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

Glenn Greenwald as RS in Frank L. VanderSloot

Source: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/billionaire_romney_donor_uses_threats_to_silence_critics/.

Article: Frank L. VanderSloot

Content:

(a.) Melaleuca has been targeted by Michigan regulators, the Idaho attorney general's office, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for various marketing violations including "false and misleading" claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.” Frank_L._VanderSloot#CEO_of_Melaleuca.2C_Inc.

(b.) VanderSloot and Melaleuca were financial supporters of Concerned Citizens for Family Values, an organization that ran attack ads targeting incumbent Idaho Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak during her 2000 re-election campaign against challenger Daniel T. Eismann. Frank_L._VanderSloot#CEO_of_Melaleuca.2C_Inc.

(c.) VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates. Frank_L._VanderSloot#LGBT_issues

(d.) Various sources said that VanderSloot's advertisement outed Zuckerman. Frank_L._VanderSloot#LGBT_issues

(e.) According to Rachel Maddow and the online magazine Salon, VanderSloot has threatened defamation lawsuits, copyright infringement and other legal action against critics and outlets that have published adversely critical views, including Maddow, Forbes magazine, lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Mother Jones Magazine, and Idaho journalist Jody May-Chang. Frank_L._VanderSloot#Defamation_lawsuit_threats

Comment: The Glenn Greenwald article is not a WP:Reliable source because Greenwald is a "political commentator," as Salon stated on his page, and in this particular article Glenn is not writing as a journalist (note his non-journalist assertion that VanderSloot "has a history of virulent anti-gay activism, including the spearheading of a despicable billboard campaign)," but he is a partisan commentator. 19:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify how you think the Salon article is being misused in the VanderSloot page? It looks like it's only mentioned twice. Unless I'm missing something, those references don't really seem inappropriate as long as the Salon author's opinions are not treated as facts or presented in a needlessly inflammatory way.TheBlueCanoe 20:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It is an opinion column, and clearly so, which makes contentious claims about a living person. WP:BLP has this funny idea - that BLPs must be written conservatively, and the use of opinion pieces to make contentious claims, alas, runs afoul of that policy. The section on the BLP, by the way, is given undue weight and is certainly presented in an inflammatory way. "Silly season" is over, and it is past time to emend the escesses placed in biographies. Collect (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Example of why it is opinion? It’s almost impossible to imagine any more thuggish attempts to intimidate people from speaking out and criticizing VanderSloot: this was a tiny website being sued for trivial offenses in federal court by a company owned by a billionaire. Also the fact is that copyright law has been held to apply to letters - the erroneous concept that letters from or to anyone are "public domain" has been litigated many times, but this blogger-columnist seems not to know about that. Collect (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(1) The Greenwald article is cited five times, a. through e. above, and each citation should be judged on its own.

(2) Neither Greenwald nor his opinion piece is a Reliable Source because "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article." I don't see the direct connection between what he writes in his column and what is presented as fact by Wikipedia. Editors commenting here (and I am not referring to any particular ladies or gentlemen) should look at each of the five instances and comment on them individually, in my opinion.

(3) If the Greenwald article is to be used at all, it should conform to this Content Guideline: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

GeorgeLouis, there is a clear logical difference between saying "Mr Smith has been called a Nazi by lots of journalists" and "Mr Smith is a Nazi". Are we dealing with statements of the first type or second? Judging by your own descriptions of the 5 uses of this source, they are already basically all cases where attribution is being used (so the first type;see your point (3))? Of course even with attribution, we would not mention a sensitive accusation if there is no reason to, but then the policy to consider would be WP:NEUTRAL and WP:NOTE. But the media being used here do seem notable, and a reasonable reflection of what types of accusations do get made in the mainstream media? Concerning your point (2) I think you are not interpreting WP:RS as it is normally interpreted. We do not need each source to explain every step made in coming to its conclusions. WP editors making this demand would quickly turn all our editors in original researchers, and in practice our work would freeze up into a big debating forum. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The opinion article was, in fact, being used to make statements in Wikipedia's voice. I rather think you would agree that the opinions must be ascribed as opinion of the author here. Collect (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Without making comments on specific statements in Greenwald's article, given the nature of his commentary it should be possible to source this to original reports. Mangoe (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

To wrap up (maybe), Andrew Lancaster, perhaps instead of a Citation, there should be a Footnote linking to the phrase "Mr. Smith has been called a Nazi by lots of journalists," that states: As an example, Glenn Greenwald said "Blah blah blah" on February 23, 1999. What do you think? GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@Collect. Attribution always seems an easy compromise to make, so indeed that sounds a good idea.

@GeorgeLouis. Problem with moving to a footnote is that this also basically means it is decided that the information is not notable. If it is notable...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

How about putting it right into the text, then? Seven journalists have called Smith a Nazi. They are Steve Nance, Steve Smith, Stefan Gregorivich, Stefano Bolivar, Stephanie Stepney and S.S. Van Dine? But count them up and name them. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the article published in the "History and theory" a reliable secondary source?

I would like to hear community's opinion on the article authored by Ronald Aronson (Communism's Posthumous Trial. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois; The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century by François Furet; The Burden of Responsibility: Blum, Camus, Aron, and the French Twentieth Century by Tony Judt; Le Siècle des communismes by Michel Dreyfus. History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 222-245). Can this article be considered as a reliable non-fringe secondary source?
Thank you in advance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The source appears to be a scholarly publication with a well identified editorial board [1], and specific guidelines for submission thus, reliable. It does however state that it accepts the "reflections" of prominent international thinkers, so that, it may be publishing opinions. In that case the source is in my view primary. That being said, looking at the table of contents, There are several reviews being published, presumably of works published elsewhere, and those would therefore be secondary. I am unclear if the article you point to is a review or not. If an original article, according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars. It does seem that papers submitted to the publication are reviewed but I do not know whether they are peer reviewed. Also WP:RS/AC says that "individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named source". If you wish to use the source to state that a particular view is universally held in the scholarly community, you need sourcing explicitly stating that. Barring such sources, you have to make it clear you are stating one author’s opinion.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I see one inaccuracy in your post. You write that opinia are primary sources. However our policy says that "an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event" is a secondary source. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Book review in essence. Usable for the author's own opinions about the reliable sources reviewed, and properly noted as his opinions. Collect (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Collect, your opinion is noted. Let me point out, however, that our policy in general advises us to present information from reliable sources as opinia, not as facts, so this your comment is too general to be useful. In connection to that, can you explain, which secondary sourced do not express author's own thinking, and can be presented as facts? For example, what is the difference between Aronson's full size article we are discussing, and the books he analyze? --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Aronson's article is, in fact, a review and explicitly represents "reflections" by the author. The BBoC is, however, published as a book by a respected scholarly publisher, and thus directly meets WP:RS as has been stated a number of times in the past. That there is a distinct difference between what is explicitly stated to be the opinions of a reviewer and the scholarly published book is a simple obvious statement. Collect (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Aronson's reflections have been published by equally reputable scholarly publisher (Wesleyan University/Wiley), and I am not sure you have been able to explain the difference between Aronson's and Courtois' reflections. Do you argue that a book (which, by the way, have not been peer-reviewed before publication) is more reliable then a journal article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The "reflections" are not a "book" and the fact that the journal is published by Wesleyan does not make a review in a journal into a book when the journal states it is "reflections". Or do you think OP=Eds in the NYT become "reliable sources" for anything more than the opinions expressed therein? "Reflections" are precisely analogous to "op-Ed" as a matter of fact, or to "nbook reviews" which this is. Would you use an NYT book review as a reliable source for anything more than opinion? Cheers - but I think you seem exceedingly invested in promoting this as the grestest source on earth. Collect (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I am more interested to know the reasons why do you think that a 24 page long article published in peer reviewed scholarly journal has lesser weight that the introduction to the (non-peer-reviewed) book. I am also wondering why do you equate NYT, a newspaper intended for general public, with "History and Theory", a specialized scholarly journal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a "book review" as referred to above but rather a review article - that is an article length treatment by an acknowledged expert in the field of a range of methodological and interpretative issues relating to a particular historiographical topic. This particular article happens to be a very fair, even-handed, insightful and non-polemical variant of the genre. It absolutely qualifies as a reliable source. In fact, as a secondary review of the field, it's an ideal source for wikipedia and this topic.FiachraByrne (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As has already been stated on this thread, History and Theory is a peer-reviewed journal [2]. Well indexed too [3]. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Are the "reflections" peer-reviewed as to content and opinions? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer-reviewing is not a necessary criterion. If some author is invited to write a review, that means his views are notable enough. By writing that, I do not imply this article is not peer-reviewed, my point is that peer-review is just one possible procedure to ensure good quality.

In addition, many, if not most books (including the books published by university presses) are not peer-reviewed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And why would you not accept that opinions should be cited as opinion? Collect (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I do accept that. Moreover, all secondary sources present nothing but an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.. In connection to that, and, taking into account that these opinia should be attributed in the text to particular sources, I simply do not understand your question.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul...what is it exactly that you are asking?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My question is simple: is the above named source a reliable secondary source. The problem is that during the discussion on the article's talk page my opponents (including Collect) reject this source without providing any reasonable explanation. That is why I decided to ask uninvolved users about this source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Collect. I'm not sure I understand your question or, rather, peer review doesn't really apply such an intellectual division. In any case, this is a review article. As suggested by Paul Siebert, the likelihood is Aronson was invited to write the article by the review editor of the journal and would have been selected as an acknowledged expert in the field. The article itself may or may not have been formally peer reviewed (as it's not a primary research article, probably not) but would still require editorial approval (principally from the review editor). That would be the norm in any case and entirely unremarkable. I'd also point out that according to WP:IRS for scholarly sources "a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper" and this source fits the bill perfectly. It's been published in a serious academic journal for the discipline according to scholarly norms - it's a completely non-controversial reliable source for WP in my opinion. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Paul Siebert. There's no rational reason and certainly no valid argument presented here for the rejection this source.

Hi again Collect. I note you wrote the following and you'll forgive me if I quote you but I think it reveals a certain interpretative difficulty in the evaluation of reliable sources:

Aronson's article is, in fact, a review and explicitly represents "reflections" by the author. The BBoC is, however, published as a book by a respected scholarly publisher, and thus directly meets WP:RS as has been stated a number of times in the past. That there is a distinct difference between what is explicitly stated to be the opinions of a reviewer and the scholarly published book is a simple obvious statement

First, I'm not sure why the fact that one source is considered reliable would disqualify another. In any case, there's no basis to disqualify a source because it's reflective, interpretative or expresses an opinion. In fact, texts by historians, insofar as they are not simply collections of empirical data, are necessarily interpretative and reflective rather than mindless. This is distinct, of course, from being polemical or ideological which are opinions unrelated or poorly related to empirical data and context. Better opinions and interpretations necessarily provide a more plausible and contextualised reading of the data and sources. If you insist on comparing these sources as to their reliability the one point I would make is that the editor's introduction and conclusion to the Black Book of Communism deviated from the conclusions of some of the authors' in the edited collection whose primary research his claims were based upon. This occasioned, rather remarkably, a very public split amongst the volume's contributors due to the contentiousness of the editor's claims. I can't think of any other example of a similar occurrence with an academic publication. That in itself should give one pause before uncritically accepting the claims of the volume editor and I presume that this fact is prominently reflected in the article? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Fiachra. I believe, the discussion demonstrated that the source we are discussing is a top quality reliable source reflecting majority or significant minority views. Does anyone object to this conclusion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Not at all -- it's very much the right conclusion. Use of the word "reflections" in the title of a journal article does not mean the article has not been reviewed, nor does it mean it is anything other than a scholarly source of the usual sort. Far too much has been made (by some) of that word here. (Some of my best friends have published good scholarly articles with titles containing that word...) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes - it is not a reliable source other than for opinion cited and identified as the author's opinion here. No more, no less. And there appears to be a real question as to whether a "peer review" of "reflections" occurred at all - at this point, I suggest that as an expert, his opinions are usable as opinions, but not usable for anything else. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an article that professional historians would cite as a reliable, expert analysis of a specific historiographical issue by a recognized authority published in a leading journal that specializes in historiography. This article is not made up of reflections or opinions but is instead an expert analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of specific arguments in specific books. Rjensen (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The point is, as usual on this board, reliable to support what statement, in what article. For the article on the "Black Book" itself, it is exactly the kind of source needed. Articles on books ought to include how they are received, and if there are reviews in academic journals they should be used. For historical fact, too, book reviews in scholarly journals should usually be good. I will raise that on the talk page of WP:HISTRS for further views, though, as it's something we should explicitly mention as we work up the proposed guidelines. Extended review essays of this typie are probably slightly better than short reviews of single books, although they are not comparable to the systematic reviews found in the medical journals. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Collect repeatedly refers to "reflections" -- that term is not used in the journal article by Aronson; where did Collect get it? and where does he get the notion that scholarly reviews are "opinion"? Actually what we have in the article is careful scholarly analysis based on wide scholarship covering numerous countries over several decades.Rjensen (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Rjensen (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Second post in this very section by Luke:

It does however state that it accepts the "reflections" of prominent international thinkers

I trust this answwers your question. And I trust Luke did not fabulize a quote - as some appear to have done. Collect (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your explanations. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Grande Rock

An editor has been adding http://www.grande-rock.com as a reliable source for reviews to album articles:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Gold_%26_Bones_%E2%80%93_Part_1&diff=prev&oldid=522183783
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transit_of_Venus_%28album%29&diff=522094058&oldid=520044478
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Gold_%26_Bones_%E2%80%93_Part_1&diff=prev&oldid=522009285
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_2nd_Law&diff=prev&oldid=521915103

The problems I have are that there only appear to be two editors and they use pseudonyms--thanos, rockavlon--rather than real names. There doesn't appear to be any indication of who they are. It appears to be a glorified music blog although, based on the interviews, they do have access to a lot of small bands. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Melodicrcok.com is just one person? And so? By the way thanos is not a pseudonym. There also metaltom, dora, newseditor & admin as users. Do not hide things for your won sake. By that you say that an ezine is not notable? There are interviews with small and big bands as well? Does it ring a bell? So, you decide what's notable or not when the band and the labels have already spoken? Soon, there will be a page on wiki about Grande Rock. So, do not get mad. There so many articles that are truly trash do not deal with notable and well-written ones. Hard Rocker 13 15:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about Melodicrcok.com.

This isn't about notability but reliability.

No, none of the bands ring any bells.

I'm not deciding anything here, and I'm not mad, I'm trying to discuss with the community to determine if Grande Rock does or does not meet the criteria for reliability.

Whether there are a lot of articles that are truly trash or not does not touch on this discussion either. Please focus on this discussion: how can we trust the material at the site? --Walter Görlitz (talk)

Any by the way what do you know about music or what's your background so to say if a post is bad or not? That's just your opinion. You not objective. An ezine is notable when it's more than 10(!) yearls online and is cooperating with bands and labels. If that's not enough for you then that's your problem. Hard Rocker 13 15:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My background is also immaterial. The issue is whether the site is or isn't a reliable source. Its length of publication doesn't make it reliable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any indication that the site and its reviewers meet the criteria for professional reviewers/reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The bands Poison, Sabaton, The Flower Kings, Circus Maximus, Threshold, Vision Divine, Sparzanza, Eclipse (just ot name a few) are not meeting your prof criteria?! Then you're probably irrelevant with this kind of music and surely you can't tell what's reliable or not. Hard Rocker 13 16:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If those bands talk to an ezine then that ezine is notable ans reliable. Those bands do not talk to everyone on the net. This ain't you average blog site that a kid owns it. This is a prof ezine by people who have been doing this job for over a decade. Hard Rocker 13 16:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)You are obviously unaware of Wikipedia's definition and application of "reliable sources". And for most of the bands you have listed, there are FAR more reliable sources for reviews, and so why would we go to the second or third or fourth level of sources rather than the top tier? And while you may ignore some policies, such as the reliable source policy, with the only implication being that your opinions being ignored because they are not based on the policies, you should make yourself aware of our policy about not making personal attacks on other users, because ignoring that one will get you blocked, quickly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't get your point. They meet all the criteria. We are not talking for reviews but for bands that have been interviewed. And I believe that criteria for those bands are more strict than wikis where you can find thousands of trash articles. So what's you point here? I say they're meeting all the criteria. What's your say? This is called censorship. I have to deal with two young guys that are irrelevant with music and keep talking without saying anything.Hard Rocker 13 16:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, we are talking about whether or not grande-rock.com has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy that puts it in the arena of being a reliable source or whether it is just some kid or some aging wanna-be-rocker's blog. There is zero evidence to support that it is the former and not the later. And if you continue in making personal attacks against other editors you will be blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It does feel like a blog. There are claims on User talk:AORmaniac13 that the reviewers are retired professionals, but there is no evidence to support this claim. Perhaps if we saw some evidence it might add weight to the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

And for the record, we are talking about both reviews and interviews. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've done my own searching, and couldn't find anything indicating that this blog is in anyway either notable or reliable. No indication that they have a reputation for factchecking, and they are not cited by serious reliable sources. Without unambiguous and credible evidence to the contrary, the site fails our requirements for a reliable source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You make accusations, spreading rumors and telling things that have never happened. This is censorship. Do you get it? I never said about retired reviewers!! OK i'll have to say one more time. This is not a blog. Can you tell the difference between a blog and an ezine? I guess not. Secondly, the bands and the labels that are cooperating with a site are making it reliable and notable. Not a bunch of kids on wiki that killing their time and have nothing to do with the music scene. Obviously neither of you can prove that is not an elephant, neither do I. So what's the point here? This is an uproar that was caused by a couple of fellows around here. Is that how wiki works? There thousands of trash articles around wiki and you wanna shut down a reliable, & notable site that's providing true info about rock/metal music? For what? I think this is called pure fascism.Hard Rocker 13 17:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Hitler appeared rather sooner than usual!. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Very funny! Hitler & Nazis have nothing to do with fascism. You did learn something today! If there are not any unambiguous and credible evidence to the contrary as you said then why must be put into the non-notable category? Cause you say so? If you can prove than a source is not notable then probably it is notable and reliable. I can't think of better & serious reliable sources that the bands & labels sites. Can you? I can shows you a few sites here in wiki that are not even sites - just blogs that you say they are notable. What are you trying to do here exactly? Hard Rocker 13 17:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right that there is a LOT of crap on Wikipedia. However, that does not mean that we should allow more crap to accumulate. When a source is challenged, it is the responsibility of the person who wishes to include it to be able to provide evidence that it indeed has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and editorial control. That is not just any one of the editors here right now telling you that, that is the policy that has been widely agreed upon by the entire Wikipedia community. If you do not wish to participate within the community approved methods, then you dont have to participate at all. That is your choice. But it is not an option to participate against the community's processes and policies.

And you need to fix your signature to include a link back to your user and/or talk page.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

So you have already decided? That's it? A couple of guys decided that I should stop posting from Grande Rock, cause you can't prove that it is reliable so you decide that it's not? Huh! Is that the way things go around here? Do I need to bring some friends over to say the opposite? Who gathers the most guys wins?! What happened within a year and a site from notable became non-notable? All the posts till now are fine but from now own are not? How does it go? Hard Rocker 13 17:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)(talk)

No one has decided anything about the site. You're right though, we can't find any other sources that say your site (I'm assuming that you're one of the two contributors to that site) and you haven't provided any yourself, because quite frankly, we may be stupid and lazy and it would help if you educated us and did our work for us. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) very few things are "decided" on Wikipedia within the ~2 hour time frame that this discussion has been going on.

And the issue is that YOU (or some other editor) has not been able to produce any evidence that the source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and editorial control.

And the site is not going from reliable to not reliable - it is going from not reviewed or properly evaluated to not reliable. The previously added content based on the now evaluated non reliable source will, eventually, get removed. and you can help if you want. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As for your claim above that "I never said about retired reviewers", I wrote "the reviewers are retired professionals" and so your quote was incorrect. What I was making reference to was "Grande Rock is being run by fully professional editors/musicians who use to be in big printed magazines in the past." I trust that clears that up. Oh, and start to sign your posts correctly. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just informed by the guys that some music labels, other ezines & band sites have used sources from Grande Rock. That according to the wiki article makes it reliable. OK here you go. 1st: http://glassonyonpublicity.wordpress.com/category/review/, 2nd http://gonzo-multimedia.blogspot.gr/search/label/erik%20norlander, 3rd http://tbfmonline.co.uk/2012/03/28/album-review-wrathchild-stakkattakktwo-perris-records/, 4th http://www.dangerousdogrecords.co.uk/website/AOR_Reviews.html, 5th http://www.thresh.net/marchofprogress.htm. 6th http://unisonicfanclub.com/?s=mandy+meyer&search=Search, 7th http://www.bonrud.com/2012/10/05/grande-rock-reviews-save-tomorrow/. So is that enough to call it reliable or you need more? According to the wiki rules this is more than enough. What's your say now? Will you help me restore the old posts you have erased? Hard Rocker 13 22:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker

• labels using content for self promotion of their product do nothing to establish reliability and reputation for fact checking
• non notable blogs citing other blogs do nothing to establish reliability and reputation for fact checking
• bands using content for self promotion of their product do nothing to establish reliability and reputation for fact checking.

so, no. you need third-party, independent sources of estblished credibility noting the value/reliability of the content on a site to establish that the site has a reputation for fact checking etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Such as? According to the wiki article this is OK. This source http://tbfmonline.co.uk/2012/03/28/album-review-wrathchild-stakkattakktwo-perris-records does not promote anything. It shows that Grande Rock is notable. Read the last sentence. You cannot bypass things without reading them at all. The blog sources are from labels that have reproduced the reviews. The labels are totally notable, they do not promote anything, just giving some feedback to the fans. Band's Fan Club that has linked to the site isn't good for you? What's good tell me? I think it is OK but you're not really wanna help do things right. All you're saying is no no no? Give me an example of such indie source then. Facebook posts are OK? Twitter? Hard Rocker 13 23:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker

Here's a source from Blabbermouth - I think you can't say that this ain't notable!!! http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=171270. You can't deny also the fact that the writer of this article is giving reliability to Grande Rock: http://tbfmonline.co.uk/2012/03/28/album-review-wrathchild-stakkattakktwo-perris-records. Other sources: http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/darkology/altered_reflections/, http://www.michaelharrisguitar.com/, http://plotn08.com/2012/09/the-michael-des-barres-band-carnaby-street-2012/. If you wanna help I think all these sources are more than good. I can't prove that I'm not an elephant anymore. There are ezines on wiki that do not have such resources but you have given them the credit. That's unfair. Hard Rocker 13 23:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker

Trivial mentions don't count, so they're not good. Fan forum/forum discussions certainly don't. tbfmonline.co.uk is another blog and so a single non-notable source can't give you any level of notability. If Spin, Rolling Stone or some other music magazine wrote a lengthy article about your site you would have instant reason to be considered notable. At the very least, your links would make the interviews somewhat notable to two bloggers since they duplicated the blogs, but not the review sections. However, since we don't know who the "staff" at the site are, there's no guarantee that the sites mentioned are not alternate persona of the two editors.

But again, notability is not what we're discussing and you haven't managed to understand that yet. Have you read the criteria for identifying reliable sources? Please read the whole thing, it should only take a few minutes. Once complete, re-read the Self-published and questionable sources section.

Nice to see you've figured the signature thing out. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Was just about to post a question here about this site (THEN SAW THIS) - I have reverted some additions about site here - as I have never heard of this site before. I see there is a problem - hope it can be solve.Moxy (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You're a champ Moxy. Sure you don't want to stick around? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that you do not care to give any help. Blabbermouth is the biggest site out there. Linking back to Grande Rock means that the site has something good to offer. A notable site gives credit to another one that's notable & reliable. Can you tell me if ever Spin or Rolling Stone have published an article for a webzine?! Not even for Blabber! OK I got it if Rolling Stone talks about Grande Rock then it will be notable or else not. So, I'll make you a list of how many webzines you have to delete from wiki. For every reliable link you have something to say. That means you're kinda biased. You say the source is bad and then a great site like Blabber use a source from that site! I guess Blabber is not good either for you. I have read the article far too many times. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's what Blabbermout & TBFMonline have done! Tell me why these sites are better than Grande Rock and which big site has made any reference to them: Prefix Magazine, Drowned in Sound, musicOMH, Tiny Mix Tapes, This Is Fake DIY??? As for the two alternate persona etc. I can only take as a joke right! There's a complete list on the old site as well. It's been up for more than 10 years, this at least should mean something! Hard Rocker 13 00:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker

Please read the following policies CAREFULLY: WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. That will explain why you are not making any headway here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

AORmaniac13, please stop with the ridiculous exaggeration. Blabbermouth isn't even one of the to 1000 sites on the Internet. http://www.google.com/adplanner/static/top1000 . Alexa.com's ranking of it is 16,179. The fact that they linked back to you means you had one thing to say. If they wrote a feature article about your site, it would mean that you had something good to offer. I hate to say it, but the rest of what yous said is self-deluded. If Rolling Stone or Spin linked to something on the site it still wouldn't mean it was reliable. If your site was specifically written about by another source--a feature article--then it would mean something. Being up for ten years means you should see a physician. I thought that Viagra suggested that if you're up for four hours you should see a doctor. What you're missing is that those other sites have an actual staff that is identified. Yours doesn't. Those other sites have been referenced by other reliable sources as being worthwhile. Your site has had links related to band interviews--something I was doing in the 1980s, and I can confirm I'm not a RS.

While Google searches can only really tell us the relative importance of websites, it would help your case if when I searched for Grande Rock that your website would appear first and not a Wikipedia article about an album of the same name. Your Alexa.com ranking is [www.alexa.com/siteinfo/grande-rock.com 4,750,840] and indicates that 59 sites link-in. If you had more than 210 Facebook likes. If you had more than 129 Twitter followers (I'm a nobody and have 79 followers). A source that is barely reliable, Jesus Freak Hideout has more than 10,000 followers. This particular site is has an Alexa rating of 133,760 with 704 linking-in. So it doesn't seem you're particularly popular. Please drop the pretense that you are.

Now back to the my greatest concern: the reviewers are unidentified. At this point if you were to appear on some Greek talk show, or perhaps be written about by a Greek-language music magazine--a feature article--that would show that people respect you. If we understood the editorial process: are you paid by the bands or their labels to write about them; are you paying to buy the music; is it sent to you with no expectations to review or comment; that would help us understand a few elements. If there was a complete list of staff, that would help too. And for finally, when we link to things like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR and suggest you read them, please do it. If you use the terminology found in them instead of making-up your own, it would help confer respect and understanding.

I think we all understand that English is not your primary language, so if you need us to elaborate or talk about specific items in those articles please ask. However, if you insist on making-up your own criteria, you're going to lose us. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I do realize that a couple of guys are wannabe the wiki-judges here. You know when accusing a site of not being reliable in public without being able to proved it if needed then this is called detraction. I'd like to know the full names of you guys hiding behind anonymity and talking trash about a site without carrying if that will affect people's jobs or not. If you can't prove that a site is non-notable then surely it's notable. The same goes if you can't approve that someone's guilty then he's not. It's so easy for you to understand. I told you there's a complete list of people being especially in the Greek rock/metal scene for ages. The editorial process is the same for every reliable webzine. There's a cooperation with labels that sending stuff (digital & physical) and expect feedback, artist & bands (big and small) that are being interviewed, people that arranging live shows have also added Grande Rock on their posters (wanna see some?). What do you need? As for the Facebook and Twitter I cans see that you not aware of how things work. Check out Myspace 4 thousands friends isn't good for you? Once it was Myspace not it's FB... and so on. Those profiles are less than a year created.

You didn't tell me if those webzines are also reliable and if they were featured in Rolling Stone?! Prefix Magazine, Drowned in Sound, musicOMH, Tiny Mix Tapes, This Is Fake DIY??? You're trying to avoid it. There are ads by labels on magazines that are featuring quotes from Grande Rock's reviews? Is that good for you? Wanna see some links? By the way do you have anything to do with music in general or just fooling around? You are just a user like me. Your word doesn't count more. Is there an Admin here or what? And yes, Blabber is consider to be one of the top 5 sites in rock/metal music. We're talking about music sites, you can't obviously compare it with FB! You know how to misrepresent things! I see that this site isn't good for you. You're probably are an ultimate wiki-Judge or something.Hard Rocker 13 12:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker

I'm sorry, but you're wasting your time. Nothing you've said makes any sense whatsoever in terms of the relevant policies and guidelines which I pointed out to you above. If your arguments don't conform to these, there is no chance of other editors understanding them and being able to respond to them. Again, please read the policies and guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What's that? An argument? That's why wiki is full of crap articles? If the above arguments do no stand then no other webzine can be featured here as well. Don't you agree? Give me an example to know exactly what are you looking for. And, please stop repeating the same things again and again, it's boring. Hard Rocker 13 13:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker

No, I don't agree. I see no point in further discussing the matter with you until you learn to act civilly and read up on our policies and guidelines, and with that attitude of yours, I doubt that anyone else will be interested in what you have to say, either, unless it's backed up by policy and by reliable sources, and stated respectfully and civilly. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dominus Vobisdu. I'm not planning on participating until AORmaniac13 can present some material to comply with the guidelines for inclusion. As it stands, the source should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia as a source for reviews since the reviewers cannot be confirmed. It appears that its interviews may be reliable, but only direct statements from the artists should be used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

AORmaniac13 asked "I'd like to know the full names of you guys hiding behind anonymity". My full name is Walter Görlitz so I'm sorry, there's no anonymity. We're not talking trash, we're asking questions. We do care if people's jobs are on the line or not, but it doesn't seem as though the site has any full-time staff. It does appear as though they are hiding behind the anonymity of the names of thanos (no family name given) and rockavlon (no full name given).

And for the record, your claim that "Hitler & Nazis have nothing to do with fascism" is so utterly ignorant, there's nowhere to start to correct that statement. The German people themselves erected a monument that clearly links Hitler and his party with fascism. You learned something today. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not as well-versed on WP's rules when it comes to reliability and notability, but I'll just say this: for a representative of a supposedly "professional" website/ezine/webzine or whatever it's called, AORmaniac13 has thus far conducted himself in an extremely unprofessional manner in almost response he's posted. If that's the kind of attitude staff at Grande Rock want to present to the viewing public, I'd certainly not consider reading any of their reviews, let alone support their increasingly immature and downright hostile requests for a spot on WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. Personally, I'll stick to relying on established music review publications which refrain from personal insults and poor use of English. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that AORmaniac13 is a staffer, I'm just assuming that he is. And I'm fairly certain that he's Greek and not English. I'm actually impressed with his facility with English for that reason.

I think that we could safely add the site to the Non-professional reviews section now, unless there are objections. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Added it: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Review_sites#Non-professional_reviews. The1337gamer (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I personally have no objections to the website being added to the non-professional reviews area. Considering how AORmaniac13 spammed this in many directions, and his attitude toward other Wikipedians, I see the addition of Grande Rock to the non-professional reviews as a fit response. I tried on his talk page to discuss his addition of Grande Rock reviews on Wikipedia, but that was somewhat unproductive, if I say so myself. Ever since then, he continued to add the reviews to articles, kind of like single-purpse accounts, and I felt like my hands were tied about the issue.

The way that these events played out supply reasoning as to why WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE is so important in these situations, and why review sites need evaluation before they can be displayed on Wikipedia music pages. Wikipedia is a website which can contain all kinds of information from many types of sources, but at the same time Wikipedia does not have an "anything goes" policy in the slightest. When someone wants to advertise their own website on Wikipedia articles, that's against the rules, but one or two offenses, while not favorable, is not a big deal either. However, to perform such self-promotion to this extent, including after receiving warnings advising against this behavior, exploits and doesn't help Wikipedia, nor does it help the website in question. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not an advertising forum. I will bring up a review site at another thread in this noticeboard, and I'd like to receive feedback on that, if possible. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, Wikipedia does not have a vendetta against smaller review websites, and such websites are encouraged to prosper and progress over time. However, spamming all over Wikipedia in order to advertise the website exploits Wikipedia and does n good for neither Wikipedia nor the website in question. Album and band articles can't mention reviews from all websites, because doing so goes against the way Wikipedia works. This Grande Rock website was never green-lighted to be mentioned on Wikipedia; before this discussion, it simply had not been discussed enough to determine whether it met REVSITE or not. I'm glad that something has finally been done about this irritating editing behavior. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 09:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Simon Wiesenthal Center

Regarding the Hezbollah article, is the Simon Wiesenthal Center an appropriate source for the unattributed statement of fact that, "Hezbollah also used anti-Semitic educational materials designed for 5-year-old scouts.".

The cited article is here. Note that the Wiesenthal center article does not itself even report the statement as fact, rather it reports that a certain "Kamel el Batel" produced slides documenting the alleged materials. ("Kamel el Batel" produces one google hit, which happens to be the Wiesenthal center article [4]).

The Wiesenthal Center "mission" statement, which can be viewed here states that "The Simon Wiesenthal Center is a global Jewish human rights organization that confronts anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism, promotes human rights and dignity, stands with Israel, defends the safety of Jews worldwide, and teaches the lessons of the Holocaust for future generations."

Given that we don't use mainstream, non-nationally affiliated Human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as RS for facts in the Wikipedia voice it would seem odd if this human rights organization, that has a self declared mission to "stand with Israel" would meet the requirements for verification of facts in the Wikipedia voice for material in an article about a long term adversary of that country. Dlv999 (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be surprising if Hezbollah produces anti-Jewish educational materials. However, the website is clearly partisan and its characterisation of Hezbollah activities cannot be reported as fact in Wikipedia's voice. We have no way of knowing whether the materials in question were anti-Semitic, only that the SW Center believes this to be the case.

On a side-note, I very much doubt that Hezbollah is affiliated to the Scouts. The "5 year-old scouts" referred to are probably something else. Formerip (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You cannot join the Scouts until the age of 11 which reduces "el Batel's" reliability considerably. Given his anonimity, if he is the only source for the Wiesenthal centre we shouldn't even mention the claim let alone attribute it. Wayne (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious that Hezbollah uses such books but Simon Wisenthal Center is not wp:rs source to report this information.Pluto2012 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If it is obvious then it should be very easy to find an RS reporting it. If on the other hand it is only the Weisethal center reporting it, then it is not suitable for inclusion in the article. Seems pretty straightforward to me, find a better source or remove the statement. Dlv999 (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the point. If the only source is SWC, then the information must be removed from any article. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Many human rights organizations are rs for facts, and are important sources for current information. However we need to separate fact from opinion. That the teaching materials were "anti-Semitic" is a matter of opinion, and would need intext attribution. However that makes the issue one of neutrality, and it would probably be best to omit it unless we can establish that the matter has received wide attention and experts have weighed in on it. TFD (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Like any human right organisation they should be attributed properly as they expert in the field we could use their statement much like HRW.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Unlike the Wiesenthal Center, Human rights watch is not affiliated with any national government. In this particular case the Weisenthal center is commenting on an organization who is a long term adversary of the government that it is the weisenthal center's declared mission to support. Dlv999 (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Like was discussed in other discussions NPOV problems are not concern for this board.Every source has its own POV.HRW was heavily criticized for it anti-Israeli POV.(even by its founder) yet it still used in articles about Israel--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Shrike your only claim that this is a reliable source is to equate the source with human rights watch. If you are going to use that argument as the only justification that this is an appropriate RS for the material in question it is very relevant to point out that, in fact the source is not analogous to HRW (which has no national affiliation) because its stated mission is to "stand with Israel". Dlv999 (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think "stands with Israel" refers to defending the right of Israel to exist. Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Are these sources sufficient for claims like "he was known" & "was a lead proponent"

Bo Gabriel, comte de Montgomery is a new article evidently created to make a point (see talk page) about a writer of dubious notability. The claims "r his commentary regarding the Pax Britannica in 1936 when he argued for increased trade and friendly relations between Britain and the USA. He suggested the two nations had a "common interest in preserving the international peace", and was a lead proponent of the Special Relationship," are backed by two sources. One of them is a book by the subject. The other is [5] by Ali Parchami[6] which mentions him but only cursorily. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

OK for the first statement,not for the second. But just take "lead" out and it is OK. The article was created for dodgy reasons but I think the subject meets notability as an economist because he jointly authored a book with Pareto. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well ahead of me there Judith, thanks. I have significantly improved Bo Gabriel Montgomery's sourcing and obtained his book Ancient Migrations and Royal Houses, Mitre Press, 1968. The inside cover of which can be read on Montgomery's talk page. I have yet to find any reviews of it and although the book may not have achieved great notoriety, the author has and I am hoping to use it as a reliable source to cover a lot of ancient manuscripts that Montgomery seems to have studied in the twenty years between publishing his book on Montgomery family and more recent history. My copy came from Hampshire county library, where it has been used as a reliable source by the people of that county up until 1996 (last stamp). Inside, the details of the publisher are : London : The Mitre Press (Fudge & Co. Ltd.), 52 Lincolns Inn Fields, WC2. printed by The Knole Park Press Ltd., Sevenoaks, Kent. It is a very factual, concise book that gets into the nitty-gritty of history with every source manuscript listed. I think Wikipedia should welcome the book on board as a reliable source. If anyone has any problems or advice with this, please raise a motion. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The author has no training as a medieval historian. The author has not been recognized as an expert in the area of medieval and royal genealogy, and as far as I can tell has never published a single paper in a peer-reviewed historical or genealogical journal. The book itself was not published by a scholarly press, and gives no indication that the book has received any editing for accuracy or pre-publication peer evaluation. None post-publication either - the lack of reviews is good evidence that it is given no scholarly recognition. The fact that a book was checked out from a library is no evidence of reliability. The author may be using a lot of primary sources, but a quick look at a few GBooks snippets shows that the author is not following reliable scholarly genealogical method when synthesizing their content. For example, he has taken two entirely distinct legendary figures, one named Sigurd Snake-in-Eye and the other Frotho, neither of which most scholars even believe existed, and not only puts them in his pedigrees but decides they must be the same person. This is not the product of a reliable genealogist/historian. This is just someone's post-retirement hobby of ancestor-collecting in book form, and it contains enough fringe conclusions to negate the reliability of the entire work. Agricolae (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. He isn't a historian. He's an author, an amaetur writing on history. He can't be used as a reliable source or geneaology. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, agreed. That is the way I will attempt to treat his coverage and you are welcome to do what you want to his page to reflect this opinion. Agricolae, you've told me off about page numbers before now. Please put at least a reference (with page number if poss) about your Sigurd concepts because I can't find them anywhere in my history book to explain the correct version this amateur has commented about. Regarding his training and scholarly genealogical record, I feel I have to take you over to the History article now to explain how Bo Gabriel used the last twenty years of his life employing the six auxilliary sciences of proto-history to draw some of his conclusions. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop trying to add material from his God Kings stuff to other articles, eg at Norse activity in the British Isles. I know you didn't cite him, but that's where it came from and even if there is any truth at all to it, it is an extreme minority view and changing "In 866, Viking armies captured York" to "In 866, Aunite armies captured York" looks disruptive and even if someone involved in this dispute hadn't reverted it, some other editor would have as it simply is not the mainstream view or anything you will find in a standard work on the subject. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to add info from the Three Fragments of Annals of Ireland to correct all this wooliness and get to the bottom of Agricolae's OR argument about some sort of Sigurd ring that he can't explain properly and is causing all the wildy inaccurate information. Sorry for trying to help. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

How is editing articles to support your view and then using those articles to try to convince Agricolae helping anyone by yourself? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

In all the above I see no evidence that this book is a reliable source in our terms. Reviews in reputable journals or by reputable authors? References to his work by other scholars? Other work by him on ancient/medieval history in peer-reviewed publications? If there isn't any such evidence, it's time to close this, concluding that we should not use his book as a reliable source (except on his own opinion that he ought to be a count, if that opinion is notable). Andrew Dalby 09:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't even have to use his own work for his titular claim - a Swedish biographical compendium takes brief notice of Bo Gabriel Montgomery having used his historical research into the early history of the Montgomerys to lay claim to being a count (although in compiling its own tree of the family, this source implicitly rejects the claim and its underlying genealogy). Agricolae (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, then. We wouldn't need a source that agrees with his opinion, merely one that reports it, and preferably a secondary source, which the Swedish compendium must be. Andrew Dalby 13:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we call him a count on his sayso?

The article says "He was a researcher into the ancient origins of their nobility through which he claimed the title of Count." No sources is given other than his own work. And for some reason his books and his patent are listed with his 'count' name even though that's not the name on the patent or books. Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a dubious claim, and without solid and reliable independent sourcing, all claims of a title should be deleted from the article as self-serving. That includes the title of the article and the lede, which should be amended to "Boson Gabiel Montgomery" or "Bo Gabriel Mongomery". The "comte de" is a title, not part of his name, regardless of how he self-styled himself. Without solid sourcing, we cannot acknowledge his title in WP's voice, and even mentioning that he styled himself that way according to self-published sources would not be allowed under the self-serving clause of WP:SPS. As for the patents and books, we should use the name printed on the cover. Using another name would be OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

His name is printed "Count B.G. de Montgomery" on the cover of Ancient Migrations and Royal Houses. [7] Don't know if that makes any difference? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I'm pretty sure nobody is really a count on their own say-so. Even if they claim it by rightful descent, it is still something that is conferred, right? Also my impression is that the title of "count" can be traced all the way from the Germanic invaders of the Roman Empire, when practically every head of household was a count. I.E. nearly everyone in Europe today is descended from them. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, it had to be a pretty big household, even way back then ...

Three points, it seems to me: 1. if we have an article about him, what is the pagename to be? 2. What is the text of that article to say about his claim? 3. If we refer to his book, what do we give as the author's name?

1 and 2 might soon be settled by deleting the article, unless there is independent evidence of his notability. End of problem. But I note what Judith says, above: so, if the article is kept, the claim is then probably worth mentioning, but the pagename should be chosen according to the way other people usually refer to him -- his usual name.

3 might be settled if we decide not to refer to the book because it doesn't meet our standard -- no evidence of scholarship, not peer-reviewed, self-published. If we are going to refer to it, the name can be decided on how readers will most easily find the book if they want to. A good way is to check a library catalogue (e.g. British Library) and adopt the form used there. I just checked Cambridge University Library and the form used there is "Montgomery, Bo Gabriel". No count. This is the search page if anyone wants to verify: search for the book title.

Before anyone asks, the fact that CUL has the book is no evidence of scholarship or reliability. It's a copyright deposit library and would probably have got the book for that reason :) Andrew Dalby 10:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It was a big household when they each had like 14 kids, and plenty of conquered farmland for each of the initial settlers to divide up among them! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Some good points, but to clarify, the book isn't self-published. There appears to be some sort of peer review on the cover, even if I can't find one elsewhere and Agricolae has noted criticism to this. I would say his work with Vilfredo Pareto is some evidence of scholarship, even if only the amateur type that Doug suggests, plus the fact that he can comment on things that Wikipedia doesn't seem to know much about such as Langfedgetal, Chatti, Aunites and the proto-history of Achaea (ancient region). Other reliable history publications by Mitre press include Principal Women of the Empire: Australia and New Zealand. Mitre Press. 1940. Retrieved 17 November 2012.Hermann Schwab (1950). The history of Orthodox Jewry in Germany. Mitre Press. Retrieved 17 November 2012.Célestin Pierre Cambiaire (1934). East Tennessee and Western Virginia mountain ballads: (the last stand of American pioneer civilization). Mitre press. Retrieved 17 November 2012. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you have to use this book as the source for these proto-history topics, presumably because there is no other source for the material, is not a reason to consider him reliable - it is a reason to consider him fringe. If what he wrote about was reliable, he wouldn't be the sole source. Other modern scholars would be expressing similar ideas, either independently or in reference to his synthesis. One shouldn't conclude a book is reliable just because it might be useful in writing new articles, and one shouldn't write new articles just to demonstrate that a book is reliable. Agricolae (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, It's all going to take much longer, but I am still really looking forward to figuring out what this Sigurd ring concept-idea-OR of yours is when I can get all the wooliness off it, figure out what you're going on about and hack it apart with my shiny, new, purple, Mitre press labelled, history-lightsaber. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks aside, Sigurd Ring? Why would you introduce him into this discussion? What does Sigurd Ring have to do with the book we are evaluating? How does introducing Sigurd Ring make the author a trained historian? Does it now mean that he has published genealogical studies in scholarly journals? Does the invocation of Sigurd Ring mean that this book has now been cited by other scholars? I am not seeing the logic here that makes Bo Gabriel Montgomery suddenly reliable just because you don't like what was said about a medieval legend in a discussion of a completely different author on another noticeboard. Agricolae (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not making a personal attack, or supporting the Sigurd Ring. I can't figure out how you've created a 'ring' of kings that ends up with Godfrid having a 200 year old brother. Stuff like this does need further discussion somewhere. Please feel free to post an explanation on my talk page why the Count can produce a linear set of dynasties, but we can't. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I explained about Godfred's brother and you played WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT so I explained it again. Now we have a repeat performance. I will not explain it a third time. The self-proclaimed 'count' can produce a linear set of dynasties by inventing unsupported and unsupportable genealogical connections and taking people with distinct names and histories and proclaiming them to be identical, solely for the purpose of producing that linear set of dynasties. Anyone who does genealogy that way is unreliable and that doesn't change if he happens to be a notable economist, or whatever his day job was. Agricolae (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Lodi News-Sentinel story

Is the Lodi News-Sentinel story a reliable source in the context it is used?[8]: "According to a Lodi News-Sentinel news story written in the 1960s, in then contemporary Nepal an individual could serve three months in jail for killing a pedestrian, but one year for injuring a cow, and life imprisonment for killing a cow."[9] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no. If it's correct, it should be possible to find a much better source. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you're using this for, but this article[10] in the Nepali Times discusses similar issues, and is more current. Maybe that would achieve a similar purpose. I'm not really familiar with the reputation of the Nepali Times, but it's probably okay for this material.TheBlueCanoe 12:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) There are plenty of decent references for an incident in 2006 - including the BBC - where a woman got 12 years in jail for killing a cow. Some of them mention that the maximum sentence is death but I've not checked thoroughly & so have no idea if any of them juxtapose with the sentence for killing a pedestrian. It might be synthesis to use two sources to achieve that comparison. See these search results. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

the Lodi newspaper reprinted a UPI story (UPI was a news agency like the AP). The UPI story is a travel account by a mountain climber, who clearly is not a RS. Rjensen (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.[11] This is not sufficiently sourced. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a good source. UPI at that time was one of the best news-gathering organizations in the world, particularly good in South America. It would have not put out a story unless it relied on the source as credible and would have issued a correction if an error was called to its attention. That said, it would be best to give the name of the author. "According to H.J. Wellman, in an article written for United Press International . . . " GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it is most likely an unbalanced characterization of the topic presented. Our article reads at present:

"According to a Lodi News-Sentinel news story written in the 1960s, in then contemporary Nepal an individual could serve three months in jail for killing a pedestrian, but one year for injuring a cow, and life imprisonment for killing a cow.[82]"

So what? Is there more to it than that? This is an article about Cattle. Is this even the entirety of the law in 1960? And what does this say about the current state of law in that jurisdiction today regarding cows and pedestrians? Nothing. This is anecdotal and related to us by a travel agent. I don't think it belongs in our article. Bus stop (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to use a travel article (not even a news article), especially this old, as a source for the laws of any country. Also, it is not according to the newspaper that carried the story, but according to the author of the story. And if no more recent source has commented on the law, then it cannot be very noteworthy. TFD (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the source is Reliable: It wouldn't have done the author or UPI much good to make up the fact. Whether or not the actual details should be used is, I think, up to the editors working on this story and is better addressed on the Talk Page of that article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

piney.com

Is this source [12], reliable for this statement:

"Chrysostom - writing on 1 Corinthians and the gift of tongues said, "This whole place is very obscure; but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?". (AD 347-407)"

The article in question is Cessationism. Piney.com cites this source for their website [13]. Shouldn't we just use piney's source directly? I can't see why piney themselves should be considered reliable. Freikorp (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this website being used a few times now, and it doesn't look particularly reliable (or well organised) to me so I was hoping for a broad opinion of the site in general as well. Freikorp (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ars Technica a Reliable Source?

My first impression is that yes, it likely is, but I'm involved in the article in question, and wanted to get independent opinions. Article is IsAnybodyDown?, a "revenge porn" site that has been the topic of a recent blog-war. But until now, beyond the blogs, there was IMHO little if anything to show actual notability for the web site itself. So I filed an AFD on it a week ago. Today, there has been released an Ars Technica article that covers the controversy. I'm not in my mind coming up with any reason why AT should not be considered a RS, but I wanted extra opinions on the issue. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ars Technica has been previously discussed here—see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2#Ars Technica news?. At that time there were no objections to, and even some enthusiastic support for, using it as a source, barring those parts of the site clearly marked as blogs. I agree with this point of view. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes, Ars Technica is a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ashley Publication on Tenedos/Bozcaada page

Source: Ashley, J.R. (1998). The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare under Philip II and Alexander the Great. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. ISBN 0-7864-1918-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Article The Ashley book is used for a couple lines in the Tenedos article. Having read many other discussions of Alexander the Great and the island, most downplay the island, but Ashley refers to the island many times. I was curious, looked into it and do not believe J.R. Ashley or his source for most of the claims about the island, Curtius, are reputable sources per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, namely the line that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight". This has been discussed on the Tenedos talk page and one editor asked me to "seek an advisory opinion at WP:RSN." (Although others agree the source is not reliable) I'm here to get an uninvolved opinion. Question: Is Ashley a reputable source for specifics about the island of Tenedos? (Since exhaustiveness is the best way to handle things on that article, I'll follow that here.)

1. (A) Ashley specific claims and use in Tenedos Article:

Ashley page 50 "At Tenedos, the 3,000 Greek mercenaries and oarsman captured there were used to reinforce the Macedonian fleet (Curtius IV:5)." And in Tenedos page note 48: "He also took on board 3000 Greek mercenaries and oarsmen from Tenedos in his army and navy."

Ashley page 95 "Hegelochus captured Tenedos after it had revolted from the Persians. He then besieged Chios." (No source for claim, probably Arrian). And in Tenedos page note 46: "Alexander's commander Hegelochus of Macedonia captured the island from the Persians."

Ashley page 106-107 "Instead of keeping the fleet concentrated, Pharnabazus dispersed it simultaneously to four different operations; besiging Mytilene, besiging Tenedos, assisting the Spartans in their result, and attempting to reconquer the cities along the Carian and Lycian coasts that had been lost to Alexander...Ten ships were sent to Cyclades under Datames, while a hundred went on to Tenedos...The walls of Tenedos were destroyed and its citizens forced to resume the peace of Antalcidas with Darius." (Source in endnotes: Curtius II) And in Tenedos page note 45: "During the campaign of Alexander the Great against the Persians, Pharnabazus, the Persian commander, laid siege to Tenedos with a hundred ships and eventually captured it as Alexander could not send a fleet in time to save the island. The island's walls were demolished and the islanders had to accept the old treaty with the Persian emperor Darius I: the Peace of Antalcidas."

(This claim above is the one that first got me interested in the source, because it seems in most histories that the 100 ships went to Sifnos, see here, here for Arrian, here. Ashley does talk about the ships then going to Sifnos, but the 100 ships to Tenedos rather than 100 ships to Sifnos was just weird)

Ashley page 162 "Several of the Aegean islands also revolted, including Tenedos, Lesbos and Chios." (No direct reference given for claim, based on context and nearby citations, probably Curtius) And in Tenedos page note 44: "Along with other Aegean islands such as Lesbos, Tenedos also rebelled against the Persian dominance at this time."

1. (B) Ashley has a poor reputation for checking the facts. Waldemar Heckler writes: "nor should students be encouraged to consult the error-ridden and amateurish Macedonian Empire by James R. Ashley." Michael Witby wrote in the Classical review about this book that: "this is no more than a synthesis of some English-language scholarship compiled by an enthusiast for historical wargames...There is no indication that A. has visited the site of any of the major battles, which might have seemed essential preparation for a specifically military study, and he does not refer to specialist discussions of topography. Bibliographical knowledge is generally poor...I would have preferred to welcome the initiative of an amateur enthusiast on the basis that the interest of outsiders is good for the subject, but this volume claims far too much for itself and all readers must beware." (Michael Whitby 1999, The Classical Review, Vol. 49, No. 2)
2. Ashley's source for Tenedos claims is Curtius who is known (even by Ashley) to have a poor reputation for checking the facts. W.W. Tarn described his history as "a mass of problems", with "extraordinary carelessness", and (most damning for its use in this article) "the amateurishness is obvious; he often cares nothing whether or not he gets events in the right order, whether his geography is confused, whether he gives the wrong names...he is going to create a certain impression and he creates it." pg. 91-92 of Alexander the Great vol. I. Michael van Albrecht, "Curtius is unreliable as a geographer and a historian; especially his rhetorical description of battles is misleading" (A History of Roman Literature), Cummings history of Alexander the Great calls Curtius "utterly unreliable", Kenney's Cambridge History of Classical History makes clear "his geography is deplorable", his "irresponsibility and nonchalance are demonstrated repeatedly by inaccuracies, contradictions, implausible fabrication of detail...and above all freely confessed willingness to mislead".
3. So any help, are Ashley's claims reliable? Or am I off here. Thank you for your time. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

We should be using the best possible sources, which in this case would be books by historians, not popular writers with no relevant qualifications, and whose books have not been fact-checked. However, rs does allow these books so you need to address the errors on a case by case basis. TFD (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you! AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If the ultimate source is Curtius it sounds like it will make sense to ultimately mention what Curtius said, not necessarily as facts, but as notable reports, because for such ancient sources nearly every source is closely studied and notable. But ideally we should add secondary sources by modern historians.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Overuse of PhD dissertation on La Luz del Mundo?

As one of the primary contributors to La Luz del Mundo (which is currently undergoing a major overhaul), I have a question:

1. Can a PhD dissertation be used to provide substantially large amounts of information to a wikipedia article?

The reason I ask is because this dissertation written by Jason H. Dormady is referenced way too many times (in my opinion) in La Luz del Mundo (by doing a search for "Dormady" on that page, one can see it is referenced at least 16 times). I don't think that the issue is whether or not a PhD dissertation is WP:RS; rather I'm wondering if this dissertation holds much weight to be afforded such an elaborate presentation on the La Luz del Mundo article. Most of the history section of this article found here references this dissertation.

All comments are greatly appreciated! Regards, RidjalA (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it is published with peer-review in a respectable source, it could be used as a RS. Certain disciplines prefer books to journals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The number of times it is used is not in and of itself a problem. It may be indicative of a problem, though, but that will have to be decided on other criteria than mere number. Are there any specific statements sourced to the dissertation that seem problematic? Or any concrete reasons to believe that the dissertation is unreliable? As for weight, that's really a question for WP:NPOVN. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I do feel that it's become problematic, especially since La Luz del Mundo was recently tagged for NPOV, WP:PEACOCK, WP:COATRACK, and a few other issues. I think this dissertation might be contributing to that problem.

This might be somewhat of a weight/NPOV issue, too. One concrete example that I think shows this is in the way it is used to dismiss an excerpt from a book Secrecy and the Institutionalization of Sexual Abuse: The Case of La Luz del Mundo in México, which was co-authored by an Emerita professor. The book's excerpt states:

"The earliest recorded reference of sex abuse by leaders of LLDM dates from 1942. In that year, Guadalajara’s leading newspaper, El Occidental, reported that entire families in the city’s main sect enclave were being persecuted for not complying with financial and sexual demands from Aaron, the founder of LLDM. According to the reports, underage women were being exploited by Aarón Joaquín and high-ranking pastors."[14]

That excerpt was paraphrased in the Controversy section, and was followed by this quotation from Dormady's PhD dissertation:

"Rumors around Catholics(??) that LDM abuses its young women sexually have abounded for decades. Ibarra and Lancyner [sic] found no incidence of such in their 1972 research, though the church narrative does carry a story of abuse carried out by one of its members.(pg 157)

Would we not need a more authoritative or specialized source than a religious history dissertation to make counter-clauses vis-a-vis the book in question? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. RidjalA (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll cut you off here and say that whether the book is co-authored or not by a retired professor does not mean that it is reliable or that it should be assigned as much weight as a doctoral dissertation. If it hasn't been peer-reviewed, probably not. I took a quick look at the article talk page, and notice that there were concerns about the other co-author of the book, the one you failed to mention (just as you failed to mention him on the talk page). Please be forthcoming and transparent with all relevant information. Please don't play games. Anyway, this seems more like a case for WP:POVN than here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dominus and I am also uncomfortable with RidjalA's positioning of the situation. History2007 (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

@Dominus and History2007, Please see my response below

Do not tell anyone, but the way those dissertation defenses work is that the smart students pick their committee members in a way that the problems are minimized. There may be other faculty members in the same department that would have failed the student. The committee may not be imposed but student selected. In many cases some committee members do not even read the whole dissertation, but have generally made their mind up about the student as "scholar or hopeless" in the past 3 years, as they have observed him/her. So a PhD thesis is generally interesting to read, but if it does not get published as a book, etc. by a good publishers, I would not totally rely on it. But in this case, he may have good pointers to follow. But a number of items used in the article based on the thesis are non-controversial, and could hence be used for sure. Overall, his thesis looks good to use for those basic assertions, regardless of how many are used. History2007 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I am also an editor on the page in question. Dormady is an established historian, see [15]. He also wrote a book based on his dissertation which is going, and is, to be used to cite some if not all of his dissertation claims. Revista Academica's authors and collaboraters lack any credentials in history, thus I feel that a historian has more or equal weight to Revista Academica's contributors when it comes to events that happened in 1942. One of the co-authors, the retired professor, was a professor of cultural studies and education (not really a scholar in the social sciences) while the other co-auther with a shady past (and an arrest warrant in Mexico for involvement in child trafficking according to the Mexican media) only has degrees in theology and philosophy. Anthropologist Carlos Garma Navarro says that Revista Academica is highly critical of the church in "La situacion legal de la minorias religiousas en Mexico: Balance actual, Problemas y conflictos" published in "Revista Mexicana de Sociologia" Vol 9 Number 018, 1999 published by the Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Itzapalapa (His comments are in the footnotes). So it is important to use a Historian's words to act as another POV. There is a review of a book written about the church by Anthropologist De La Toree, in the review another scholar mentions the events of 1942 and provides a clearer picture that aligns more to Dormady's version as opposed to Revista Academica's version. Since Dormady's dissertation claims on 1942 (and by extension his published book) are supported by Mexican Scholars I'd say that it is RS for that one topic and can be used. I hope this information is helpful to anyone willing to voice an opinion. Thank you. Fordx12 (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu and History2007, I'll start off by apologizing for not being more forthcoming; my intention was to avoid all of these side narratives that have snowballed into prolonged and exhausting discussions so that we may avoid the drama and instead discuss policy from independent perspectives.

As far as Erdely goes, he's published how the LLDM church had been able to get away with many of these allegations of abuse in Mexico because of its close ties with government officials (if in fact the Mexican government issued a warrant for Erdely's arrest, from my POV that's not too far apart from what Sweden is doing to Julius Asange; it's a red herring to dismiss his credibility, and steer focus away from what he's published; and if there exists such a warrant against Erdely it may be an attempt to capture and torture him in much the same way police and church members did to Moises Padilla after he made allegations of abuse against the leader of LLDM [16] )

The only two users on wikipedia to have consistently gone to great lengths to discredit this book and give more weight to the dissertation have shown signs of belonging to or promoting the church (one of them is the person who commented right above me, and we're currently sorting out a dispute resolution here).

Now back to the dissertation, I don't disagree that Dormady is an established historian. But I don't know that these allegations of abuse surrounding LLDM were ever the scope of his dissertation, especially so early on in his career. RidjalA (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

By that reasoning, then no scholarly source can possibly be used since Revista Academica is the only source that alleges sexual abuses. To expect scholars like Patrica Fortuny to discuss events they seem to completely ignored is a bad prerequisite for using a source. In that case, RA is discussing contemporary issues, not issues of 1942. Then by RidjalA's logic, RA shouldn't be used as a source for the events, or alleged events, of 1942. However, that is not the case.

The fact is that Mexican scholars outside of RA don't even discuss the "institutionalization of sexual abuse" in LLDM and only mention accusations in passing (if that). Dormady and Gonzalez both commented on the events of 1942, yet neither of them went to the conclusions of RA. Those are viable opinions from two reliable sources. It is not the fault of other scholars if they don't believe that the church is a dangerous depraved cult ruining the lives of children and the poor (Which sums up RA's thesis). That cannot be used as a basis to discount their writings sources that provide other POV's on any given issue. It is alarming that allegations against the church are being taken as proven facts, and anything that counters the source of those allegations are not considered reliable and that some sort of government conspiracy with a protestant church in one of the most Catholic nations in the world is at play. This is exactly why these sources should be used. Fordx12 (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

theatrehistory.com

I feel that theatrehistory.com is not a suitable source, but I'm not an expert in this area and would appreciate comments from editors with more expertise. My apologies if this is the wrong place to post this.

Theatrehistory.com is a collection of web pages that, in many cases, contain verbatim copies of previously published works. Links to the site can be found in many WP articles, both as external links and in citations. The website has numerous advertisements and commercial links are sprinkled throughout. When I click internal links, I often get a popup window that advertises Netflix, etc. There is no "about this site" discussion, so one cannot be sure of the purpose of the site or the motives or identity of its operator, nor can the authority of its nameless authors be determined. Aside from the spam aspect, I'm concerned about possible copyvios; all of the works I've looked at so far were published before 1923 or lack an author's name, but I haven't examined every copied work at the site. On the other hand, if there are no copyvios, the copied works are readily available as primary sources, which are more direct (and less offensive) than this tertiary source. Lambtron (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please give examples of what you see as copyvios? I have linked to articles in this section of the site and the linked sections. I am not aware of any copyvios, although it contains some quotations from public domain materials that appear to be properly attributed. This part of the site contains a collection of short articles about theatre works, together with references to lots of research links, as well as presenting the full searchable text to many public domain plays. For articles about theatre and theatre works, it seems to be very useful. Can you elaborate please? Note that we prefer secondary sources to primary sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A quick search on google reveals that TheatreHistory.com is recommended by other theatre sites, such as Jewish-Theatre.com, and it is recommended in this Theatre History Resource Guide. This teacher site calls it a "smorgasboard of information". This teacher site says: "This is a comprehensive academically-oriented site that is almost an e-course. It provides insight into issue of theatre history as well as an index of topics and other features.". -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the argumentum ad populum rationale, why should an article cite a verbatim copy of a work when it can cite the original? Lambtron (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The texts available at that site are reliable publications with the original source provided – the authors are not "nameless". Lambtron wrote that no copyright violations could be found; so what's the concern? Lambtron also seems to be confused what primary and secondary sources are. We don't prohibit links to websites because they carry advertisements (IMDb, IBDB, YouTube, …). There is an identical discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Is theatrehistory.com an appropriate external link?. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Example of nameless author: "SOUTH PACIFIC", linked to from South Pacific (musical). There are many others, and several of those are used in WP citations. BTW, this discussion is about reliable sources, whereas Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Is theatrehistory.com an appropriate external link? is concerned with EL; both threads are concerned with theatrehistory.com, but they are not identical as you surmised. Lambtron (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this a case where a book which is reliable is being cited in such a way that there is a URL linking to a copy or transcription of that book? That is not uncommon (consider Google books) and is referred to as a convenience link. The URL in such a case is just a convenient link to the copy but the citation in such a case would name the book. If I misunderstand then my apologies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a discussion, written by an unnamed author, about a well-known book. Lambtron (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There's some kind of confusion here: The South Pacific article on the site is an article about the musical, not about a book. The content is prepared by the editors of the site. It consists of a one-paragraph discussion of the musical, followed by a four-paragraph plot synopsis. It's true that the editor/author of the article is not named, but many websites have editorial content that is not credited to a particular author. For example BroadwayWorld.com, which is cited thousands of times in Wikipedia. In this case, the website is, as I pointed out above, a source that is praised by many users, including teacher resources and theatre resource guides. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It is written by an unnamed author and I have no idea who that is, nor does the site give any hint about who the editors are or, for that matter, who is responsible for the site's content. Consequently, the article has approximately the reliability of a blog. And in case it's not obvious, argumentum ad populum doesn't mitigate this or other critical shortcomings. Lambtron (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

even if it is being used as a convenience link like googlebooks, there still has to be unambiguous certainty that what we are linking to is an actual valid copy being hosted within appropriate copyright arrangements. WP:ELNEVER. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Mantak Chia on human sexuality (medicine)

Are Mantak Chia or his books reliable sources on human sexuality according to WP:RSMED? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No because he does not write for a professional medical audience. TFD (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let me rephrase: if I asked "Are Taoist writings reliable sources on human sexuality according to WP:RSMED?" the answer would be "No, since Taoism isn't a scientific theory." or "Taoism is no mainstream medical science." Right? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to let us know the article concerned,the statement to be supported and the details of the source. His books will not meet MEDRS but some of the ideas are notable and have been described in independent sourcesItsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Taoist writings are indeed reliable for providing the Taoist viewpoint, on those articles where it comes up as relevant, but they should be attributed as such. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

From what I see in the Mantak Chia article as it stands, very few of the assertions are even backed by independent secondary sources, let alone MEDRS. It seems to be in need of a serious scrubdown to distinguish the portions based solely on his own assertions from those based on independent RS. Only the latter should be used to support assertions in the voice of the encyclopedia. I'd need to be convinced some that "Taoist writings are indeed reliable for providing the Taoist viewpoint" is relevant: that is, do we have reliable sources to support the proposition that M.C.'s writings are representative of a broader consensus Taoist view, rather than one of many competing Taoist views. Frankly the present state of the article is far less than convincing. But OTQ, no, Taoism is not science and especially not medical science. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any article (which article?) I was merely stating what the principle is. Conversely, if Taoism is not particularly relevant to a given article 'x', then of course Taoist writings should probably not be used in it at all.. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I was trying to make the case perfectly clear to myself, since on the Romanian article on masturbation talk page an editor says he intends to include the Taoist viewpoint that relatively frequent ejaculation leads to "exhaustion and devitalizing", while orgasms without ejaculation preserve some vital force. Since the Romanian Wikipedia does not have a RS/N, I thought I could post the case here. Frankly, I just considered it a bizarre encyclopedic wish, I had no doubts that Taoism does not reflect the medical consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Here on en, we have a home for that info at Religious views on masturbation, but I don't know how ro. would want to handle it... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no topic there with religious views on masturbation, just a mention of Onan and the Bible. He said he wants to include Taoist viewpoints as medical facts, not as subjective opinion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I do concede that initially he framed it as an edit reflecting the subjective views of Tantra and Taoism, but he later engaged in an anti-intellectual polemic saying "We don't learn the great truths from academias and universities but only from the books of these spiritual masters and science follows upon the tracks of religion proving that there are unseen worlds, life after death, an energetic body, soul etc...". Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, you may be more intellectual than me on that one! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This thread doesn't seem to relate to any particular article on en.wiki. We can't comment on sourcing on Romanian Wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As said, on the Romanian Wikipedia there is no such thing as RS/N. Besides, the same mainstream medicine is practiced in Romania as in UK, US, Canada and Australia. So, what's no reliable medical information in these countries is no reliable medical information in Romania. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights

Electronic Intifada is being discussed above, but Soosim has also removed references to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in the Operation_Pillar_of_Cloud article, which is a reliable source for the facts being presented, and whose opinion would be notable and worth including even if it were only an opinion. Some think these facts are inconvenient, but none of the facts referenced are controversial, and are backed up by other reliable sources. To my knowledge, no one has denied the claims. And if they do, the source should not be removed, rather it should be made clear that this is the position of the PCHR. Until then, it can be stated as fact, but either way the source should not be removed. Mr G (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have to disagree; Electronic Intifada is not a reliable source for facts. If the event is notable enough—which Operation Pillar of Cloud certainly is—surely you can find these facts in a WP:RS. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"Capital Press" as RS for Frank L. VanderSloot

Is the Capital Press a Reliable Source for an article about ranch owner Frank L. VanderSloot and his activities? I maintain that it is, but User:Rhode Island Red and User:RobertRosen maintain that it is not. Capital Press is both a newspaper and a website. It also sends out newsletters. It covers agriculture in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. It engages in trade journalism. You can buy the paper edition on newsstands, as shown on this map. You can get a job there, if you are so interested. It's published by the East Oregonian Publishing Company. More info is at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Cheese_factory. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Trade journals are generally accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Journals self-published to promote a specific company are not, but this does not appear to be in that category. Collect (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

More context would be helpful. To save some time, could you briefly explain what material from the Capital Press is being contended, and maybe provide a link to the original article? TheBlueCanoe 15:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would have helped immensely if the specific context were provided, as the reliability of a source cannot be established independently of the text that the source is used to support. The issue raised by George pertains to a proposal for modifications to the article on Frank Vandersloot. The current version of the text reads as follows:

In 1994, VanderSloot bought a $1 million interest in the Snake River Cheese factory in Blackfoot, Idaho after Kraft Foods shuttered the factory.[17][18] Vandersloot paid off a $2 million debt owed to the area's dairymen, and later brought in Beatrice Cheese, a subsidiary of ConAgra, to run the factory. In 1999, the company netted $278 million dollars in sales. In 2000, VanderSloot sold all of his interest in the company to Suprema Specialties, and in 2006, the factory, which by then had been renamed as the Blackfoot Cheese Company, was sold to Sartori Foods.[19]

The proposed modification (all differences based solely on the Agri-News source) was as follows:

In 1994, VanderSloot was approached by Firth, Idaho, dairy farmer Gaylen Clayson with a plea to invest in the Snake River Cheese factory in Blackfoot, Idaho, after Kraft Foods had announced a decision to close it. In response, VanderSloot bought a $1 million interest in the plant, which closed anyway within six months, after an investment company assumed control. Dairymen crowded into a local meeting hall afterward to make another plea to VanderSloot, who thereupon paid off a $2 million debt owed to the dairymen, staffed the plant with his own personnel and supplemented the milking herd with two thousand head of cows. He later brought in Beatrice Cheese, a subsidiary of ConAgra, to run the factory. In 1999, the company netted $278 million in sales. In 2000, VanderSloot sold all of his interest in the company to Suprema Specialties. "My business is Melaleuca and that's what I need to pay attention to," he said. In 2006, the factory, which by then had been renamed as the Blackfoot Cheese Company, was sold to Sartori Foods.

The reliability of the source in question (Agri-News) was not really the issue but rather whether it was sufficient to support the inclusion of the additional information. The objections raised were that the Agri-News article was essentially a fluff piece written, inexplicably, 6 years after the factory deal took place, and it appears to be a blatantly politicized attempt to burnish VanderSloot's image over his controversial political campaign financing and public stances on gay rights issues. It seems to be a very lopsided partisan POV (it reads like a paid ad), and the details are not reflected in any of the other sources that described the cheese factory deal (and these sources were published at the time the deal took place); hence it is given undue weight.

It also gives undue weight to the opinion of a single dairy farmer (Clayson) who has no apparent authority or access to insider knowledge about how the factory deal went down. The editor who proposed the change seems to want to put a philanthropic spin on the transaction, but that seems inappropriate given that it's only mentioned in the Agri-News article (not a source for investigative journalism, but rather a trade rag). Lastly, note that the portion "staffed the plant with his own personnel and supplemented the milking herd with two thousand head of cows" cites two sources, but in fact, only Agri-News mentioned these details.

These issues, and the objection raised, are discussed in detail on the Talk page.[20] A third opinion was requested, and that third opinion did not support the proposed revisions. Why that third opinion wasn't sufficient is unclear. Seems like a case of WP:FORUMSHOP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

In short - you agree the source meets WP:RS. Your cavil on the article talk page Seems contentious, not to mention the issues with the source (an oddly political puff piece published this year, during campaign season, 6 years after VanderSloot sold the company is quite insufficient to argue against an article in a reliable source, other than as a case of "IDONTLIKEIT" for what the source says. BTW, "third opinions" are not generally given when there are more than two editors involved - in the case at hand, the third opinion is of no value, alas. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Collect, the point of going to the noticeboards is to get unbiased input from editors outside the fray. You are very much inside the fray, and your accusation about contentious cavils does not move us any closer towards resolution. The content and the source are what's at issue here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your views. The new material doesn't seem to be in conflict with the old. It just adds more detail. Unless there's a valid reason to doubt the veracity of the new material, I don't see much of a problem, and it seems to be a reliable source. I certainly don't understand how an elaboration on a cheese factory deal would do anything to "negate VandeSloot's anti-gay reputation."TheBlueCanoe 16:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The point is that those details appear in no other sources. There were several sources that provided details about the transaction (sources published at the time the deals took place) but the additional details proposed are not mentioned in those sources -- only in the Agri-News article published 6 years after the fact. The article reads like an ode to VanderSloot as indicated by the meat of the article as well as by the title "Controversial donor praised by dairymen" and byline "Bitter foe of the gay rights movement' invested in plant." The publication of the Agri-News article coincided with the revelation that VanderSloot was Romney's campaign finance chair and had made $1 million+ donations to the campaign, and with criticism of VanderSloot for his rather controversial stances on gay rights issue. So what we have here is a retrospective, politicized, trade-rag puff-piece written from the perspective of a dairy farmer of no apparent (hence good reason to doubt the veracity), and it is given preeminence/undue weight over other more neutral sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Capital Press is the 10th largest NEWSPAPER in Oregon.[21] It has an audited circulation of 35,582.[22] Can we agree that it is Reliable? (The other remarks by RIR should really be handled on the Talk Page or on another NoticeBoard.) Is this a fair summation? GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed where I pointed out that there a multiplicity of issues at stake and not just whether Agri-News is WP:RS in a general sense. The source itself (Agri-News) is not necessarily being excluded out of hand as unreliable (although it is a trade rag rather than a "newspaper" in the traditional sense); the issue concerns this partisan fluff retrospective article in particular and the specific manner in which it is being used for the proposed edits, as I outlined above. There is an issue with the person being quoted -- a lone dairy farmer of no repute -- for insider details about a corporate transaction. He is non-authoritative; his opinions carry no weight; the details he spoke of were not reported by any of the other sources that wrote about the deal at the time it happened. The details in the proposed edits are gossipy and WP:FRINGE and given WP:UNDUE weight. The article was written 6 years after the fact and it is (or 'was' -- see below) conspicuously laced with politically-charged statements that are irrelevant to the cheese deal, but coincide with VanderSloot's becoming Romney's campaign finance manager and being identified by multiple sources as a high-profile campaign donor with a controversial background on gay rights issues.

To make matters worse -- and this is a very serious issue -- the Agri-News article has been scrubbed since the discussion of it began here on October 6.[23] The article originally included the politically-charged byline text "'Bitter foe of the gay rights movement' invested in plant" -- we all saw it and discussed it.[24][25] As of today, that byline has been scrubbed and no longer appears in the article, and there were other changes as well.[26] This surreptitiously revised version, appeared right after we objected to that very byline specifically on the Talk page, and that's more than a mere coincidence. The newspaper's apparent willingness to secretly sanitize their article (they were not even transparent about the fact that the article was revised -- it still shows the March 1 pub date and no correction notice) gives the final "no' vote as to their reliability and raises the larger questions of shady offsite coordination to influence the WP BLP. This source merits inclusion nowhere. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Can this be included on Brandon Teena?

This keeps getting reverted from Brandon Teena by the same person. Apparently the subject's mother is not a reliable source for causes of transgenderism and therefore shouldn't be in the article: She also said that her child's transgenderism was a defense mechanism that was developed in response to childhood sexual abuse, rather than being an expression of Teena's gendered sense of self: "She pretended she was a man so no other man could touch her." - http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,85098,00.html As this is a biography article and not a medical one, then I think that reason is ridiculous. Zaalbar (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm the objecting editor, and I've told Zaalbar that ANY medical claims in ANY article must be reliably sourced, per WP:MEDRS, which doesn't limit the sourcing requirements to "medical" articles. The mother's claim is a medical diagnosis, which includes identifying the cause of the condition in question. The mother has no medical training that would qualify here to make such a diagosis. Her opinion is therefore worth no more than pure and uninformed speculation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Article = Brandon Teena
• Proposed content = She also said that her child's transgenderism was a defense mechanism that was developed in response to childhood sexual abuse, rather than being an expression of Teena's gendered sense of self: "She pretended she was a man so no other man could touch her."
• Source = Entertainment Weekly
• Quote from source = Ms. Brandon also criticized Boys director Kimberly Peirce for not explaining that Teena was molested by a man when she was a child: 'She pretended she was a man so no other man could touch her,' she said.

My opinion: The source itself, EW, is adequate. The story itself comes from the AP, which is generally considered reliable. The same AP story was also picked up by the Guardian, which is also considered reliable. See The Guardian article.

However, the source cited does not support all the proposed content. The source cited only supports the direct quote from the mother. It does not support the claims "her child's transgenderism was a defense mechanism that was developed in response to childhood sexual abuse, rather than being an expression of Teena's gendered sense of self" as the source cited does not mention transgenderism, a defense mechanism, or the idea that the transgenderism was in respone to childhood sexual abuse. These are all very contentious claims and support for these claims is not found in the source cited. Either excellent sourcing needs to be found for these claims, or these claims should be removed from the article until such sourcing can be found. Content like "Ms. Brandon said, 'She pretended she was a man so no other man could touch her.'" would be supported by the source. Zad68 19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the Guardian article sufficient for that content? Her mother further criticised the film-makers for failing to explain that her daughter was sexually molested by a man as a girl - an event to which she attributes her daughter's gender-bending. "She pretended she was a man so no other man could touch her," she said. Zaalbar (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The only thing the Guardian article does is add a little bit of the article author's own interpretation of the mother's words. "Gender bending" isn't a term medical professionals use, and it would be a misrepresentation of the source to attempt to take the Guardian article author's interpretation of the mother's words regarding her daughter, and use it to support the very definitive-sounding content proposed--"A defense mechanism that was developed in response to childhood sexual abuse" sounds like something read off a psychiatrist's report; the mother's quote doesn't support that. Zad68 20:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this sufficient? Her mother further criticised the film-makers for failing to explain that her daughter was sexually molested by a man as a girl - an event to which she attributes her daughter's change of gender identity: "She pretended she was a man so no other man could touch her" Zaalbar (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm also looking at how this same story was reported in other sources: People, Philly.com. Of the four sources I found (EW, Guardian, People, Philly), all report that Ms. Brandon said she was angry the film did not mention that Brandon Teena was molested. Only two seem to make some sort inference that Ms. Brandon meant that it was, in the opinion of the mother, the cause of Brandon's change: Guardian says "an event to which she attributes her daughter's gender-bending", Philly juxtaposes "She said Teena Brandon began dressing in men's clothing and dating women" next to the sentence. In my opinion, the sources can be used to explain why the mother was angry, but should not be used to go as far as to also say that the mother felt that the molestation caused the change. Better sourcing would be needed for that. Can you find a longer interview with the mother, where she gives more detail? Without that, I would not feel comfortable using these sources to include content along this line. Zad68 20:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Zad68. What NPOV wording is being proposed at this point and tied to which source(s). I think the issue is both with the sources and wording so let's see what exactly would be added to the article. Insomesia (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what part of WP:MEDRS you misread or if it's actually written in a misleading way. Maybe you should edit whichever part of that policy which caused this confusion to make it more clear. Zaalbar (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I may have missed what sourced content you are proposing to add and based on which sources? MEDRS states reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. You don't seem to be employing any of those. What exactly are you proposing and using what source(s)? Insomesia (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Zad those aren't necessary. I just need to write down what the mother said according to the source. I'll look later for the full interview. Zaalbar (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. You fail to take into account that her unqualified diagnosis is of little significance, and thus not noteworthy for inclusion in the article, attributed or not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You said you agreed with Zad before. Regardless, I'll be adding the content back when I find the appropriate source. Zaalbar (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

We here already and we have others who are well versed in reviewing sources willing to help. I suggest you post here what you propose should be added and specify the source. Then we can come to consensus what's best for the article. Insomesia (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

My previous comments must seem confusing. I didn't notice that a different editor chimed in lol. As soon as I can be bothered looking for the full interview I'll add what the mother's opinion is, as it's relevant to the article. Zad says it can be added to the article as long as there's no synthesis involved and that's good enough for me. Zaalbar (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Attack on Sydney Harbour

Hi. I have been working on this article for quite a while and just became aware of new information in the form of old (1942) copies of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph (Australia). Most of the info is archived and is already referred to in the article, but there is some that is not. I know these are OK sources (though weight issues will need discussion) but my question is: what do I need to do? Should I scan the relevant pages and upload them to Photobucket? Would that suffice? Rumiton (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You are not obliged to make sources electronically available, though it would be nice if you did. But another issue you need to consider is the reliability of the sources, There was a war on and all newspapers were subject to strict censorship and regularly published official misinformation. Zero^talk 13:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The newspapers are certainly RS for what was "publically announced information" which is likely of value to readers. I am concerned, howeverm about excessive reliance on too few sources overall - almost all of the article appears based on only three sources. Collect (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"Publically announced information" was exactly what I had in mind...what the citizens of Sydney and Newcastle were told at the time and believed, and how it affected their lives. We have drawn admittedly heavily on Jenkins, Grose and Carruthers, but these are high quality sources and are augmented by Stevens, Fulford, Hasham, Rickard, Wurth and the NSW Heritage Organisation. Perhaps it would be good to look further afield. Anyway, the electronic side of it was my main question, so thank you for that. Rumiton (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A single Rachel Maddow show as RS on Frank L. VanderSloot

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#47302840

Article: Frank L. VanderSloot

Content:

"Three op-eds published by the Wall Street Journal criticized the campaign's treatment of VanderSloot and other top Romney donors.[95][91][96] The critiques, two of which were authored by Wall Street Journal contributor Kimberley Strassel, were disputed by Rachel Maddow,[97] Lewiston Morning Tribune editor Marty Trillhaase,[98] and David Shere of Media Matters for America.[99]"

"VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from commentators and gay-rights advocates.[11][40][100][97][101][102][103][104]"

"According to Rachel Maddow and the online magazine Salon, VanderSloot has threatened defamation lawsuits, copyright infringement and similar legal action against critics and outlets that have published adversely critical views, including Maddow, Forbes magazine, lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Mother Jones magazine, and Idaho journalist Jody May-Chang.[40][97]"

Note: Please also address the copyright issue. I am posting a referral at the Copyright Notice Board.

What copyright issue are you referring to? Ryan Vesey 23:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what exactly is the copyright issue here? I don't see one. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific on what RS issue you want cleared up exactly as well? Ryan Vesey 01:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

metalwani.com

Metalwani.com is a website which reviews and gives coverage to metal music. However, there has not been proper discussion as to whether or not it meets the guidelines set forth by WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE. A user by the name of Mpdt (talk · contribs) kept adding reviews from the website, and made no attempt whatsoever to discuss his/her additions, despite repeated attempts at discussions from editors such as myself. An edit like this is just about the typical edit from Mpdt. This person carried out his act of ignoring by deleted the notices from his talk page. The Mpdt account was blocked indefinitely for this behavior. Ever since then, accounts such as Stonedjesus (talk · contribs) and the curiously named PortnoyMike (talk · contribs), who is probably not Mike Portnoy needless to say, have added mentions of Metal Wani to Wikipedia. While the latter two are new accounts, both with fewer than seven edits as of this post, neither of them have discussed how and why Metal Wani is relevant as per REVSITE. The website appears to be run by one person, who happens to be an admirer of Mike Portnoy (as said before, there was a PortnoyMike account promoting Metal Wani on Wikipedia). This information is revealed in the "Who Am I" section of the website. It might be safe to say that metalwani.com can be listed under non-professional reviews for REVSITE, but I would like to gather some input from other individuals instead of adding it on my own volition right now. Thank you. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 09:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Metalwani is already listed under non-professional reviews. I don't think there are many articles with sources from this website anymore, I spent some time recently removing alot of non-professional reviews from metal album articles. This website was included in those which I removed. I have removed reviews that user Mpdt added in the past, I suspect the user was adding reviews as self promo for the website, and as you said ignored removal of the reviews and talk page warnings. While the website lists a number of staff, it is essentially just a blog. Moreover it seems the website has only been running for around a year and doesn't seem to produce a great deal of articles/content. The vast majority of content is just album reviews as well; they do some interviews but they don't seem to report any news or other journalism on music. Given the lack of content produced from the website, I doubt that the people who run it actually work as music journalists. There are much more reliable and established sources/websites/magazines that provide reviews as well as other reliable news and information. I think it should continue to be listed under non-professional reviews. The1337gamer (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that it had already been added to that section. One further question: is it worth opening a sockpuppet investigation concerning how Mpdt could be behind both the Stonedjesus and PortnoyMike accounts, even if both the latter accounts are only slightly active? Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

From searching metalwani in the wikipedia search box in the top right, it shows that there are only 12 articles left with links to metalwani, which I'm going to remove now. It's probably not worth putting in a sockpuppet investigation yet, as those users don't seem to be as persistent or as active now. If more metalwani reviews do go up in the future though, then it will be easy to spot and make a sockpuppet case straight away. The1337gamer (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed them, there was actually less than 12, it was just taking time to update from previous removals. So now once the search updates, it should show that no content pages contain links to metalwani. The1337gamer (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

In case you do intend to make a sockpuppet case in the future, another user: Special:Contributions/Owais.blore also added metalwani reviews way back in March, but has been inactive since. The1337gamer (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Almeder

Background

I would appreciate some uninvolved input to resolve a dispute about a source at Ian Stevenson. It concerns whether an article by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, is a reliable source. Dominus Vobisdu has been removing it and the material it supports. [27] [28] Discussion here.

Ian Stevenson (1918–2007) was a professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, who devoted his life to interviewing children who claimed to have past-life memories. Several philosophers are interested in his research, because it has implications for the mind-body problem, namely whether it makes sense to think of consciousness existing independently of a brain.

One philosopher who has written about this is Robert Almeder, author of Beyond Death: Evidence for Life After Death (Charles C Thomas, 1987) and Death and Personal Survival (Rowman & Littlefield, 1992). Almeder is supportive of Stevenson, arguing that no one knows whether consciousness can exist without a brain. Against this is the philosopher Paul Edwards (1923–2004) of the New School of Social Research, who devotes a chapter in his Reincarnation: A Critical Examination (Prometheus Books, 1996) to criticism of Stevenson, and to Almeder's arguments in support of him.

Disputed source

In 1997 Almeder published a response to Edwards in "A Critique of Arguments Offered Against Reincarnation", Journal of Scientific Exploration, 11(4), 1997, pp. 499–526. I have used this article as a source for Almeder's definition of what he calls the "minimalist reincarnation hypothesis" in the second paragraph of of this section in the Stevenson article. See extended content below for the paragraph.

Extended content

Stevenson's research is associated with what Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, calls the minimalist reincarnation hypothesis. Almeder describes this as the view that: "There is something essential to some human personalities ... which we cannot plausibly construe solely in terms of either brain states, or properties of brain states ... and, further, after biological death this non-reducible essential trait sometimes persists for some time, in some way, in some place, and for some reason or other, existing independently of the person's former brain and body. Moreover, after some time, some of these irreducible essential traits of human personality, for some reason or other, and by some mechanism or other, come to reside in other human bodies either some time during the gestation period, at birth, or shortly after birth."

The definition is not contentious, and no one has objected to it. But there are objections to the use of this article as a source because it was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The editor-in-chief of this journal is another philosopher, Stephen E. Braude, emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. [29] The journal is regarded by some editors as not an RS for anything, because it is not peer-reviewed (the journal says it is peer-reviewed, the editors say it is not; I don't know which is true), and because it specializes in anomalies (parapsychology, etc).

My argument in favour of the source

My argument in favour of using this article as a source is as follows:

1. A previous discussion on this noticeboard about the journal determined that it is an RS for the opinions of its authors, but not for "scientific fact" or "scientific statements." I am using it for an author's uncontentious definition of reincarnation.
2. Sources don't have to be peer-reviewed to be reliable sources, per WP:SOURCES, which is policy.
3. Reliability in this case does not lie with the publication, but with the author, Robert Almeder, an academic who has written two books about this issue.

   (WP:SOURCES says: "The word 'source' in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.")

4. Even if Almeder had published this article on a personal website, it would still be an RS under WP:SPS because: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable 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." That provision would seem to confirm that, in the case of experts in the field, the credentials of the author matter more than the place of publication (except when it comes to BLPs, where the place of publication always matters).

I am currently using this article only as a source for Almeder's definition. However, I am thinking of extending the Stevenson article to say more about Edwards's arguments against Stevenson and Almeder, and Almeder's rebuttal of those arguments. The rebuttal is in the article that people are objecting to.

I would therefore like to be allowed to use this one article as a source in the Stevenson article. I feel the need to add that I don't myself believe in reincarnation, but I find it interesting that a psychiatrist spent so many years researching it, and I would like us to have a decent article on him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Notifications: Talk:Ian Stevenson, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, [30] and the wikiprojects with banners on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, [31] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group, [32] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spirituality, [33] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal, [34] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative Views, [35] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism. [36] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things that SlimVirgin didn't touch on.

1) The topic is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, and appears to be a topic related to science, and not philosophy.

2) Stevenson was the founder of the publication in which Almamder's supportive statement appears, and so the source cannot be considered independent.

3) The statement to be included is not an "opinion", but an operational definition to be used in scientific research, in which are Almader has no demostrated competence.

4) There is no evidence that Almader is an recognized expert on the topic, because he has never published anything on the topic in reliable academic sources. The two books she mentions did not go any form of academic review, and were published by non-academic presses. There is no evidence that his competence as a philosopher extends to this topic, nor that his opinion on this topic carries any weight in the academic community at large.

5) There is no credible evidence that the journal is subject to any peer or academic review.

a)Their submissions policy does not conform to academic standards [[37]].

b) "peer-review" is not mentioned in their discription on ERIC [[38]], which reads as follows "Features original research papers in areas falling outside the established scientific arena. Attempts to provide an unbiased, professional, forum for discussion and debate about anomalous phenomena".

c) The only evidence produce for peer review are the publication itself, and an "index" called EBSCO, which appears to be a non-selective commercial web directory that simply reports what the journal submits about itself. No evidence of editorial oversite or responsibilty for that directory.

6) There is no evidence that the publication is widely cited by serious academics in peer-reviewed sources, nor any evidence that the publication is know, never mind highly regarded, within the mainstream academic community.

In short, I can see nothing that distinguishes this from a fringe pseudo-journal that Stevenson founded to promote himself and his work and evade academic peer review. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The source should not be used for scientific/pseudo-scientific claims. Almeider's "definition" of reincarnation (not really a definition in the normal sense) is clearly such a claim and, SV, your suggestion that it is "uncontroversial" in plainly ridiculous.

In order to demonstrate it's noteworthiness, Almeider's position should be shown to have been discussed in reliable third-party sources. Formerip (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Almeder's definition (the minimum of what people mean when they use the word "reincarnation") is completely uncontroversial. It is not a scientific or pseudoscientific definition, but a philosophical one. And yes, it is a definition "in the normal sense" (as used by academic philosophers). No one involved in this discussion has objected to it. Their objection is only to the place of publication. I must say that I find it very depressing that I have to argue for a paper by a philosopher to be allowed as a source to support a philosophical definition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Sources don't have to be peer-reviewed to be reliable, especially not in a biography. And this journal does seem to be peer-reviewed. It is listed on the Education Resources Information Center, [39] and on EBSCO Academic Search. [40] In addition the journal itself says it is peer-reviewed. [41]

But again, reliability is determined in this case by the author, not the journal. I am arguing only in favour of this one article, not the journal as a whole. If Barack Obama published an opinion on a paper handkerchief we could still use it as a source so long as the public could access it. Robert Almeder has published two books about arguments for life after death, and Paul Edwards refers to Almeder's arguments in his own work. To deny Almeder the status of expert in this area would leave very few experts, if any. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to argue that the "Journal of Scientific Exploration" is legitimately peer reviewed (you appear to be changing your argument?), I'm afraid it's clear that it isn't, since it is a "major outlet for UFOology, paranormal activity, extrasensory powers, alien abductions etc", and "They seem to be interested in promoting fringe topics as real mysteries and they tend to ignore most evidence to the contrary. They publish 'scholarly' articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. Most of the prominent and active members are strong believers in the reality of such phenomena." It's clear that they have peer review which is inadequate in any academic sense. Let me quote their own author instructions: "the Journal of Scientific Exploration necessarily publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than those appearing in some mainstream disciplinary journals." You wish to use a source which admits to including "speculative or less plausible" material. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is peer-reviewed, and it doesn't have to be. But they say they are, and they are academics in mainstream universities, so I see no reason to doubt them. I recall that someone tried to argue that a book on intelligent design wasn't peer-reviewed even though the publisher was Cambridge University Press. When that didn't hold, the argument became that it hadn't been "legitimately" peer-reviewed. But the point is -- and this is surely what academic freedom is about -- that sometimes educated people will write about things that other educated people find ridiculous.

You and Dominus have strong views (exceptionally strong views, in your case) about what counts as fringe and how none of it belongs on WP. I know that your aim is to preserve quality and I respect that. I just think you take it too far. When someone has to spend days begging to be allowed to use a philosopher's article to support a completely uncontentious philosophical definition then it's a sign that we're placing ideology over common sense, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

SV, I don't know how familiar you are with the publication. I hadn't heard of it until it came up in a previous discussion. It's important to understand that the problem with it isn't that it's low-status or has an inadequate peer-review process. It may have the appearance of an academic journal, but it isn't. It's a magazine that, generally, cranks who happen to have PhDs submit nonsense to on topics they are unqualified to comment on. So it features engineers writing about ESP, astrologers writing about ghosts, mathematicians writing about faith-healing and so on. Without risk of exaggeration, it has less intellectual integrity than Whizzer and Chips. Take a browse through the back-issues on their website.

In this specific case, the problem is that the material about Almeder gives the reader the impression that Stevenson has had an influence on something important within his field. But, on the basis of the sourcing provided, this would be a totally false impression. If other sources can be adduced to show that Almeder's view of reincarnation is in some way an important contribution to philosophy, then that might change the picture. Formerip (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

We NEVER take a source's word for it that it is peer-reviewed. That would be utterly stupid. Not every book published by CUP is peer reviewed (don't know where you got that idea). Personal attacks and failure to assume good faith will get you nowhere except ANI. And absolutely no one is making you "beg". We're asking you to support your arguments with credible evidence. Besides, begging will get you nowhere, no matter how long you beg. Especially with me. My students tell me I have no heart, and that the words "pity" and "mercy" are not in my dictionary. I take that as a compliment. In case you haven't noticed, they don't appear anywhere in the WP policies, either. Anyway, an argument to pity greatly insults my intelligence, and an argument to common sense even more so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Frank VanderSloot

I would like feedback on this source for the Frank L. VanderSloot BLP: http://www.frankvanderslootresponse.com/att-general.html

This website has been established as VanderSloot's by reliable sources. I'd like to say something like, "In 2012, VanderSloot released what he said was a letter from the Idaho Attorney General that called into question some of Greenwald's claims." Andrew (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The wording you intend to use implies that VanderSloot was attempting to deceive people with the letter. Ryan Vesey 19:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely open to changing the copy. The current wording of the article makes it sound like the Idaho Attorney General called the company a scam and I'm trying to balance it. Read the last paragraph of this section for context. I could also use, "In 2012, VanderSloot made public a letter from the Idaho Attorney General that stated that that office had never investigated Melaleuca for criminal activity." Andrew (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be no on several counts. I see no reliable source that establish the site as VanderSloot's. It is anonymously registered to Domains By Proxy, LLC in Scottsdale.[42] Vandersloot also cannot be considered a reliable source for documents allegedly published by US government offices. Additionally, the text itself contains no tangible details and serves no purpose. Lastly, it wouldn't be appropriate to include VanderSloot's self-published slagging of reporting from bona fide news/journalism sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)