affairs on the BLP noticeboard, relating to criminal convictions. Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Is an SPLC intelligence report a reliable source for information about the men's rights movement?

Source in question: Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement - an article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report, Spring 2012, Issue Number: 145.

Material in question: factual statements about the men's rights movement (like "The suicide of Thomas Ball drew additional attention to the Men's rights movement") and additionally as a source for the opinion contained within the article (like "An article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report stated that some prominent men's rights advocates vilify women.") Obviously, opinion would have to be included only with appropriate weight, but issues of weight are outside the scope of RSN. This material would either be included in parts of the article on men's rights that already discuss the men's rights movement, or included in a new article about the movement itself (an RFC is currently underway on the talk page.)

I believe that the article is a reliable source for both the factual issues involving the men's right movement that it discusses as well as the opinion of the article. The SPLC is a well-regarded group that I would compare in stature to the EFF or the ACLU. Their intelligence report is a quarterly magazine that has editorial oversight that is widely circulated among (and frequently cited as an authoritative source by) academics, the media, and law enforcement officials. I believe that the article meets WP:RS, and I see no significant reason why it wouldn't be reliable for both statements of fact and statements of the opinions of the author.

Most of the arguments against the use of the article involve the fact that the article does not attempt to be neutral. I'll leave a notification of this discussion on the talk page of the article, so that editors who believe the article should not be used have an opportunity to explain their opinions in greater depth.

The discussion on the article talk page currently is generating an awful lot of heat and rather little light, I would appreciate it if some of you could throw out your opinions either here or at Talk:Men's rights about the reliability of the article in both contexts I posed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

They clearly have a level of fact-checking in place, although I would not put them on the level of ACLU. This is serious investigative journalism, but it is "breaking news". The simple answer is "use with caution". Look for corroboration; see if any of the stories have been taken up more widely in the press. The most dramatic instances quoted in the story may turn out not to be notable in our terms. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC has specific political positions which appear to make much of their material subject to being treated as "opinion" and not mere statement of objective fact. Always attribute opinions to those holding them. And be wary of using their statements in WP:BLP articles. Collect (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith has struck the right note. Fact checking is good, but as a recent news item it should be treated more carefully than a well-researched long-term survey. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It does not appear that the SPLC has a position on Men's Rights, but rather on hate groups. Thomas Ball was a member of the Massachusetts Fatherhood Coalition. That is not a hate group; it is a rights group and so something the SPLC would be expected to support. That it does not, may be seen as a microcosm of the environment in which the Men's Rights groups often operate.

Tom Ball did not "war on women," he committed suicide by setting himself on fire in front of the courthouse, leaving a manifesto-- his reasons for what he was about to do (pour gasoline over himself and light a match). His reasons were despair, not hate (except psychologically, as suicide is rage turned inward). However, that is not the implication of the article.

The article implies that a father's rights group is equivocal to a hate group, that a suicide of despair is equivocal to an attack on women. Only if we accept a premise that a rights group is the same as a hate group is the SPLC a "reliable source." The question is not "reliable," rather, the question is "source." The article was virtually silent on rights.

I admit that, as policy goes, this is a grey area, but couching the argument as one of "reliable source" with an emphasis upon "reliable" is missing the point. The article not only does not address Men's Right's, it equates the subject to hate groups. That is a clear "ends justify the means" agenda on the part of the SPLC which has no place in the Men's Rights article-- unless such an agenda matches that of the editors. We ought the have ethic that the use of such an article is inappropriate-- as inappropriate as calling one man's suicide a "war on women" and calling a Men's Rights group a "hate group."

I submit that if one cannot talk about Men's Rights without discussing a specific man's "sins" then the agenda has become to articulate why men should not have rights. I can think of no other rights-based group which is expected to overcome such an obstacle-- and that does lead to despair-- and probably hate of those who place such obstacles before them. Therefore, I further submit that the SPLC is a questionable source on Men's Rights, reliable or otherwise.--cregil (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't make up our minds about sources on the basis of whether or not we agree with their conclusions, or on the political stances they adopt, but on objective criteria like the ones I and others presented above. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what it is being used for. I am unable to comment without knowing what the proposed text is. (I say this because the author has refuted what many have used it for in the past). Arkon (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have details on what I want to use it for in the original post of this section. That's probably not how I will word it exactly, since the context of the sentence will depend on how the RfC closes. Basically: facts about the MRM in a section dealing with the history of the MRM, and probably the opinion of the author briefly mentioned in a section about public reactions to the MRM or something similar to that. (Obviously sticking with what the text supports and not using it to say something like "The MRM is a hate group" since that's both not supported by the text and explicitly disavowed by the author.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer

James H. Fetzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article about conspiracy theorist James H. Fetzer contains the following statement...

A recent interview in which Jones was Fetzer's guest, which revealed the depth and breadth of their differences, elicited dozens of negative comments.

...with an incompletely formatted citation that points to this blog post with replies. I'm not sure if this is a reliable source issue or an original research issue or both. Thanks! Location (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It's both. First, 911blogger.com is not a reliable source and even if it were, comments left by readers may never be used as sources. Second, yes it's original research to read the comments and draw conclusions about them. And since Fetzer is a living person, it's a WP:BLP violation, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Per A Quest For Knowledge's reasoning. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Location (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If I may bring up another one. The article contains this statement:

With Canadian journalist Joshua Blakeney, he has organized a second conference from Scholars, "The Vancouver Hearings", which will be held there 15-17 June 2012.[10]

...with an incompletely formatted citation that points to 911vancouverhearings.com. It appears to be primarily promotional, but there is no "About us" and I'm not sure how this is judged by RSN. Thanks! Location (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

911vancouverhearings.com would not be a reliable source, unless for the opinion of its author. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again! Location (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I also have a question pertaining to YouTube as a reliable source. The article states:

On June 22, 2006, Fetzer was a guest on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes where he discussed his stance on several 9/11 conspiracy theories. In July 2006, Fetzer discussed Bill O'Reilly's remark that, if Kevin Barrett had been at his alma mater, Boston University, "this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor", stating, "When public threats can be made to a citizen's life for expressing his opinions on a controversial topic and neither the government nor the media respond, that is a sure sign we are living in a fascist state."

Although the statements are not currently cited, I believe one or both were previously linked to viewer-uploaded YouTube clips. My interpretation of the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview is that clips would need to be uploaded by Fox or a legitimate archiving entity for them to be used as reliable sources. Is that correct? Are these links alone even enough to state that he appeared on Hannity & Colmes or O'Reilly? Thanks! Location (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a City Pages article that could be used to support the statement that he was on Fox, but Wikipedia labels City Pages as a tabloid. Would that be acceptable? Location (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Tabloid format is not a disqualifier for reliability! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Location (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The largest problem with the paragraph from the article is that it synthesizes multiple sources in a way that makes it look like things were said that weren't:

• On 11 July 2006 Bill O'Reilly said "But here's the problem that I see at Wisconsin. There's no leadership here. There's no leadership in the board of regents at the university. This guy [Barrett]] would have been gone at Boston University, my alma martyr in a heartbeat. The chancellor there, John Silver, this guy would be in the Charles River [floating]throating down, you know, toward the harbor. It wouldn't happen. But here at the University of Wisconsin, there are no standards. This guy can go in and say anything, not back it up, and get paid by the taxpayers. And I'm just stunned." ("Impact." Fox News Network. (July 11, 2006 Tuesday ): 845 words. LexisNexis. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/07/16.)
• On 25 July 2006, O'Reilly said that Barrett had written a letter about the 11 July broadcast - "So what did Barrett do when he heard I said that? He wrote a letter to my boss saying, quote, 'It has come to my attention that one of your announcers, Bill O'Reilly, has stated on national television that he would like to see me murdered and thrown into the Boston Harbor,' unquote." followed by "Yes, I mean, this guy [Barrett]] is obviously -- there's something the matter. I don't know what it is. But you know, when he -- when he writes that I wanted him murdered." ("Controversial Professor Teaching Conspiracy Theory." Fox News Network. (July 25, 2006 Tuesday ): 879 words. LexisNexis. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/07/16.)
• Fetzer was not mentioned or quoted on either program, and was never quoted on Fox as having anything to say about the interchange.

The article combines these statements, along with unsourced commentary by Fetzer, and makes it sound like there is a RS for Fetzer's commentary. WP:SYN. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove that second sentence. I found Fetzer's commentary in a press release], but it does not appear that his thoughts about O'Reilly were reported on by reliable secondary sources. Right now, I'm just looking for a RS to back-up the article's assertion that he has appeared on Fox. Location (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

He has been on several times. I will pull citations and drop them at the article talk page, since they are Fox News transcripts I don't think there's a RS issue. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the Anchor Bible Dictionary a reliable source for archaeological claims?

I have a few concerns concerning the sourcing for Nazareth, (see article talk page for details), but I would like an opinion about one source in particular. The article says:

"James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[30] Strange originally speculated that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people", but later, in a subsequent publication, at “a maximum of about 480.”[31]"

with the citations being:

[30] Article "Nazareth" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

[31] E. Meyers & J. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity Nashville: Abingdon, 1981; Article “Nazareth” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

(Wikipedia does not have an article on James F. Strange or Eric M. Meyers, but Strange is mentioned at Yahad Ostracon and Meyers is briefly mentioned at The Jesus Family Tomb.)

Is the Anchor Bible Dictionary a reliable source for archaeological claims that have no citations to peer-reviewed science? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Without genuine academic peer-review, neither of these sources meets our requirements as a erliable source for archeological claims. All the more so as Strange seems to have no qualifications as an archeologist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dictionaries produced by non-scholars and aimed at non-scholars, such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary, are not suitable places to publish scholarly archaeological conclusions. Scholarly archaeological conclusions are required to support claims about historical Nazereth's population and importance.

Abingdon press is a mass sectarian press, with no indication it has the competence to support the publication of scholarly monographs. Seek scholarly reviews of Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity in scholarly peer reviewed journals, bring such reviews here. If they're positive they may overcome the limits of Abingdon's capacity to publish. Until you find indication that Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity is accepted by the community of scholars, don't use it. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit outside of the scope of my question, but would someone be so kind as to take a look at my other concerns on the article talk page? It's pretty short.

If this was in my normal area of editing (engineering) I would just edit the page to reflect what reliable sources we have and take out claims that aren't backed up by a RS. I suspect that trying to do this on a page which touches on religious beliefs like this one is very likely to unleash a storm of protests, so I want to make absolutely sure that I have all my ducks in a row before trying.

There appears to be a large amount of debate on the internet about this, mostly from blogs that freely admit that they have an agenda. A few of the more widely-quoted (and, of course completely unreliable other than for documenting that a controversy exists) blogs are:

PRO:

http://www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/Archeology/intro.html (Search on "Nazareth")

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/nazareth.php

CON:

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

When making claims about the contents of religious texts, the appropriate sources are scholarly theologians (and in some cases truly Expert practising contemporary theologians), scholarly religious studies academics, and scholarly literary criticists of religious texts. When making claims about the historical past (WP:HISTRS), appropriate sources are scholarly archaeology, scholarly history, and occasionally scholarly historical anthropology etc…. We have a responsibility to properly attribute and weight all non-FRINGE scholarly opinions, based on their acceptance in the preponderance of scholarly literature. I would suggest doing research on the scholarly opinion regarding Nazareth's historical significance before editing, so you're aware of the scholarly context. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• One should generally avoid things with names like "bible dictionary", but each case has to be considered on its merits. Contrary to what Fifelfoo claims, the Anchor Bible Dictionary is one of the most scholarly publications in this class, edited by a well respected scholar and containing articles signed by many eminent academics. The multi-volume series it appears in was recently taken over by Yale University. The reliability of this should be treated about the same as the best encyclopedias like Britannica. Zero^talk 00:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• The comments about James Strange that Guy Macon is posting are completely wrong and probably a violation of WP:BLP. The fact is that James Strange is an archaeologist, involved in actual excavations. See for example this, this, this, this, and this. Very very obviously a reliable source. Zero^talk 00:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• You just made a very serious accusation against me. Before I say or do anything further, I would like to give you the opportunity to retract it. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been arguing that Strange is not an archaeologist due to being unqualified. For someone whose profession is archaeology, such statements are false and defamatory. So, no, I won't retract it. I don't have any sympathy with your ignorance either as it takes about one minute with google to determine that Strange is an accomplished archaeologist who is frequently cited by his peers. His coauthor in the book you don't like is even more eminent. It is also easy to determine that they are both specialists in the required subfield of archaeology. Zero^talk 10:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not "arguing that Strange is not an archaeologist due to being unqualified" I am asking whether there is a reliable source that supports the claim that Strange is an archaeologist. The citations you list above do not support that, and your argument that they do is WP:SYNTHESIS. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• • So cite the YUP edition, it is more recent anyway, and cite it properly. A wide variety of scholarly encyclopaedia articles are less than desirable: the unsigned ones for example. Doubleday (and before them Anchor) simply don't have the capacity to supervise scholarly outputs. Similarly, I'm less than willing to accept Expert arguments about scholars when they're publishing in non-scholarly presses. Reviews of the work in question in the scholarly literature are far superior to demonstrating that the scholar has indeed on other occasions published scholarly content. The issue is if the article desired to cite from in scholarly. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC) As discovered below YUP takes full responsibility for all Doubleday and Anchor elements of this series. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a more recent edition. The article on Nazareth is signed by James Strange. As a summary (2 pages) by an expert, it is fine for the few uncontroversial things being cited to it. It could be replaced fairly easily, but there is no urgency. Zero^talk 10:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"The few uncontroversial things being cited to it"? You call a speculation that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ was 480 -- a claim that I have shown that there is a huge debate about -- so uncontroversial that we are to accept it without a citation to a reliable source? I can think of only two possible explanations for you making such a claim. The first possibility is that you don't understand or verifiability policy. Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines#Uncontroversial knowledge clearly defines uncontroversial knowledge: "Some statements are uncontroversial and widely known among people familiar with a discipline. Such facts may be taught in university courses, found in textbooks, or contained in multiple references in the research literature". Either add a citation to a reliable source for the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ, or the statement must be removed. The second possibility is that you are unable to overcome a bias that causes you to be willing to ignore Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and should recuse yourself from editing this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Anchor Bible Dictionary arbitrary break

• • I haven't been able to find specific reviews, however this work has been cited admiringly regarding its extensive analysis of language use in New Testament Studies ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500006056 ), "For the latest over-all survey of the languages in first century Palestine we refer to E. M. Meyers – J. F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis & Early Christianity (Abingdon-Nashville, 1981), ch. 4, pp. 62–91." This methodology paper also treats its conclusions on Greek versus Aramaic as standard: McIver, Robert K., "Methodology and the Search for the Historical Jesus: A Response to John Dominic Crossan" (1999). Theology Papers and Journal Articles. Paper 23. It is relatively widely cited ( http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=8951557329322791848&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en ), but a quick check of citations indicates potentially superior sources for historical Nazereth, ( http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7_rtx8zTBOAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&ots=96a7yGl450&sig=IiKMzKLMQ8VL1W4IAHPaKWL7_GU#v=onepage&q&f=false ). YMMV. I think it seems like the text is treated as a member of the scholarly publications in its field. (I wish they'd find better publishers than minor, non-scholarly, sectarian presses for this stuff). I re-emphasise: Anchor/Doubleday isn't an appropriate scholarly text, cite the YUP version if, and only if, the piece is signed; regarding the Abingdon work, I believe it to be reasonably accepted in the scholarly literature, but by checking who cites the work in scholar I found multiple potentially superior works whose primary focus is on social and economic history in the region (for example). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC) As noted below YUP has taken full responsibility for the scholarly quality of all Doubleday and Anchor impression works in this series. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

    Our policies do not require the citation of a "scholarly text", and if the two editions say the same thing, by the same author, then demanding the one with the fancier-sounding publisher is silly, bureaucratic hoops to jump through. We normally prefer (NB: not require) scholarly sources because we think them more likely to get it right. So long as the facts are right, then any minimally reliable source, even if wholly non-academic, is acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

    The quality of the source needs to match the quality demanded by the claim. It is that simple. You can take your personal truth regarding facts and shove it up your personal original research. If you want to meet policy and consensus regarding V in areas covered by scholarly work, guess what you need to cite? And mass market paperback publishers aren't that. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I ask again: What policy and what consensus (at least what consensus that is not limited in its application by WP:CONLIMITED)? What you have said is arguably the best practice, but neither policy nor consensus requires it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." WP:IRS. Think about "appropriate to the claims made." in the context of a pulp presses' dictionary. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yale University Press describes the six-volume ABD and its companions as "a prestigious collection of more than 115 volumes of biblical scholarship" and thought highly enough of it that they bought it and promised to keep publishing every volume.

But Fifelfoo seems to be saying here that if the version in your hands was published before the 2007 acquisition, then it's not scholarly on the grounds that the enormous original publisher has some non-scholarly books in its list, but the minute that the same book, with the same contents, says "Yale University Press" instead of "Doubleday" on the copyright page, it's okay. This is silly. We have a reliable source saying that ABD is a scholarly publication. YUP—Fifelfoo's preferred publisher here—is selling the exact 1992 volume being cited here. We don't need to rely on Fifelfoo's personal opinion about whether Doubleday is capable of having a scholarly source in its list. This is a scholarly source and should be treated like any other scholarly tertiary source (which is to say, it's reliable-but-not-best for most purposes). There is nothing "inappropriate" about using a prestigious scholarly encyclopedia (IMO it's more encyclopedia than dictionary) as a source for basic information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying, and your quotation of YUP makes me reverse my position because you've demonstrated that the acquisition is due to the scholarly quality of the entire series (not just "new" YUP releases). How can you demonstrate it is scholarly? Do you have reviews of the Anchor edition in scholarly theological journals? I'd accept these as proof that it is scholarly. Do you have reviews of the Doubleday edition in scholarly theological journals? I'd accept these as proof that it is scholarly. Can you point to the YUP acquisition document praising it? You did! In fact Yale points out my criticism is valid when they say, "This sale will enable Doubleday to enhance its existing focus on publishing general religious titles for the trade market." Doubleday and Anchor are not scholarly presses, they work in the trade market. But when YUP acquires a work because, "Yale University Press will publish all backlist and new volumes in the series, to be renamed Anchor Yale Bible, going forward. […] Yale University Press will be adding a highly-regarded line of books that strengthens its existing publishing program and serves its mandate to publish serious works that further scholarly investigation and advance interdisciplinary inquiry." Then this for me counts as YUP taking responsibility for the editorial content of the entire series. I'm sure we're all familiar with now reputable sources that began in the gutter press. New Left Review began as the unreviewed dissident communist Reasoner within the Communist Party of Great Britain (possibly in the CPGB historians group...). NLR is scholarly. Reasoner ain't. YUP's acquisition statement demonstrates that all of the Anchor series were scholarly. RS/N needs a process to use for demonstration of source reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of these sources that we are talking about are not available online. I would very much like to read the sources we are basing this article on in context. I believe that it would be well within fair use for someone with access to these sources to quote a paragraph or two on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Guy, most humanities works have a "long tail" of tens or even hundreds of years; they are also very much paper library oriented (except for the past two years of publications). You may have to hit a high quality scholarly library. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I found this[15], for what its worth. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Alarmed to see top editors falling out so quickly. There are some complexities here, and it necessarily takes a few posts to work it out properly. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's the usual problem for the regulars here: someone asks whether a source is reliable, and half the group says, no, it's unreliable because it's not the best imaginable source, and the other half says yes, obviously it's reliable, because it meets or exceeds the minimum standards set forth by the guidelines and policies. And when you throw in a suspicion that the "unreliable" answers are knee-jerk anti-Christian bigotry (which would be appalling in this context, because modern archaeology was practically invented by Christians for the purpose of studying religious history), then you get prompt a falling out.

In the future, I suspect that we could reduce this miscommunication by saying "best" when we mean "best" and "reliable" when we mean "complies with WP:RS". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not that at all. All posters were addressing the criterion of a fully scholarly source, essential for an archaeology article. It was about haste, probably. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that party of the problem is an unexamined assumption. Zero0000, who is no stranger to wikiconflicts, seeing me question the reliability of his sources assumes that I want to remove material from the article. My actually my goal is, if at all possible, to keep the material and add a new and better citation. Removal is only a reluctant last resort. My main issue is that the sections that are about archaeology really do need to have citations that can be traced back to a peer-reviewed source for all controversial (likely to be challenged) claims. Claims that there was a population of 480 there in the first century -- or any population at all -- are very likely to be challenged and need to be backed up by peer-reviewed science. I really do think that previous editors accepted poor citations for religious reasons, and that the article will be far stronger if we only report what is in the peer-reviewed science. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Judith, there is no rule requiring every single source in an archaeological article to be "a fully scholarly source". Every source must be reliable, meaning that every source must meet or exceed the minimum standard set forth at WP:RS. Some sources should be fully scholarly sources, but "some" is not "all", and "reliable" encompasses far more than "fully scholarly". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(e-c) Guy, this is a different point from the one first made. Now the question seems to be not whether the source is a reliable source, which it pretty much clearly is, but whether it is one of the best sources on the subject, which in fact is the kind of sources we would prefer to use. Standing on its own, I would have to say no, it is not one of the best possible sources. The question then would be whether we can find better sources. This might not be as silly a question as some might think. Remember, we are talking about Israel here. A lot of material relating to this subject might not have been translated or made easily available in English. The problem is whether anyone has access to those better sources, wherever they are. I would agree if possible better sources, including academic ones of some sort, would be preferred. Even some non-scholarly books might be preferable. This page lists a book by Charlesworth, generally regarded as a very good scholarly author, and mentions a few others. But, at this point, I don't see any good reason to necessarily remove the information, although admittedly it would be a good idea if better sources were found. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Anchor Bible Dictionary second arbitrary break

I have a followup question. Let me know if it belongs in a new entry. Is this page

http://web1.cas.usf.edu/main/peopleDetails.cfm?ID=9537&DeptID=0-1259-000

a reliable source for the claim "James Strange is an archaeologist"?

On the yes side, are these statements:

"He was Montgomery Fellow at the W.F. Abright Institute for Archaelogical Research in Jerusalem in 1970-71 and NEH fellow at the same Institute in 1980."

"Dr. Strange's research interests are in Biblical Archaelogy,"

"Strange has participated in field archaeology annually since 1969 and has directed the excavations at Sepphoris, Israel annually since 1983"

On the no side is this:

"James Strange is Professor of Religious Studies and Director of Graduate Studies. He has served both as Chairperson of Religious Studies (1990-93) and as Dean of the College of Arts and Letters (1981-89). He earned a B.A. in Philosophy from Rice University in 1959, an M.Div. from Yale Divinity School in 1964, and a PhD. in New Testament Studies from Drew University in 1970."

...no degree in archaeology, and nowhere does he claim to be an archaeologist.

Related questions: would the above justify calling him a "biblical archaeologist" or "amateur archaeologist"? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

First, the Anchor Bible Dictionary is a reliable source. Depending on the date of publication, and the length of the material included, and the potential bias of the author of any individual article (which happens rather often), and other things, it may not be the best source, but it is reliable. Second, Strange I think could reasonably be described as a Biblical archaeologist, given his status as a director of excavations. However, if one wanted to get really OCD about it, one could describe him as a biblical historian who has directed archaeological digs. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

People who are paid to do archaeology cannot be described as "amateurs". Amateur vs professional is all about the money. University degrees are not relevant: Abraham Lincoln, for example, was a lawyer despite having attended school for only a total of 18 months in his life. He was a professional lawyer because people paid him to do the work, not because he spent years in a classroom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Counterexample: "Dr. Carl Baugh, Director of the Creation Evidence Museum, began his excavation project on the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas in March 1982. Since that time, Baugh, along with teams of volunteers, has uncovered over 400 dinosaur tracks and over 80 human footprints in Cretaceous limestone." Source: Creation Evidence Museum People pay Baugh to do archaeology, but he is no archaeologist. Baugh is a creation scientist, and Strange is a Biblical Archaeologist (not to compare the two - Biblical Archaeologists are real scientists)

Also, Abraham Lincoln became a lawyer in 1836 when he passed the bar exam which was administered to him in Sangamon County Circuit Court and obtained his law license. It was then and still is no illegal to practice law or call yourself a lawyer just because someone is willing to pay you to practice law. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If he's published archaeological conclusions in scholarly peer reviewed archaeological journals, then he's an archaeologist. If he's got a PhD in archaeology then he's an archaeologist. If he's published archaeological books in a University Press (or similar) and they've not received hostile reviews in the scholarly peer reviewed archaeological journals, then he's an archaeologist. If he's published archaeological findings in the mass-marked non-fiction presses, and these have been reviewed positively in the scholarly peer reviewed archaeological journals, then he's an archaeologist. Membership of the practicing scholarly community is the criteria, this is most easily evidenced by research publications that meet the standard of scholarly acceptance. (This answer in terms of considering expertise in terms of reliable sourcing, not in terms of reliably sourcing wikipedia claiming he's an archaeologist) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim in question is both extraordinary and controversial, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Furthermore, the claim is archeological in nature, and thus requires a genuine archeological source. The Anchor Biblical Dictionary clearly fails as a source because it was not compiled with the intention of being an authoritative source on archeological matters, nor did it receive any sort of review from an archeological standpoint. The author of the article is also not a recognized expert in the field of archeology to the extent that his claim should be given any weight, published as it is in without the benefit of peer-review. He seems to be a minor character in the field of archeological research in Israel, with no formal training and a modest and unspectacular pubication history. He has never particpated in excavations at Nazareth, nor does he have the training, expertise or stature to give his claims about Nazareth any special credibility. In fact, his claims sound like little else than armchair speculation. Sorry, but claims about archeology pertainign to Nazareth by an archeological lightweight who has no special knowledge about the site in question that are published in a non-peer reveiwed, non-archeological source carry little weight, especially since no one in the archeological community has bothered to comment on them in independent reliable sources. The claims do not appear to be part of the schlarly debate on the topic, and thus should not be mentioned here in WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This paragraph should get a prize of some sort. Zero^talk 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is really quite absurd to imagine that someone who has been the director of several archaeological excavations in Israel is not an archaeologist. The State of Israel issues excavation permits carefully and sparingly, of course he's an archaeologist. Incidentally, he also wrote the article on Nazareth in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, under the auspices of the American Schools of Oriental Research (one of the most respected academic organizations in archaeology) and published by Oxford University Press. I guess Dominus Vobisdu will tell us it is really a children's book. He spent three years as Fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, the most famous institution in Middle East archaeology, of course he's an archaeologist. His coauthor Meyers was even the director of the Albright Institute for a while. Can we stop this nonsense now? Zero^talk 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

People stumbling on this section might not realise what is going on. There is a fringe theory that Nazareth was uninhabited at the time of Jesus, and some of its adherents have been trying for years to push it into Nazareth. It must be true, but the archaeologists refuse to cooperate. They even do things like digging up houses from that time period, bad bad archaeologists! Zero^talk 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• The confusion may have resulted from the fact that his son, James R. Strange, helps him do his field work. James F. Strange is the one qualified in archaeology. is/was a lead archaeologist at the site of the ancient city of Sepphoris. Notice these links: University of South Florida, A blog of someone working with the Strange family (second generation includes the son and a daughter): Here; James F. Strange has published in peer-reviewed journals. He is leading in excavations at the site of the ancient city of Sepphoris, three miles from Nazareth. His opinion most-likely is biased in favor of the existence of the ancient Nazareth of Jesus, but there seems no doubt that James F. Strange is a competent and respected archaeologist. Note these search results from Google scholar here. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Regarding evidence for the existence of Nazareth, it may still be FRINGE to doubt that it existed, but the lack of evidence is a valid concern. This helps explain why the excavations at Sepphoris hold significance for these Christian archaeologists. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, nobody ever claimed that Nazareth didn't exist. The claim is that there is no evidence of human habitation between the Late Iron Age (c. 700 BCE) and Middle Roman times (c. 100 CE).[16][17] I personally doubt that claim, based upon arguments by Richard carrier,[18], but the fact remains that the only citation to a RS the article has on this[19] dates the artifacts found to "the first and second centuries CE". All I am saying is that if Wikipedia says that there were people living in Nazareth at the time of Christ, we need to have a citation to a RS that says that. Right now we have no such citation. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• That is cutting an awful fine line. If there are no humans, then Nazareth, as a human construct did not exist during that time. So there is no ongoing question regarding James F. Strange's credentials as a bonafide archaeologist? If a reputable archaeologist, such as James F. Strange, speculates about Nazareth at the time of Christ and is quoted in a reliable source, then his opinion is okay to cite, I would think. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Active Anime

[20] < Would this be considered a reliable source? It has a mention on Anime News network, Blu-ray.com cites them without comment, About.com Guide Deb Aoki links to one of their articles, and ICV2 cites them with attribution.

Possibly. The question is for what claims on what articles? Their editorial policy here is fairly sparse. There's no indication that their reviews are weighty. But they do have a minimal "fact checking" apparatus in place. So what do you want to cite for them on what article? I'd certainly dispute that this is a source that contributes to notability. Sandra Scholes appears to have extensive reviewing experience, but again, this doesn't make her opinions weighty. In what article for which claims? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well for example the source is used in Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle for Reception, the article is rated as a GA class article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, just no. Those reception claims are cited against "reviews" by non-experts in a shoddily edited blogzine. There's nowhere near enough WEIGHT behind those reviews to substantiate using those opinions in those articles. Sure, we can trust that Active Anime is reliable that those reviewers believed those things regarding the text. What I don't see evidence of is why we should care what those reviewers think. Opinions aren't facts, and these opinions come from people, and a magazine, with no real reason to attend to their opinion at all. Attribution doesn't make up for discussing something which is entirely weightless. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

TMZ

Would this TMZ article be reliable source for info regarding Sage Stallone's death? Shark96z (talk · contribs) 02:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Helpdesk#TMZ Arcandam (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you both checked the RS/N archives? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Source I really don't know what to make of

On the Rudolph Rummel article, this was used as a source for criticism. It was apparently posted to "MarxMail.org", and the editor who added it claims that it was written by someone named Louis Proyect. Proyect may be a reliable source but I don't know who he is, and I didn't see his name in the article. It looks dubious to me, but CartoonDiablo insists that I would be biased to remove it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a reliable source at all, unless it was published elsewhere and is just being shared on "MarxMail.org" -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) largely per Jrtayloriv, but in depth: Louis Proyect appears to be a system administrator and political activist. He keeps a collection of contributions he has written to an internet mailing list on his website here. He has been broadly published in left wing presses and scholarly journals ("My articles, many of which appeared originally as postings to the Marxism list, have appeared in Sozialismus (Germany), Science and Society, New Politics, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Organization and Environment, Cultural Logic, Dark Night Field Notes, Revolutionary History (Great Britain), New Interventions (Great Britain), Canadian Dimension, Revolution Magazine (New Zealand), Swans and Green Left Weekly (Australia).") Some of these publications are reliable in the wikipedia sense. I see no evidence that Noam Chomsky, Crooked Timber and crooked numbers (2006) has been so published. If this were published in GLW I'd think it worth noting, possibly along the lines of "Rummel's statistical competence and methodology has been harshly criticised in the popular left wing press." If this were published in Science and Society I'd say go further and note that scholarly criticism of Rummel's statistical competence and methodology exists. But unless Noam Chomsky, Crooked Timber and crooked numbers (2006) was published by one of the organs Proyect names, I would say we shouldn't use it. Proyect's personal expertise does not go to the criticism of statistical demography of mortality. (And there are, I believe, trenchant criticisms of Rummel's demography in the scholarly press). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure if it was published elsewhere. I've asked CartoonDiablo to explain if it was or where it originated. It looks totally unreliable to me, but he may have some explanation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My very best wishes removed the source. It's up to CartoonDiablo to respond now or accept this removal.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

AFL.com.au

QClash is currently going through a pre-afd discussion about notability due to a lack of reliable, independent third party sources over an extended period of time. QClash is a sports rivalry, involving two teams from the Australian Football League. The articles sources are comprised solely of the AFL.com.au website and various sub-domains (domains for individual teams).

The Australian Football League itself owns and operates the AFL.com.au website. This source is already used over 4,000 times on the site so this source covers far more than this singular topic.

A point has been raised that we should consider sources from the AFL.com.au to be independent, third-party reliable sources for topics about the Australian Football League and Australian Rules Football. The basis of this claim is that because the writers label themselves 'journalists' they do not have any conflict of interest and should be considered independent and third-party for the purposes of wikipedia and it's various guidelines in regards to topics involving those subjects.

I have several problems with that in regards to WP:THIRDPARTY, WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. A third party must be independent and unaffiliated with the subject. This site is owned and operated by the Australian Football League and the title of afl.com.au is The Official Site of the Australian Football League. There is a clear conflict of interest and complete lack of independence on display in the very title of the site. The writers on that site are paid for by the Australian Football League to write on topics owned or directly involving the company that hired them, that the articles are directly affiliated with the subject and topics. Hiring and paying someone who calls themselves a 'journalist' to write them doesn't make the resulting article any more independent or reliable than having had someone titled 'marketing manager' or the CEO write them.

I believe this source cannot be considered an independent third-party source on topics related to the Australian Football League. Can I get a ruling or consensus on this? Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Responders please note the history of this user. Thanks. Footy Freak7 (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this request. Your issue with myself has been sorted by administrator review and is not relevant. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It has plenty to do with this request as it is a continuation of the same behaviour behind another cover, and lends itself firmly to an act of bad faith. That's all I need to say. Footy Freak7 (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

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

afl.com.au appears to be a news aggregation site. Many, many articles there are harvested from external sources, and those that aren't seem to be written by reputable journalists. My random pick was [21] which includes a footnote "The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the AFL or its clubs". The poster seems to be implying this is like a media department writing COI material (which is complete nonsense). I see no reason to think this is not a reliable source. It is also true that Macktheknife needs to WP:DROPIT. Moondyne (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What Moondyne said. I see no reason why the league would NOT be a reliable source of information about itself and teams in the AFL. This also appears to be part of an ongoing issue where Macktheknifeau is forum shopping after articles about the A-League were deleted. --LauraHale (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the issue. I have been allowed by an administrator to continue checking these articles and that is not to be considered 'disruptive' so I would kindly ask you to consider the issue at hand. As to the issue itself, the site has hired hundreds of staff members to work in it's new media-marketing arm very recently and a great deal of it's content is now written by members of it's own staff. While it may have been an news aggregation site in the past it's articles are now written by people employed by the company. This isn't about reliability as much as independence. The writers for the AFL.com.au media-marketing arm are paid and funded by the AFL, under the banner of the AFL, on the 'afl.com' website. They are reporting on their own company and it's products, they are paid by that same company, and they write about their companies own league, products and the teams that participate in it. The issue is that some people wish to use these sources, paid and bought by the AFL, to be considered 'independent' (and thus to use them as proof of notability), despite their content by produced by a company and staff members with direct affiliation with the subjects, violating WP guidelines on notability, independence and third-party sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Prior to a major change to the AFL Media earlier this year, it could be argued that the AFL and club sites had a conflict of interest, but as Mack well knows, they reorganised themselves and expanded into a fully fledged news organisation and claim to have complete editorial independence from the AFL commission. Unless this can be proven to be false we should AGF and for this year's articles use it equally to any other news outlet. As I said on the QClash talk page, some believe that all Australian news outlets are conflicted in some way due to sponsorship, licensing, access or accreditation reasons. In any event it is rare that we must rely only on afl sites for verification, most topics (including the one that sparked this notice) are almost always virtually duplicated on all of the main news sites. Whether they are still available online or protected by a paywall is one of the reasons why AFL links are often easier to use. I have frequently recommended to new editors to try to use at least one non AFL site source to fulfil beyond any doubt the independent requirement of GNG. Finally, there is actually no problem with using some non-independent sources to verify information, if it is considered a reliable source. It is only to prove notability that the independent clause is important. (edit conflict addition) calling AFL media a marketing arm is insulting to the journalists involved and Mack needs to AGF and drop it. Are journos from The Times or The Age marketing arms for News Corp or Fairfax? Their main aim is to sell newspapers, isn't it?The-Pope (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

and a quick search on the Fairfax and Courier Mail sites has found a few refs on each. Mack still doesn't seem to understand that these articles aren't GA/FA level and can be improved by what else is out there.The-Pope (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If those News Corp or Fairfax journalists were reporting on their own company then yes, of course they would have a conflict of interest and should be considered non-independent in regards to Wikipedia guidelines, and I doubt us saying so would be an insult to them. The same thing matters here in my view. My concern is people attempting to use the non-independent, non-third party afl.com.au sites as proof of notability for topics that are directly owned by the AFL itself and as such ignoring the guidelines that consider direct affiliations non-usable for the purposes of notability. Anything outside this 'proof of notability' issue is a secondary issue that isn't the focus of my request for clarification here. I have no problem using AFL.com.au articles to confirm details, but not being used as proof of notability on topics directly affiliated with that company. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well thats different to what you originally asked. This is the WP:RS noticeboard. WP:N is thataway. Moondyne (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

India and state terrorism

The following sources are being used in this article, I had removed them as SPS but they have been reverted back in. Sources used For Whom the Bell Tolls: America or the Jihadists? Trafford Publishing and this [22] published on a personal website.

Are these suitable for anything at all, never mind what they are currently being used to cite. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Every source is suitable for something, even if it's just to say "Some guy wrote the following words on his personal website..."

These sources are self-published, and so whether they are reliable for any normal purpose will depend on whether the authors are recognized experts under the WP:SPS rules. Do you know anything about the authors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true that every source is suitable for something. See previous threads about Facebook pages. Gautam Matra is the author in question. I find nothing about him online at all. No reviews of the book. Not reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What if the author in question is given attribution for the content that is cited by his book? For example, Gautam Maitra writes so and so in xyz book etc. Per WhatamIdoing, every source is suitable for something. In this case, Maitra's work is being used to cite that India's support of the LTTE is regarded as state-sponsored terrorism and that several neighbours have accused India of being involved in state terrorism. Both these statements are not even something ambiguous, but rather a widely known accusation/fact. It might have been a different scenario if Maitra was, without attribution, being used to cite something that was not as widely known (and hence his work could have been legitimately challenged). Mar4d (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing might have gone on to say this: "what some guy wrote" is only a candidate for mention on Wikipedia if the guy's opinion is notable. That's not for this board, but, if Judith's correct that Gautam Mitra doesn't show up anywhere online at all, it could be hard to demonstrate that his opinion is notable. Andrew Dalby 10:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We need much better sourcing than this for a controversial topic in international relations. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• If as Mar4d says it is common knowledge the "India's support of the LTTE is regarded as state-sponsored terrorism and that several neighbours have accused India of being involved in state terrorism" then he should have no trouble finding an academic source to cite this well known factoid. He is also conflating State terrorism with State sponsored terrorismDarkness Shines (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• According to this source support was not as full on as the SPS would suggest. "The LTTE enjoyed material and moral support from Tamil Nadu State in India" Historical Dictionary of Terrorism p399 That is a state, not the Indian government. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Vidstatsx

I have not come across the website vidstatx before, nor seen it used as a reference on Wikipedia. To me it seems like a clear case of WP:SPS, someone who claims to know what the YouTube rankings are. It has been added as a source for the recently deSALTed Dave Days. Has it been used elsewhere on the project as a reliable source? 117Avenue (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(Corrected name of section head from "vidstatx" to "Vidstatsx")

I am involved in editing this article with 117Avenue. The source is being used in the following way to support the shown article content:

As of July 2012, [Dave Days'] YouTube channel was among the top 50 most-subscribed channels on YouTube...

Source URL: vidstatsx.com/youtube-top-50-most-subscribed-channels

...and was in the top ten most-subscribed channels in YouTube's Entertainment genre.

Source URL: vidstatsx.com/youtube-top-100-most-subscribed-entertainment-channels

Source is also currently supporting similar content at Sara Niemietz discography, Corey Vidal, Caitlin Hill and Charlie McDonnell among others. Zad68 14:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Anandtech

Can someone offer an opinion of the reliability of anandtech.com? This is specifically in reference to Talk:iPhone 4#Can a confirmed user please add a citation for me for the Apple A4 Intrinsity design?. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Anandtech, in my opinion is undoubtedly a reliable news source, articles from the website have been cited by numerous other reputable sources such as "PC Magazine" and has a considerably high Alexa ranking for a special-interest website. The website also has a Wikipedia article that appears to be well-sourced with both primary and secondary sources. I personally have referenced various articles on mobile devices, computer hardware and other technology-related concepts on Wikipedia with article from that website. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 09:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Anandtech is a reliable source for tech news. Currently being used by over 300 articles. Zad68 16:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Anandtech is a reliable source for hardware related stuff. I bought a GTX295 and a GTX580 based on their reviews and the results I got were pretty much the same as the results of the benchmarktests they published (in CoDWaW and Wolfenstein, I did not test every single game). Arcandam (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added the citation, thanks all. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fashion Model Directory

Just curious, would Fashion Model Directory be a reliable source at all? It doesn't seem so to me. For the curious, I'm now in a "dispute" at Lily Cole, wherein the IMDB, Fashion Model Directory, and other similar sites list her birthdate as May 19, 1988. However, The Observer, an actual newspaper, printed on January 6, 2008 that she just turned 20 (link here). The Evening Standard, dated February 26, 2004, states that Cole is 16 at that time (Link here). She twitted a picture of a birthday cake, saying "24", on December 27, 2011 (implying a December 27, 1987 birthdate); (link here). When someone wished Cole a happy birthday the night after December 27, 2011, she replied with a thank you on her verified Twitter account (link here). British Birth Records list Lily Luahana Cole as having her birth registered in February 1988, which fits with the December 27, 1987 date that she asserts. Surely, given her verified Twitter account, this is an open-and-shut case, and something like a Fashion Model Directory can be duly ignored? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You could just give her birth date as 1987 or 1988 and give all the sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? She celebrates her birthday in December. Nothing worth believing says May 1988. Aside from that, I found two more newspapers that state her right age (17 in April 2005 and 18 in April 2006). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Internet marketing: Niche marketing

Hello, I noticed that the Niche Marketing section of the Internet Marketing page needed work, so I re-wrote it over the course of a day or two. Several times I attempted to use a self-published source (blog) from an expert in the field. I attempted to argue that the source is an expert based on their having been invited to publish five articles on a recognized online journal in that field (They have been a contributor also on other journals in the field, but I chose the most recognized one.) The source was a how-to blog for SEO and the author (Aviva Blumstein) was previously published on Search Engine People which was recognized as a reliable third-party source by: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/so-you-want-to-start-a-big-seo-blog/29976/ and http://unbounce.com/online-marketing/75-top-marketing-blogs-to-make-your-rss-reader-fat/ and http://www.invesp.com/blog-rank/SEO

Am I misunderstanding the following policy from WP:RS: Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

In particular, the section in question is the Niche Marketing section of Internet Marketing which can be found at this link to id 502828086. A useful diff for the section might be this.My attempted justification can be found on the talk page of Internet marketing, in a section entitled "Niche Marketing section needed work" The sources I'm citing can be found at: http://www.debi-z.com/2012/03/27/convert-the-converted/ and http://www.debi-z.com/2011/05/09/how-do-i-find-the-best-keywords-for-my-site/

Please explain to me if and how I'm being silly. Thanks! 109.65.136.189 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You've been told by at least three different experienced editors that it's not appropriate; please see WP:FORUMSHOPPING. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I was also told to ask here by one of them, if you look at the talk page there. Apparently that was inappropriate advice. 109.65.136.189 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, two of them said to ask here. Maybe it wasn't inappropriate advice at all. Also, I'm still looking for an explanation as to why I'm wrong, if I am indeed wrong, as I stated in the above paragraph. If you are so convinced that I'm wrong, perhaps you could explain it to me. 109.65.136.189 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)