Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

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

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

Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates

I see that in this edit, a cite from Antiwar.com was removed on the grounds of being self-published. It was removed from the bio of Chip Berlet, the main attraction at Political Research Associates, which is abundantly cited as a source all over Wikipedia. This seems ironic to me because I can see no structural difference between Antiwar and PRA. They are both highly opinionated commentary sites. Why is one better than the other? --Niels Gade (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I also can see no difference. It appears to be a case of goose and gander. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Echos of the disparate treatment of Frontpage Magazine and MMFA and FAIR. But it's hardly news that Wikipedia editors have net group biases. But Chip Berlet has a special history, as it seems it was a long-term project of SlimVirgin and a like-minded claque of admins to abuse and manipulate BLP policy to the detriment of NPOV in that article, among others. Andyvphil (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, antiwar.com doesn't count as self-published. It might count as a source of dubious reliability; however, there is certainly no difference between quoting the editor of that site and the editor of Publiceye.com. I'd like to disassociate myself from Andy's remarks above, though, as I don't know the facts (also, its clique). Certainly, if PRA is overused, people should feel free to remove it. Relata refero (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, claque does work in this context. --Niels Gade (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you're right. Relata refero (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any conclusion here that PRA is an unreliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We were discussing self-publishing, actually. And we usually wait a bit before deciding there's no consensus. People check this noticeboard on irregular schedules. Relata refero (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Some editors are pointing to this thread as a reason to deleted sourced material. I was simply pointing out that that is premature. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone have particular cases where they felt the PRA was used improperly as a source, for comparison? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. PRA is overused as a source, and often in ways which violate WP:BLP. There are two persons who are professional anti-LaRouche activists, Dennis King and Chip Berlet, who both have websites with arguably slanderous attacks on LaRouche. PRA is Berlet's website, and King's website has been discussed before on this page (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org.) (PRA, for example, features defamatory leaflets with instructions to print them out and distribute them at LaRouche events, not the sort of thing you would expect from a scholarly source.[1]) These attacks do not appear in the conventional press, so these two persons have opened Wikipedia accounts (User:Dking and User:Cberlet) to use Wikipedia to get greater exposure for their views. They are joined in this effort by User:Will Beback and User:Hardindr. The idea appears to be to use Wikipedia to "expose" LaRouche, since the conventional media are not doing this to their satisfaction. Material from the the websites in question is spammed into all LaRouche-related articles [2][3] [[4] in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. I think that use of PRA should be scaled way back to a level that corresponds to its notability, and never for material that conflicts with BLP -- I do not believe that PRA meets the standards required by WP:BLP. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dennis King and Chip Berlet have been professional investigative journalists, and are the acknowledged experts on Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. They've been quoted at least dozens of times in the mainstream press. King is the author of the only full-length biography, which was published by a major publishing house, Doubleday & Co. Berlet is a longtime researcher for Political Research Associates, which also meets our standards of a reliable publishing source. Some editors have tried repeatedly to have these two authors considered unreliable sources and have never succeeded.(Isn't there a statute of limitations?) Yet they haven't proven that the authors have been factually incorrect in any straighforward reporting. The reason that they are used in all the LaRouche articles is that they are the leading researchers of the LaRouche movement. Their viewpoints on LaRouche are not different from all the other reliable sources, and are consistent with the usual reporting. What erroneous material has PRA published that shows they are unreliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Who "acknowledges" them as "the experts"?

2. It looks to me like King's website was rejected as a self-published source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org.

3. PRA is loaded with what WP:BLP calls "a conjectural interpretation of a source," i.e., rampant editorializing and conspiracy theory. PRA might be acceptable in many cases for non-controversial material, but what King, Berlet and Will Beback have consistently done is use it as a source for a fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism, which has been noted by outside observers as a particular tactic of Berlet and PRA against all of their targets. As is noted at the beginning of this discussion, Activist Justin Raimondo has written that "Berlet is professional political hit man whose specialty is smearing anyone outside the traditional left-right categories as an extremist, at best, and a nascent Nazi at worst."[5] This is why PRA should be used sparingly and with particular caution in BLP articles. Will Beback is completely mistaken to say that "Their viewpoints on LaRouche are not different from all the other reliable sources." --Niels Gade (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you want me to plaster a talk page with all of he times that Berlet and King have been cited? I'll do so if that convinces you.

Being cited in an article isn't the same as being "acknowledged as the experts." I would be interested in seeing reliably sourced commentary that says they are "the experts." --Niels Gade (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

2. I don't see a consensus there. I see one editor piping in, but without a full understanding of our policies.

3. I don't think you are accurately describing my actions. The whole concept of "fringe theories" concerning LaRouche is a bit humorous, considering how many fringe theories he's come up with and how frequently he's describned as "fringe". Raimondo is hardly an objective commentator. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How would you describe your actions? What is inaccurate in Niels' description? --Terrawatt (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been advancing the "fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You have supported King and Berlet when they do it. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you substantiate that accusation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, you have vehemently defended the use of King's book as a source.[6][7][8] King's book is simply a very long essay defending this fringe theory. The mere fact that something has been published by a large publishing house does not make it automatically a suitable source for BLP. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That book is the best, most reliable source we have for the life of Lyndon LaRouche. Being published by a major publishing house does, in fact, make it a suitable source for a BLP. I have certainly not sought to advance the theory that that "behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But the book you are promoting does advance that theory. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that using the book as a source is the same as "promoting" it. I haven't written an article about it, or any other promotional actitivity. I have defended it's use as a source. No one has presented any verifibale factual errors on the book, and Niels Gade himself has confirmed facts from it. No one is suggesting that there's a more reliable 3rd-party source for the life of LaRouche. If you call using the book as a source "promotion" then are those editors who use LaRouche-published books and articles "promoting" them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes, if they are using them in articles outside of the "LaRouche-related" articles. King's book is a reliable source on King's views, and would certainly be acceptable in the article on Dennis King. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Using a reliable source isn't promoting it. The job of Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Dennis King and Chip Berlet's books and articles are reliable sources written by acknowledged experts on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. Using their work is no different than using a NY Times or Washington Post article. Though, of course, I know you regard those as unreliable too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. May I ask how you happened to arrive at this conclusion about me? --Marvin Diode (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I wrong? Do you consider such mainstream media as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, or NBC to be reliable sources on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes to both questions, and I have said so explicitly. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Break

<unindent-Perhaps I misunderstood this comment of yours:

• Major publications are not above conducting dirty tricks campaigns where politics is involved -- this has been true for a long time, and not likely to change soon. [9]

It appeared that you were denying that major publications were a reliable source. What did you mean and in reference to which publications? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant just what I said. We have to use major publications as a source, unless there are peer-reviewed journals or some other, stronger source available. As you may recall, in my request for arbitration[10] I proposed that "when [King's or Berlet's] views have appeared in mainstream publications, those may be used as sources and would not be disputed (this satisfies the requirements of WP:REDFLAG.)" I emphatically disagree with your statement that using the websites of King or Berlet "is no different than using a NY Times or Washington Post article." This doesn't mean, of course, that I consider the NY Times, Washington Post or Wall Street journal to be infallible. Mature editorial judgment should be excercised with any source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not say that I have "confirmed facts" from King's book, as if that makes it a reliable source. The book may correctly say that February is the second month of the calendar year; that doesn't in any way excuse the fact that it is full of outrageous, propagandistic speculation and innuendo. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You have confirmed facts from the book. You have not offered any evidence that there are factual errors in it. The book meets WP's standards for a reliable source. However that book isn't the topic of this thread. It has already been discussed before and there's no need to keep bringing it up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to put things in perspective, has anyone offered any evidence that there are factual errors in the LaRouche publications? I don't believe that this is the sole criterion for use of a source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Clippings of factual errors promoted by LaRouche.

• On the talk show, LaRouche blamed the Soviet Union for engineering what he termed the the AIDS "conspiracy." "There is no question that it can be transmitted by mosquitoes," LaRouche said, citing as supporting evidence the high incidence of the disease in Africa, the Caribbean and southern Florida.
• On the KGO talk show, LaRouche pointed to the "insect-bite belt," which he said includes Florida and the Caribbean. "In the insect-bite belt, we have a very large transmission of AIDS among poor people," he said. "The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta has been suppressing this evidence."
• Indeed, Secretary of State March Fong Eu said last week she would challenge in court "blatantly false" sections of the ballot argument for Proposition 64 submitted by LaRouche backers, including claims that "AIDS is not hard to get," and that potential insect and respiratory transmission of the disease and transmission by casual contact are "well established."

Do you want to argue that he was correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You aren't addressing Marvin's question. The issue is not LaRouche's personal opinions. The question is about fact-checking at Executive Intelligence Review or other LaRouche publications. Do you have evidence of factual errors in those publications? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We can spend more time investigating the LaRouche movement's claims about diseases if we ever seek to use the EIR as a reliable source. Of course, if you have any citations from EIR disputing LaRouche's incorrect statements then that might help their reputation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If EIR is accurately reporting an opinion by LaRouche, that does not discredit EIR as a source, regardless of whether LaRouche's opinion is credible or not. I asked you for examples of cases where EIR reported something as fact which turned out to be incorrect. You are applying a completely different set of standards to LaRouche publications than you do to the self-citing by King and Berlet. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to an archive of back issues of EIR or other LaRouche periodicals. Since no one is proposing using EIR as a reliable source, it seems like moot point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would propose using EIR as a source, judiciously and appropriately, just as I would use King and Berlet as sources, judiciously and appropriately. Alternatively, I would propose using none of them. --Niels Gade (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Treating EIR as a relaible source would require overturning or altering an ArbCom case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Which arbcom case? If there are restrictions on the use of EIR as a source, the same restrictions ought to apply to PRA et al. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. I'd like to know whether Wikipedia applies policy consistently. --Marvin Diode (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please link to the arbcom case you mentioned? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Other thread

1. I have no problem with using King and Berlet as a source when they are cited by legitimate publications, because those publications may be expected to excercise some discretion about which of their theories are suitable for responsible publication. The Kronberg interview you mention below has not appeared anywhere, to my knowledge, outside of the PRA site.

2. I see a consensus.

3. Actually, I think it is quite appropriate to compare LaRouche with Berlet as "fringe" commentators. In fact, both of them frequently describe their opponents as neo-fascists or proto-fascists. The difference is that I have not seen quotes from LaRouche plastered all over Wikipedia. The quotes from LaRouche appear to be confined mainly to the articles about LaRouche and his organization. I think it would be appropriate if quotes from PRA and Chip Berlet were largely limited to articles Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates. As far as Raimondo is concerned, would you say that he is less objective than Berlet? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Who are the participatns in this consensus you see?

3. I'm not sure what the point is of comparing the reliablility of two sources. As for Raimondo, he appears to be more of a commentator than an investigative journalist. Michael Rubin of Frontpagemag.com says, "Citing statements replicated in recent Mujahedin-e Khalq publications brings as much credibility as quoting from Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review. Quality of sourcing always matters: Justin Raimondo is hardly a trustworthy authority.[11]" His footnote goes to an article titled "Justin Raimondo: An American Neo-Fascist", written by Stephen Schwartz. Do you think he's a reliable source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You're now quoting FPM, unquestionably a fringe, unreliable source, to point out that another source is too fringe to talk about a third fringe source notable only for studying a fourth fringe source. Listen to me very carefully: theyre all unreliable. Will, there's nobody else opposing that statement. Relata refero (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

FPM is about as "fringe, unreliable" as CounterPunch. Perhaps you'd like to remove the hundreds of citations we have for CounterPunch at the same time you take on FPM? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? I'm talking about the problem's with Will's argument. I'm not using Twinkle to suppress links to FPM. Relata refero (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the problems with your argument. FPM is no more "fringe, unreliable" than CounterPunch, and Wikipedia seems to have decided that CounterPunch is neither "fringe" nor "unreliable". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh? When was this? rudra (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Kronberg interview

The dicussion above is rather vague and compares the position of one source versus another. On a more specific point: is there any reason why this interview on PRA with Marielle Kronberg should not be considered a reliable source for her words? Does anyone assert that the interview is faked or altered? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as this interview is not considered the absolute truth as is quoted only to show the opinions of Marielle Kronberg, and if the opinion of this lady is relevant for the Wikipedia article where it is intended to be added, I don't see any reason to avoid the usage of this interview as a source.--MariusM (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have indicated elsewhere that I don't object to it appearing in one article, but spamming it into every LaRouche-related article is undue weight. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't object to the sourcing why did you just remove it from an article, claiming a sourcing issue? "the sourcing issues are discussed at WP:RSN#Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates. The only actual criticism is sourced to PRA. The rest of the paragraph is context."[12] If there's no sourcing issue then please restore it. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Parodies

Are parody news sources, like The Onion, SNL News, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report considered reliable sources for criticism of people or organizations? They cannot be easily rebutted because of their satirical nature. Arzel (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

They are sources only about themselves. If they are a canonical example of a notable or widespread form of satire regarding the subject, then they could perhaps be cited as an example thereof, but ideally only if there is an independent source identifying it as such. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a third party using then as a source for criticism. For example. B criticizes A regarding some scenario, A responds to B about that scenario. C (The parody source) lampoons the scenario which makes A look stupid or relfects badly against A and subsequently makes B look good. B then uses C as evidence against in its criticism against A. Can the Paradoy source C be used as a reliable source for B to reflect the POV of B against A? Arzel (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Having drawn a small flowchart on a table napkin, I am ready to answer you now: No, not unless D, a reliable secondary source, tells us that C is a notable expression of the reaction to A and B's conflict. Could we look at the specific example to see if I got that right? Relata refero (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, you wouldn't happen to be talking about this topic would you? (link) R. Baley (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the example. B is Media Matters criticizing A Limbaugh (who, don't get me wrong, I think is an arrogant jerk). A responds, claiming his word were taken out of context. C parodies the situation, which B uses to criticize A from a type of strawman point of view. My main problem with this use of a parody in this sense is that those that do parodies could be used as a reliable source in many situations to denagrate one side or the other. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that that would be an appropriate source for a genuine report on the disagreement between A and B. (Though I am sympathetic to the view that C's opinion of the disagreement might in itself be notable.) Relata refero (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• My view is that Parodies are works of fiction, and cannot be treated as evidence of real-world evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So, would the general concensus be that parodies cannot be used as a reliable source for describing a real-world situation. Or to put it more bluntly, parodies cannot be used as a reliable source of criticism against a real person, unless the parody itself reaches a level of notability itself, in which case the parody becomes its own story? Arzel (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Help URGENTLY needed at History of Sumer / Aratta - Serious Problem has been ongoing for one week, don't all ignore this at once

Help is urgently needed at History of Sumer. I have been having immense difficulties trying to explain WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR to a new user who for many days now has repeatedly removed a reference to the view of Samuel Kramer, and replaced it with uncited, dubious OR statements that he refuses to cite. He has removed the citation requests I placed on these statements numerous times, holding his personal authority sufficient to make these claims. And every time I remove the uncited OR statements, he immediately replaces them again without any citation needed tags, and round and round in circles it goes for days without end. On the talkpage discussion, he insists that he doesn't need any sources, but that I am the one who needs to look up reliable sources contradicting him, if I want to remove these uncited statements. Everywhere I have turned for help, I am met with stony disinterest and "just get along" type advice, and the new user seems to be "learning" that all of this behaviour is acceptable and tolerable on wikipedia as long as few people are paying attention who will challenge him. Please help! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the above RS problem that is still outstanding and still needs attention, I now have an additional RS problem at Lapis armenus with the same user who is blanking references, edit warring and accusing me of vandalism there as well. Please take a look at the references that I have added to that article and see if they look to be in order. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been editing History of Sumer, since reading the first paragraph here, and there are some indications of progress in defusing a fairly heated edit war. I don't have time to look at this other page though. Msalt (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, maybe I was naively optimistic. Page is now protected. Msalt (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You've done really well though, Msalt. Hats off to your patience. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Msalt (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, now we have another problem with the same user blanking RSS he doesn't like at Aratta and adding the same identical WP:SYNT as at the first article. I am sorry to say the whole situation seems to be getting worse, not better. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the kind of problem that will just go away if everybody ignores it, folks. For about a month or two now, many articles pertaining to Sumer are being systematically dismantled, scholarly references are being chucked, and replaced with idiosyncratic, never-published OR arguments by a user who has thus far been held to a much lower standard than anyone else I have ever seen on wikipedia in my 3 years of editing. Who is this guy anyway? I was blocked merely for reporting his (not my) 4RR violation on one occasion, so from that I can gather it's someone pretty high up with the "connections"...? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference experts needed for above ongoing (3 week) problem

I have added the following reliable references to Talk:Aratta establishing conclusively that the POV does indeed, really, honest-to-god, actually exist and can be found in scholarly literature that the Sumerian Aratta may be connected with the Sanskrit Aratta. However, the same user has determined that this POV is inadmissible and cannot be seen on wikipedia because his POV is different; thus he has found what he considers fatal flaws with the arguments in each of these experts and apparently will not suffer any of this to be mentioned in the article Aratta at all, even though they are serious references from well known authors including D. D. Kosambi and Malati Shendge. Could someone please take a moment to click on each of the following pages and please verify that the scholarly discussion marked by the highlighted terms does constitute speculation that the two Arattas may be the same?? -- I feel this POV should not be excluded from the article on such facetious grounds as the say-so of one particular editor who seems to fancy himself the sole arbiter of such questions. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Malati J. Shendge, 2003
2. Alexander Jacob 2005
3. D.D. Kosambi 1995
4. Sanujit Ghose, 2004

This represents only those sources I can find accessible through Google-books; there are a great many more scholarly references there that are not accessible except in "snippet view", so clicking the above research pages is only scratching the surface. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am still trying to get even one third opinion on these references that the user claims must not be mentioned. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I am STILL trying to get even one third opinion on these reliable references that the user claims must not be mentioned. Dr. Koenraad Elst and Professor Michael Witzel who are both considered quite mainstream can now be added to the list of experts that this user very haughtily has declared his own personal opinions and original POV to be superior to. The total silence from this board these last 3 or 4 weeks has been deafening, the two-man edit stalemate at Aratta continues and all attempts to find third opinions on the references have failed, so I can feel arbitration coming just around the corner. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Mediation, rather than arbitration, would probably be the next step. While I can acknowledge that the statements above certainly seem, to my comparatively uneducated eyes, good enough to source content related to them, I am far from knowledgable enough to say that they might constitute a scholarly consensus. But the sources do look good enough for inclusion, at least to my eyes. If there are any others who are more expert in this area, I would welcome their input as well. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have now gone to Mediation cabal as a preliminary step. So far all he has to dispute these expert sources with, is his own opinions, it's not like he has come up with any sources at all to dispute them for him, so it should be a cinch whenever it finally comes time to lay our cards down. It's just that this stalemate has been dragging on for something like a month with no end in sight. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is an excellent idea. Having spent a little time there trying to calm things down, I urge Til Eulenspiegel to consider how s/he may also be responsible for some of the fighting. There is room for improved civility on all sides, regardless of who is "right" or wrong on content issues. Msalt (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA may not be a reliable source

I was reading some quotes cited to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, and I found a few problems related to the ongoing "Jewish lobby" headache.

• This CAMERA blog article [13], uses the term "Jewish lobby", and links to an op-ed piece in the Guardian [14] which uses the term, which in turn links to the actual report, which does not use the term. See Report of the All-Party Inquiry into Antisemitism (UK) The closest the report gets is "An example of this would be remarks about the Israel lobby. No-one would seek to deny that there is well-organised support for Israel in Britain, but in some quarters this becomes inflated to the point where discourse about the ‘lobby’ resembles discourse about a world Jewish conspiracy."

• CAMERA quotes Desmond Tutu saying, in a speech in Boston:

"People are scared in this country to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful, very powerful. Well, so what?...Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin...were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."[15]

This speech from Bishop Desmond Tutu was also reported by the BBC. Interestingly, CAMERA appears to have dropped a line from the middle of the quote. The BBC quotes him as saying:

"People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. "Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."[16]

CAMERA dropped the bolded text, which distorts the meaning a bit. Tutu was speaking against Israeli apartheid at the time.

So I'd suggest that using CAMERA as a reliable source for quotations is somewhat iffy. What comes out of CAMERA may not be what went in. CAMERA may be useful as a finding tool (they're powered by Google), but actual quotes should come from a less partisan source. CAMERA's output is mostly derived from other press sources, so if CAMERA has something, there's probably another source for it. --John Nagle (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

three little dots... make all the difference. The difference between reliability and unrelibility. They put in the elipses. Ergo, they are rleiable. Unreliable sources are the ones that omit material without elipses. The way the old Soviet Union used to airbrush purged politicans out of the photoAmerican Clio (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

IMO, CAMERA is generally a reliable source for opinions and interpretations, as long as they're attributed in the text to CAMERA. On questions of fact they are dubious at best, and certainly not appropriate for quotations of living people. <eleland/talkedits> 17:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See also MEMRI above. Pretty much any quotefarm from an advocacy source should be double-checked with reference to the original documents. Relata refero (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA is reasonably reliable, but one must recognize that they are an advocacy group. They're obviously not an academic source, or a major news outlet. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA should be treated the similarly to organizations such as CAIR. Both have distinct ideological perspectives, but they usually get their quotations correct. -- Avi (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd use both CAMERA and CAIR for information on themselves and their communities. For example, CAIR can be quoted on itself and Muslims in America. It should not be used for information on Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. (except when decribing their relations with Muslims). I agree with Avi that I'd treat both partisan organizations similarly.Bless sins (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Screen caps of end credits

Are these reliable? They change regularly and can vary by channel. For example NBC, ABC, and CBS all broadcast soaps which are rebroadcast on SOAPnet. The credits are different on the broadcast stations from what they are on SoapNet. So, are screen caps considered reliable? KellyAna (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since they are created by the show's producers, I can't see why the credits from the latest first-run episodes wouldn't be the most reliable sources possible for the names of characters and the actors and actresses that portray them. Unless there's a large body of evidence that can be posted on Wikipedia from the show's dialogue itself that contradicts the latest credits, those credits should be the most reliable source for information regarding television programs. -- Dougie WII (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The credits should reflect the attached show (similar to the "cite the book you're holding" standard -- base your edits on the paperback you're holding and tell us it's the paperback and not the hardcover edition). Being different on different presentations may be due to contractual, style, or editing differences. It's possible for the appearance to be different while having the same content; there are now advantages to using reformatted credits so they can be displayed in different formats (so the next show or commercials can fit on the screen during credits). I don't know how much detail is needed in articles; I don't know if movie articles describe all of the alterations made to fit a movie to broadcast TV or airline requirements. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please expandon or link to that "cite the book you're holding" standard please? It seems that KellyAna is making the assertion that anything you see on a television program yourself (or in secondary sources) is less important than the website associated with it. Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The "cite the book you're holding" standard basically means that, using KellyAna's soap example above, you would specifically reference the credits you are citing as being from ABC, SoapNet, etc., so that even if they differ for a given day for some reason, it is clear which source the info is from. In the case of books, obviously a page number referenced for a quote will differ from edition to edition, so noting the edition/ISBN would be crucial when citing page numbers. — TAnthony^Talk 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a violation of WP:NOR to me. Dlabtot (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't a television screen capture a published source, just as a book is? -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not according to my understanding of the word published. Published by whom? A television station, cable or satellite company broadcasts a program, and a Wikipedia editor screen captures the closing credits of that program. Who is the secondary source? It seems like the epitome of original research to me. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We can certainly cite the credits listed at the end of a television program... The airing of a program is considered equivalent to "publication", and the TV program itself is a reliable source for what is stated in that TV program. As to the NOR issue, citing something you see on a TV program is no more a NOR violation than citing a book or webpage you read. It isn't a conclusion or synthesis originating from a Wikipedia editor. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm misunderstanding WP:NOR. I didn't think I was able to use my own reading and interpretation of a book as a source for an article about that book. Of course you can cite a book in reference to the books subject, but that's not what we are talking about here. I guess I'll pose the question at WT:NOR. Dlabtot (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If a screenshot couldn't be used as a reliable source, how could any exist on Wikipedia then? How could anyone prove a screen shot picture of, say, Darth Vader was really accurate? Under your scheme it would all be original research. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion may be getting off track with this "other stuff exists" argument. I can't imagine a situation where someone would dispute the accuracy of this screen shot. However, I definitely take issue with the proposition that a production's credits should automatically be considered reliable as a source for an encyclopedia article about that production. Many credits are fictitious, jokes, pseudonyms, etc. Who played the "Victim in the Field" in Fargo? If you went by the credits you would never have heard of J. Todd Anderson. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The key word is "interpretation". Simple statements of fact (such as who played what role, who the director was, or where the show was filmed, etc.) about what appears in the credits do not involve any "interpretation". In fact, the similarity to a book or website is more exact here... unlike the rest of a TV program, the credits are in print format. We can read them in exactly the same way we read a book. No, looking at the closing credits is "Sourced based research" not "Original research". Now, if you were to go "beyond the source", and state (for example) that all members of the production team were of Irish descent, because everyone listed in the credits seems to have Irish names... that would be OR. Do you see the difference? Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, if we assume that referencing the credits is not OR, I am wondering about verifiability. If I were to state in an article that Meryl Streep played Erica Kane on All My Children for a day on February 4 2008 based on my viewing of the episode and noting the credits, is that verifiable if the episode will probably never be broadcast and never be available on DVD? Or is the threshhold that a copy of the program exists somewhere, and although an everyday person may not have the resources/access to confirm it, the possibility exists? Although we know that a source does not have to be available online to be reliable/verifiable, KellyAna has more or less made the convincing argument elsewhere that if a website does exist, it should perhaps trump an "as seen on TV" reference (which is not so easily verified), regardless of which source is technically more accurate.

I am just thinking that as much as a screencap is obvious "proof" that could be used between editors to clarify a dispute, I doubt that in most cases a fair use screencap of credits would have an appropriate place within an article just for the purpose of such clarification. This actually is one element of the discussion that prompted KellyAna and Dougie WII to dicuss the issue here. — TAnthony^Talk 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your question is good in a general sense, but in this specific case of Passions, the episodes are available for up to eight weeks online, a source already determined to be valid. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but months from now when the series is no longer airing ... I'm also looking at the bigger picture, there are several articles which reference things like "so-and-so noted his birthday as May 15 in the May 1 2007 episode" which are not noted in the official site recaps, and so are not readily verified. — TAnthony^Talk 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

When a TV series no longer airs, it is extremely rare that it completely disappears. It may be available on Video, it may be accessible at a public repository such as a Museum of Film and Television. As long as someone could access it without undue difficulty (and that someone does not have to be "you"), the information is still verifiable. And as long as the information is still verifiable, the show itself remains a reliable source for such statements.

Sure, it might turn out that the episode completely disappears for some reason, and if that happens (ie if the show becomes unverifiable) we would need to revisit the question of reliability of the source. But I think we should deal with that question when and if it actually happens.

In this specific case, because it is available on line... we can probably recall it through Wayback Machine, which can retrieve the information that was on a web site on any given date... (Truth in Advertizing: I am not sure how Wayback works, never having used it, but I gather that it does work.) if so, then the show will never be completely lost. Blueboar (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wayback will indeed recover historical pages that have been archived by its bots, but you can't recover the kind of video material we're talking about, which is copyrighted and thus protected from this kind of archiving (I'm talking about the legitimate network sites and iTunes). Not to beat the hell out of this argument (too late, LOL) but obviously with a book, movie or a great deal of TV shows, a regular person could hit a library or a video store. The only place to find an outdated daytime soap episode (outside of a viewer's personal recording) would probably be the network and/or studio's own archive (assuming the Museum of Film and Television doesn't have every episode of the shows that have run daily for 30+ years). Obviously someone can access such tapes, but are they accessible enough? I do think with non-controversial info not likely to be challenged, we can take information on good faith. However I'm not sure whether this level of verifiability could withstand a challenge, as is happening at Talk:Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald#Requested move. I personally am compelled to agree with Dougie WII and Blueboar that if it exists somewhere accessible to someone, it is verifiable. But again, is there some precedent or consensus somewhere with which we can back this up? — TAnthony^Talk 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rare out-of-print books available in only a limited number of private hands and locked up in special areas of few libraries would still be verifiable no? -- Dougie WII (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Nation article re: Daniel Pipes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Per Blueboar, this has gone about as far as we can go. Consensus demonstrated that The Nation is reliable enough for BLPs. Relata refero (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

---

On the follow paragraph below, is the source from The Nation reliable for what it is being used for? Another user said because the author of the article does not have other articles online published and is not a scholar, that it is an unreliable source. And obviously the article, like many on Fox News, is written with a bias--but that doesn't make it unreliable for the context it is used in. I just need more opinion as to if the source is unable or not.

According to journalist Kristine McNeil in The Nation, Pipes has anti-Arab views. He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most," and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers."

Thanks.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to violating WP:RS, it violates WP:BLP. Something this poorly sourced might be all right for a Pokemon article, but not for a living person, when it contains potentially defamatory material. IronDuke 01:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would allow the McNeil column to be used as a representation of what some of Pipes' critics think about him rather than as a representation of what Wikipedia thinks of him. The Nation column does include the quotes from Pipes that are claimed to be there, and the reader can verify that those quotes actually came from Pipes' columns by referring to the columns themselves, which are linked (one to Pipes' own web site, and the other to NationalReview.com, where the column was published). However, I would rephrase the passage as follows:

In a column in The Nation, writer Kristine McNeil described Pipes as having "anti-Arab" views. McNeil cited columns in which Pipes described the customs of Muslim immigrants as being "more troublesome than most" and referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers".

Note that McNeil's bionote on The Nation web site describes her occupation as "writer" (as opposed to "journalist"), and my proposed rephrasing is intended to indicate that this is all based on McNeil's characterization of Pipes' comments rather than our own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, M90. The Nation is a reliable source, and material from McNeil's piece may be used without violating WP:BLP as long as the attribution is clear and accurate (as you have done). NSH001 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that looks acceptable by wiki standards.Bless sins (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly acceptable :) Taprobanus (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, is it ever not acceptable, drive-by ditto-heading aside. Metro, would you consider saying "Writer Kristine McNeil does not believe in evolution, preferring to explain biology in terms of intelligent design" in the evolution article? Why not? She is, after all, a writer, who actually managed to get one article published in a partisan magazine six years ago. You see how silly it looks? Is she any more of an authority on Pipes than she is on evolution? As far as I know, she isn't. IronDuke 23:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was an article - one of not very many - actually published in a reliable source discussing evolution itself as opposed to mentioning it in passing, then yes.

Please be civil about community input. "Drive-by ditto-heading" is people taking time out to review a problem and give their opinion. It is reasonable in such a situation to accept that the community seems to disagree, and attempt to either change its mind or to move on, instead of being rude. Relata refero (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what RR said, there is a mature and robust scientific consensus behind the theory of evolution, which has stood for at least 85 years (to put it conservatively.) Thus, it would be a violation of NPOV to dote on this or that contrarian writer, even if they were an expert on the subject matter (cf Michael Behe.) There is no such robust consensus behind the claim that Daniel Pipes doesn't habitually bash Arabs and Muslims. In fact, a number of reliable sources have reported on his being called anti-Arab or Islamophobic; USA Today, Jerusalem Post, Public Radio, etc. To say nothing of al-Ahram and Dar al Hayat, which are notable enough sources even without the more reliable Western papers. Clearly, Pipes is an extremely controversial figure who has been accused by many Arab and pro-Arab sources of being an outright bigot. WP's biography of him should reflect that, while not taking sides in the controversy. <eleland/talkedits> 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note I don't like the rather vacuous phrase "Anti-Arab", nor do I really believe it is applicable in this case, but as I have subsequently mentioned (and provided) on the article talkpage, there are several academic sources that use the phrase in Pipes' context as well. Relata refero (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I’ve been neither rude nor uncivil. I don’t believe people posting “yeah me too” in such a situation is useful. I would say, further, that false allegations of incivility ratchet up the temperature and also, given that you just responded to me on the Daniel Pipes talk page with an edit summary of “rot” – actual and obvious incivility there -- you might consider practicing before preaching in future.

As to the substance of your points, we have more than enough sources which are critical of Pipes. We don’t need any fringe ones. And that you would be willing to publish a non-scientist’s view as a legitimate criticism of evolution is troubling; it suggests to me that you fail to understand some core policies.

Eleland: I’m all for reliable sources, whatever they may say. Kristine McNeil is not a reliable source: does anyone here want to dispute that? IronDuke 00:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Pipe's listing of dangerous academics was a political act and within the realm of politics, I find the source in question reliable. But also make sure to include the possible praises Pipes has received from his friends for doing this and give it a balance. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You just heard five independent editors disputing that; forgive the bluntness, but what is your <personal attack deleted>? <eleland/talkedits> 00:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll actually not forgive the "bluntness" if it's all the same to you. Five users? You mean 4 POV-pushing editors and a drive-by amen can overturn core policy? News to me. And you haven't answered my question. IronDuke 00:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Core policy hasn't been violated; you haven't made a case that it is even affected here. The Nation is considered a reliable source; please re-read the footnote to WP:RS that deals with the various meanings of "source". This McNeil person, whoever she was, nevertheless was considered a notable opinion by a reliable periodical, and her piece was subject to editorial control and fact-checking that we expect. Also note that this is far from a marginal viewpoint, however incorrect it may be. (Ample evidence has been provided here and on the article talkpage.) Please also explain who precisely are "the four POV-pushers" here. It would be nice for those of us with no opinion to know. Relata refero (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Nation is indeed a reliable source (allbeit one with a distinct political slant). How one phrases the information (so that it comes across in a NPOV manner) can be worked out in the article talk page... but the information itself comes from a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

One more time, show of hands please: who here thinks that Kristine McNeil is a reliable source? On any topic? IronDuke 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be misinterpreting WP:V. It's not the writer who's the reliable source, it's the publication: a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You might not like what the writer has written, but the piece in question is clearly one that has successfully made it through the publication's editorial process. As such, it counts as a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only was McNeil's article considered noteworthy by a reliable periodical (The Nation), the article is also included as reference in Mearsheimer and Walt's "The Israel Lobby", a controversial yet nevertheless serious and reliable source. [[17]]. BernardL (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bernard, thanks for that. Can you say in what context they referenced her work? Also, do you believe she is a reliable source? And if so, why? IronDuke 22:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kristine McNeil is certainly a reliable source for her own opinion, and the fact that the opinion was published in the Nation makes it notable. In my opinion, User:Metropolitan90's phrasing complies with all the sourcing, attribution and WP:BLP requirements. Abecedare (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

But by that standard, all published writers everywhere can be quoted in any article, BLP or no, as long as we make it clear it's only their opinion; we must have a higher standard, I think, especially in a BLP. IronDuke 23:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that is a slippery slope straw man argument, becuase WP:RS is just one criterion for inclusion of content and not everything that can be reliably sourced deserves to be in an article. Some other guidelines that we need to consider are:

• WP:UNDUE: for example if McNeil had written an article in the Nation on George W. Bush, it would most probably be undue to cite her opinion in the wikipedia article since we have so many other, more notable opinions and sources available. AFAIK, this is not the case in this instance.
• WP:REDFLAG: if McNeil had made wild, out-of-the left-field or potentially libelous claims (such as "X is a drug addict" or "Y is a Arab spy") we would require multiple, unimpeachable, factual (i.e. non-opinion pieces) sources before even considering inclusion, and we would not simply phrase the content as "McNeil thinks Y is an Arab spy" etc. Again this does not seem to be the case.

The above list is simply illustrative, and not exhaustive. Hope that makes the picture clearer for you. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, McNeil does make "wild, out-of-the left-field [and] potentially libelous claims". She writes, e.g., "Pipes is also a regular contributor to the website of Gamla, an organization founded by former Israeli military officers and settlers that endorses the ethnic cleansing of every Palestinian as 'the only possible solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict." GAMLA does nothing of the sort and Pipes is in any case not a regular contributor to GAMLA's website. Since the Nation 's fact checking process was clearly not applied sucessfully to this article this article should not be considered reliable for the truth of any factual claim made in it. That said, the Nation 's website is a RS for the content of the article, and to the extent that the article is mentioned in secondary sources (e.g., claims are made and attributed to it) we can mention its content. But only in the context of supplying the evidence that it is a tendentious piece of crap. Andyvphil (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke- The reference to McNeil in The Israel Lobby is one of four references attached to the following paragraph:

"The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach. In September 2002, for example, Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, two passionately pro-Israel neoconservatives, established a website (Campus Watch) that posted dossiers on suspect academics and encouraged students to report comments or behavior that might be considered hostile to Israel.94 This transparent attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars prompted a harsh reaction and Pipes and Kramer later removed the dossiers, but the website still invites students to report alleged anti-Israel behavior at U.S. colleges."BernardL (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, Bernard. I would say 1) Walt & Mearsheimer are incredibly hostile to people like Pipes and 2) Even they do not appear to be using flagrantly loaded owrds like "Anti-Arab". IronDuke 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to go on record supporting a "Writer" with no discernible qualifications other than one article in a partisan opinion magazine six years ago please feel free to sign below. IronDuke 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, I can see clear consensus here. 6+ editors have told you that the nation article is a reliable source. It is time that you respect consensus.--Be happy!! (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The source here is The Nation. To say that this article is merely Kristine McNeil's "own opinion" is saying that The Nation lacks editors and standards. Metropolitan90's wording seems like a good compromise toward Wikipedians who do not like what McNeil is saying. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, by publishing McNeil without severe editing The Nation indicated it has very low standards, and needs to be treated as a highly questionable source. Andyvphil (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK folks, it is time to stop this. The question has been asked and clearly answered. The Nation (and by extension the McNeil article) is reliable. You don't have to like the answer, but that answer isn't going to change. I suggest that we close discussion on this topic. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi all:

As I have recently been threatened with a block for posting here from an administrator with whom I have had frequent disagreements in the past, I can no longer comfortably contribute to this thread without the risk of what I think would be a huge, drama-creating incident that would drain far more resources than it would be worth. I’d like to both thank everyone who came here and contributed thoughtful and thought-provoking responses to what I wrote, and apologize for my inability to freely reply. IronDuke 23:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The Skeptic's Dictionary

• http://www.skepdic.com/
• Is this a reliable source? Specificly for the Afrocentrism article, is [18]? Yahel Guhan 19:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this question (about the Skeptic's Dictionary as a source) has come up before here, though I haven't looked through the archives. It would be worth seeing what people said last time - I seem to recall that the Skeptics' Dictionary was borderline acceptable so long as it was attributed in the text ("According to the Skeptic's Dictionary...") But that was on a different article - this situation may be different. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The article cited seems to me to be hopelessly inadequate as a summary of what is both a political movement and an academic current. Try academic writers instead. Mary Lefkowitz is suitable to use but is at one pole of the argument and needs to be balanced, e.g. by Martin Bernal. Vijay Prashad might be a useful source also Henry Louis Gates Jnr or if you can find anything by Stuart Hall (cultural theorist). Wikiproject Critical Theory might have some leads. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to the above discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Skeptic's dictionary. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin Bernal has some valid and well-researched observations on classical historiography. On classical history itself, he is WP:FRINGE, although extremely entertaining. I would not use the Skeptic's Dictionary to say so; his books have been extensively and negatively reviewed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the discussion, but basically what was said was that Robert Caroll is a published academic and indeed the Skeptics Dictionary is also a published book by a respected publishing house. This makes it by Wikipedia definition a reliable source. You can't take a source apart and say you can't use it for this but you can use it for that. And policy (not guidelines) says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." What was suggested in the discussion is that when used it would be best to write 'Robert Todd Carroll, in his (or maybe the) Skeptics' Dictinary, says...' So he may be right or he may be wrong, but either way, it doesn't matter, it can't be excluded. Where it is put is another matter. Please note that I am not saying he is wrong or right on this, just that using it is definitely allowed by Wikipedia policy, see WP:V.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Carrol is an academic and the book is published. It's contents may be right or wrong, but I can se no reason why it should not be citable. Paul B (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think that few sources should have a blanket approval as a reliable source -- and that in most cases they should be evaluated regarding quality and accuracy and expertise. In my experience, regarding a topic that I'm familiar with, Carroll's coverage of that topic was problematic, mostly relying on the sort of sources that Wikipedia disallows. Even as we were debating whether specific information from Carroll could be used in this specific article, Carroll removed the problematic material from his web site. I'd use Carroll with caution, and I'd look closely at the sources he uses. TimidGuy (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't take a source apart and say you can't use it for this but you can use it for that. -- actually, the policy says exactly the opposite: Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. Dlabtot (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As so often, there seems to be confusion about whether a source is citable as a legitimate academic opinion or whether it's citable as an accurate source of facts. The only issue is whether Carroll's is a citable opinion, not whether he is right. By the way, his main source on this topic is quoted at the top of the article, the very well respected critic of Afrocentrism, Clarence E. Walker. As for his having "removed the problematic material from his website", what do you mean? It still says what the quoted words say it says. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Carroll is not a creditable source. His specialty is philosophy, where he advocates atheism, scientific skepticism, and critical thinking. He is not a reliable source for african historiography, so he isn't reliable for this particular article. Yahel Guhan 05:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So you answer your own questions now do you? What he 'advocates' is irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I offer my opinion into the discussion. Is that allowed (even if I did start the thread)? Yahel Guhan 06:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Article subject-provided translation of subject-provided clippings

Resolved

Isha (spiritual teacher) is sourced almost exclusively to clippings hosted on the article-subject's site (www.isha.com) of Spanish-language clippings (most of which appear to be from obscure Latin-American glossy magazines -- thus themselves of often murky reliability), with translations into English provided by the subject's website. Can these be considered to be a reliable source within wikipedia policy? Does the potential for severe selection bias, due to the fact that the article-subject would generally provide the most favourable clippings, affect this assessment? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In (yet another) wholesale rewrite of this highly-unstable article, all the above-discussed sources have been replaced, rendering this issue moot. The replacements aren't wonderful (Spanish-language magazines) & only infrequently support the material, but that's an issue I can handle on my own. I would therefore like to close by thanking this noticeboard for the deep and detailed insights it offered. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity for Boys

An editor is particularly keen to use this document .[19] in a number of articles related to sexuality. The booklet is entitled "Masculinity for Boys, Resource Guide for Peer Educators, Published by UNESCO, New Delhi, 2006". As this indicates it is published through UNESCO, but the second page clearly states, "The opinion expressed in this documents [sic] are the reponsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of UNESCO New Delhi".

The text of this document is full of grand ex cathedra assertions. For example:

"The masculinity with which boys are born is natural masculinity. This is given by nature. However society has created a mechanism by which it does not acknowledge this masculinity."

"modern heterosexual societies take sexual exploitation of men to new heights - often with official sanction. Grown up boys and young men in the west are required to strip naked before female doctors, nurses and officials"

"Now ragging in the West almost always involve [sic] boys being forcibly stripped by girls (with the backing of male seniors) or being forced to masturbate in front of them".

I could add more passages, which seem to me to be very...eccentric. The general argument seems to be that it is natural for men to bond with other men, and to sexually desire them, but that the western distinction between "gay" and "straight" identity causes confusion for boys, who are also being sexually humiliated by over-assertive women, who are given power by this "heterosexualised" culture. In India traditional models of gender and sexual behaviour do not involve these problems, but India is being tainted by Western ideas.

However, my personal opinion of course is not a good reason to reject a source which has at least some claim to authoritative status via UNESCO. Any thoughts on how to evaluate this source? Paul B (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If its not a position paper by UNESCO Delhi, it doesn't have the UNESCO stamp. I don't see an author's name, so its totally unreliable. It doesn't appear particularly well-researched to me either. Relata refero (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the prominent UNESCO disclaimer and unknown authorship, I don't see how this document can be regarded as a reliable source for the subject. A little web sleuthing suggests that it was written by Alok Srivastava of "Youth Alliance for AIDS removal" (YAAR, an Indian NGO), but even if that proves to be true, it does not help in establishing the documents reliability. I think its use on wikipedia in not warranted especially since innumerable scholarly books and articles are available on the subject. Abecedare (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would strongly avoid use of this document because (1) the author is anonymous, (2) the publisher disclaims endorsement of the views expressed therein, and (3) its claims are contentious. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

An organisation like UNESCO doesn't just publish anything. If it has given its name to a document, and has published it using its own money, and is using the book in several of its programmes, and has gone out of its way to advertise the book on its websites as well put the entire text out on the net on its own website -- it is not an honour that it gives to many of its documents -- then it would be foolish or outright questionable to question its reliability.

Several UNESCO websites claim quite clearly that "The publication has been brought out jointly by UNESCO New Delhi and YAAR (a New Delhi based NGO working with youth), which deals with the issues of gender and sexual health of youth of India." Do you think UNESCO would give its name just to any document and risk its credibility. I would say, if UNESCO has given its name to something, then even if its seems an outright lie, one has to take it seriously.

Then again, its a general policy to put a note on books published by UNESCO that the views expressed in the document are of the author(s), even then the above fact holds true that if UNESCO Delhi didn't trust fully that the contents are 100% true, they won't publish it without at least editing out the doubtful points. (Masculinity (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

The document clearly states that the book is the result of a series of Consultations held with young people. It cannot be relegated to the opinion of one or two authors. UNESCO doesn't usually pay for publishing personal views or ideologies of people, especially if they are disconnected with reality.(Masculinity (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

The above mentioned book is being used extensively not only by UNESCO and UNIFEM in their various projects, at least in India, but also by several other social intervention agencies, including Jagori, SAATHI, YAARI-DOSTI etc. The Hindi version of this book called, "Mardanagi, purushon ke liye ek Margdarshak" is being used widely as well. (Masculinity (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

The group YAAR has been working with men on the issues of gender and sexuality for several years with important agencies such as UNESCO, Government of India, Government of Netherlands, Various state governments in India, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and several national and local level agencies of repute in India. The organisation has a grasp on the core issues and has a respectable position amongst NGOs in India. It has presented several papers in national and international conferences (including on this issue of sexual identities vis-a-vis men) and several of these abstracts are available on the net (e.g. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102241127.html

Addressing the issues of male-to-male sexuality in India)

Its work has been acknowledged by several documentations, even on the net, e.g. by this one entitled:

“Oh! This one is infected!”: Women, HIV & Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region. Paper commissioned by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, from ICW 2004 By Susan Paxton, with Alice Welbourn, P Kousalya, Anandi Yuvaraj, Sapana Pradhan Malla and Motoko Seko. Excerpt: "Examples such as the YAAR project, working with young men in schools in Delhi to explore gender and sexuality issues, should be more widely disseminated."

Its members have been invited to present papers at international conferences and even to facilitate workshops on gender and sexuality issues. E.g., K.Vidya from YAAR was invited to South Africa conference of IPAS to facilitate a workshop on Gender. http://www.iwtc.org/ideas/9a_gender.pdf.

In fact, one report on a set of workshops conducted on male gender and sexuality with adolescent boys in Delhi received world-wide publicity and is today stored in several universities and libraries all across the world. It can be read at this site of UNIFEM: www.unifem.org/campaigns/csw/documents/MenAndMasculinities.pdf

(Masculinity (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

It's true that the book isn't about anthropological study or a scholarly research. However, it doesn't become invalid because of that. In fact, there are limits/ gaps of scholarly researches, which can only be filled by action researches such as those conducted by intervention agencies working at the grassroots level. The scholarly researches are severely limited because of several factors, and may be too much quantity oriented -- meaning concerned largely with statistics (like the Shivananda Khan's study that says 72% truck drivers in north pakistan have had sex with other men). However, the researches/ evidences presented by intervention agencies working at the grassroots level can be extremely important, since they have a reach where scholars cannot go. And this is where the UNESCO document is extremely important -- for its empirical evidence, which is invaluable. So stop questioning the validity of the document.(Masculinity (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

And then, its not as if this document is the only one I've used ... or even the primary one. Whatever is being quoted from this document in the article, has been validated by several other references (provided here) -- including anthropological studies, newspaper and other articles, published papers in reputed international conferences/ universities, etc. The UNESCO document is unique only because its gives the 'qualitative' picture or the 'EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE' of the stuff that all the other scholarly references have clearly enumerated, but more as quantitative data. (Masculinity (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

to say it's not a reliable source is an understatement - it should be removed on sight. --87.114.149.247 (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is not a personal discomfort with the book? By the way, unsigned remarks don't count.(Masculinity (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

No it's professional discomfort - I'm a academic and it offends me to see such crap used as a source here, it fit for toilet paper and that's about it. Don't attack me as a person again or I'll move to have you blocked. --87.112.64.140 (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep your professional issues with yourself. I'm afraid, we're here as just editors helping out Wikipedia. You've no right to question a source like UNESCO. You can discredit this UNESCO document academically, and then discredit it here. I doubt you will be able to do that, since this document does not claim to be an academic work and thus is not bound by academic rules. What this book does claim, is to be based on years of social work, actual ground level work with youths of India on gender and sexual health issues, and bring to us enormous wealth of empirical data, which has also been valued in the academic circles. (124.30.94.10 (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Oh and it's massively overcited in this article - that needs some major clean-up.

I don't see the issue here. It is commonplace to have that disclaimer. It clearly is a UNESCO paper. And while there are many scattered Anthropological studies easily accessed by a google search, the field of anthropology itself admits to having lagged behind in their studies of this topic and that it has become an issue within that community to remedy that. No one anthropological study has put it all together in one document as has UNESCO. I can't help but wonder what is so threatening about this information to have it undergo so much undo scrutiny. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not "put it [research] all together in one document as has UNESCO". What 'anthropological research' states that in 'the West' men are 'almost always' forced to masturbate in front of girls during 'ragging'? It is unreferenced drivel, and profoundly misogynistic drivel at that. Nothing is more vivid in this document than its author's pathological fear of women. Serious sources - of which there are indeed many - say nothing like this. Paul B (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

leaving aside the fact that it's dire - no author is identified, no sources are presented within the document - it's unreliable by our standards. What about it says "anthropology study" rather than "ravings of a crackpot" to you DezNChris? --87.112.64.140 (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Again. No bibliography; prominent disclaimer; un-named author = not reliable. Relata refero (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

UNESCO is all the name you need. Besides, Alok Srivastava of YAAR NGO has been listed as the main author.(124.30.94.10 (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

This guy has massive WP:OWN issues that need to be dealt with - he's seems intent on just reverting anyone who tries to clean-up articles that contain that document (and other unreliable sources). --87.112.38.211 (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The final word hasn't been said yet, so don't be in a hurry. You can't just dismiss a UN document. I think, first we should wait for more people to comment and then the issue may have to be referred to administrators. (Masculinity (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

The book doesn't claim to be based on anthropological research. The book is based on action research. Apart from the ground situation in India, it also talks about the perceptions amongst the male youth regarding different issues of masculinity. Ragging is known as hazing in the West, and it is not uncommon for guys to be made to masturbate in front of girls. There have been several such cases in India recently, as our society is heterosexualised and hostels made common for girls and boys. There are several evidences (not researches but personal accounts and pics) available on the net for that. The idea is totally against the Indian ethos, and so the anger of Indians to a forced Western practice is understandable.

However, the merit of the book is about the various case studies that it has presented, and the empirical evidences. I am only quoting the document for facts for which other resources (e.g. anthropological studies) are available. It gives a much more detailed and empirical information about those issues.

Besides, like I said, the editors here are not supposed to review a book for its validity as a reference. That is dangerous. We have to go by the rules. And as per the rules, UNESCO is a valid source. Whether or not we agree with the information.

It works both ways, I have to withhold or delete a lot of information that some aggressive elements in LGBT don't personally like, eventhough it is common knowledge across the non-West, just because no references from reputed sources was available. But, when they're available, you can't dismiss it because you don't agree with the content.(Masculinity (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

We're still on this? Masculinity for boys appears to be very idiosyncratic. It cannot be considered a reliable source. If other sources can be cited for points currently sourced by Masculinity for boys, those sources should be swapped in. Otherwise those points are effectively unsourced and should probably be removed.

It would be interesting if there were some scholarly evaluation of this document as representing the views of a particular culture, but as presented it appears to be the ambitious opinion of a single author. UNESCO Delhi funded this, but gives no evidence of peer review or oversight, even an editor's name. What would be (to use Masculinity's term) "dangerous" would be to accept Masculinity for boys as a reliable source. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity is convinced that there is an International Gay Conspiracy, which is really, to confuse matters more, an unwitting part of a wider "heterosexual" conspiracy to construct rigid separation of gay and straight identities in both Western and non-Western cultures. It is therefore 'dangerous' for those who promote this ideology on Wikipedia to have this fact revealed. Supporters of this gay/hetero ideology therefore have to 'suppress' the evidence. In fact there are many genuinely good sources that do discuss the legitimate aspects of the issues to which he is referring, but in a balanced and measured way, without resorting to wild hypoerbole and conspiracy theory. We have already included these here and it would be good to be able to progress on this without having efforts at NPOV destroyed by the promotion of fringe theories. I wonder if this issue would be worth raising on the Fringe Theories noticeboard? Paul B (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Edg, again, we as editors are not supposed to give our own opinions about the references if they come from a valid source. If the cultural values of others seem idiosyncratic to you -- and if these 'idiosyncracies' are being given a place in a UNESCO publication, and is widely being used in a specific culture, then you have to give repect to it, and live with that 'idiosyncracy', till you discredit it using a valid platform. Wikipedia is not a valid platform to discredit a UN document.

Also, this is not an academic work, so there is very little academicians can do to discredit this. You don't need peer-review of books in this field. Your credibility is judged by the platform that supports you, and agencies that use your work, and this book is doing excellent on those counts. This is based on action research and social work, and only through this platform can this book be discredit, which is almost impossible, because this book is based on solid ground level facts.

Then again, there are numerous other sources provided for things quoted from this book, which are scholarly works, the references from this book are only used as empirical evidence to back up those more academic sources, which I guess is perfectly valid. There might have been an issue, if this was the only source used, and things claimed in this book were countered by other scholarly references or even unsubstantiated by them, which is not the case. Whatever is said in the quotes taken from this book has been reverberated by several other important academic works.

(124.30.94.10 (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

If it's not already obvious, I should point out that 124.30.94.10 is user:Masculinity, not a separate editor. Paul B (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree with the above. --Haemo (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul, your personal vendatta against the book is clear from the your baseless accusations against the book/ author. Had the author been misogynic, UNIFEM would not have included his book or his name on their website, nor would they use it in multitudes of programmes they conduct with men.(Masculinity (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Is this still being argued ?! Lets compare how this report compares to an unarguably reliable publication from UNESCO.

	Masculinity for Boys	Literacy for life, 2006
Disclaimer	"The opinion expressed in this documents are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of UNESCO New Delhi"	"The analysis and policy recommendations of this Report do not necessarily reflect the views of UNESCO. The Report is an independent publication commissioned by UNESCO on behalf of the international community. It is the product of a collaborative effort involving members of the Report Team and many other people, agencies, institutions and governments. Overall responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the Report is taken by its Director." (emphasis added)
Authorship	???	20+ named authors with acknowledged qualifications and expertise in the field.
Peer review, or editorial oversight	???	Representatives from UN multilateral agencies, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organizations, civil society groups and networks, individuals from developing countries with an expertise in basic education issues, and directors of UNESCO institutes. (emphasis added)
Bibliography	None	600+ citations

Hope this establishes what a reliable publication from UNESCO looks like, and curtails further arguments along the lines, "UNESCO is a reliable source" [sic]. Clearly these two reports represent two extremes on the reliability scale, and as is the consensus of all uninvolved editors above, the "Masculinity" report fails wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines and is not an acceptable source for wikipedia (and that judgement is independent of the WP:REDFLAG issues raised by its content). Abecedare (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mazin Qumsiyeh on qumsiyeh.org

Is Mazin Qumsiyeh and his personal website http://qumsiyeh.org a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He is an activist a board member in the "Association for One Democratic State in Israel/Palestine" which is a political advocy group who work to undermine Israel's right to exist Zeq (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, of course, he is a tenured scientist at Yale who happened to write a book praising a particular solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue apparently favoured by a fifth of Israeli citizens. Whatever. Either way, not a particularly notable figure for this problem, though his website claims he has written "over 30 op-eds" on the issue, and his book was published by a well-known publisher, though one with a distinct "socialist" POV. Quotable whenever that particular POV needs to be expressed, I suppose. For facts, not so much. Relata refero (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No way.

1) he was never tenured at Yale, he was merely on the clinical research faculty 2) he was fired, for sending racist political messages over his Yale email 3) he was a professor of genetics, which gives him no authority on foreigh affairs 4) several of his op-eds were followed by published corrections on the editorial pages that ran the op-eds, because his facts on palestine are bad American Clio (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Unless you cite all that except 3, I'll have to redact it from this page per WP:BLP. Relata refero (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this for (1) and (3) (Associate Professors are not tenured at Yale)? (2) and (4) may have some basis here. rudra (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: "racist" seems to be charges of Anti-Semitism in a campus brouhaha [20]. rudra (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Associate Professors can be tenured at Yale. See this internal report. Whether or not he is, I don't know, though he might very well not be. (Update: according to the Herald, he wasn't at the time of the brouhaha.)

About the Yale Herald report, he sent "an e-mail to a Yale anti-war group listing the membership roster of the Yale Friends for Israel and labeling it a pro-war cabal." If that's a racist political message.... *Sigh*. People seem to think that if they use words like "racist" to describe things like that its OK with our policies. Whatever. Since this page now has the actual facts on it, I don't need to redact American Clio's edit, though this sort of thing is par for the course with him/her. (Note 4 is still open.) Relata refero (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

documenting the corrections newspapers have had to print after publishing a Mazin Qumsiyeh op-ed. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=1019American Clio (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

There was another flap about Qumsiyeh's bad facts. Here Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum , calls Qunsiyeh's writing anti-Semitic :

Anti-Israel Screed in Official Magazine of Davos Forum

Update: The head of Davos apologized and indicated that the viewpoints in the article were contrary to Forum's mission and values. More

_________________________________________

New York, NY, January 25, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today condemned the publication of an outrageous anti-Israel screed that appeared in the official magazine of the World Economic Forum in Davos, and urged the organization not to give legitimacy to such extremist approaches in the future.

The article, "Boycott Israel" by Mazin Qumsiyeh, an extremist anti-Israel activist, appeared in the current issue of Global Agenda, the official magazine of the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Qumsiyeh is the head of Al Awda, an organization that supports terrorism and advocates for the abolition of Israel.

"The article is full of outright false statements about Israel, Zionism and Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and crucial omissions regarding the situation on the ground, Palestinian attitudes and actions, and Israeli public support of Palestinian statehood," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "Moreover, it is permeated with anti-Semitic insinuations of Jewish craftiness, control of the media and American and international policymaking."

In a letter to Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, ADL called positions presented by Qumsiyeh, "…well beyond the scope of acceptable discourse."

"We find it hard to believe that Global Agenda would include an article calling for the dismantlement of the United States, or that the Davos meeting would convene a panel questioning the legitimacy of Egypt, Venezuela, or France," Mr. Foxman said. "Yet, Mr. Qumsiyeh's denial of the State of Israel's right to exist and his appeal for international actions to counter the state and Zionism – bald calls for the elimination of Israel – are given legitimacy through the imprimatur of the World Economic Forum." http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4852_62.htmAmerican Clio (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

• The Yale e-mail incident, acccording to the Yale Herald:

Sat., May 24, 2003, Mazin Qumsiyeh, an associate pro fessor of genetics at Yale, sparked a controversy that is still raging.

GETTY IMAGES Qumsiyeh's email puported to show an overlap in student membership in a group which the war in Iraq and one which supports Israel.

After many students had already left for the summer, Qumsiyeh sent an email to all Yale Coalition Peace (YCP) members, an anti-war group, in which he linked Jewish support of Israel with support for the then current war in Iraq.

In the email, Qumsiyeh wrote that "the U.S. occupation of Iraq illegal and immoral (sic)" and that the YCP should "continue to challenge the hegemony of the U.S. on the Arab world." Although such opinions are certainly acceptable and even welcomed at a university that encourages the exchange of ideas, Qumsiyeh closed his email with a chilling statement: "I include here the list of members of Yale Students 'for Democracy,' the pro war cabal . . . I think you will find the list informative. Note that there is significant overlap of this list with the 'Yale Friends of Israel' listserve."

Qumsiyeh then listed the Yale email addresses of 64 students, which contained students' full names, whom he claimed belonged to Yale College Students for Democracy (YCSD), a group that supported the war in Iraq.

However, the people he listed belonged not to YCSD, but to the Yale Friends of Israel (YFI) itself.

http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=2377

the articl econtinues. The reason why this was widely viewed as an expression of anti-Semitisam is that Qunsiyeh accused Jewish students who belongec to a pro-Israel group of being automatically pro-Iraq War. But, Anti-Semitic or not , it certainly demonstrates the Qumsiyeh plays fast and loose tithe fatcs and evidence.American Clio (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Relax, it was decided long ago that he wouldn't be used for facts.

Meanwhile, CAMERA again. I suppose them being all over the conflict of interest noticeboard is unsurprising. I'm beginning to think that 90% of our problems would go away if we just banned all these damn quotefarms and advocacy sources, all these op-eds and opinions and articles based on "controversial" terms. I'm sure its beginning to bore everyone to have to make the same comments about the same type of sources all the time. So: listen up people dealing with Israel/Palestine/Islamophobia/Anti-semitism: CAMERA, MEMRI, CAIR, PalestineMediaWatch, Electronic Intifada, are all unwelcome as sources, OK? Any articles structured around their quotefarms are likely to have major, unfixable POV problems so nobody do that either, OK? Not to mention that they are unreliable sources even for quotations, OK? And just because I've left Abraham Foxman and Juan Cole and Robert Spencer and suchlike others out that doesn't mean that you can add their random opinions either. Nobody here should care what various partisan hacks think, because they're completely unencyclopaedic, they're advocates, not analysts, and nobody will care what they thought a hundred years from now. Is everyone now clear on this? Relata refero (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The CAMERA article collects instances where newspapers that have run Qumseyah's op-eds have aubsequently run corrections of bad facts cited by Qumsiyeh. American Clio (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

And nobody is suggesting we use him for facts! But meanwhile, can everyone just lay off quoting CAMERA, who are as unreliable as everyone else, plus they're using us to host their theories and quotefarms! (Note - minus the CoI this applies to all the other advocacy sources mentioned above and elsewhere on this page and the archives. The reason they are here all the time is that they are all crap. Relata refero (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Dixon or www.blackcommentator.com

Are Bruce Dixon or www.blackcommentator.com reliable sources regarding Israel? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't know about reliability... but my Norton anti-virus flags it as a potential scam site (in fact, including a link to it made Norton flag this page as a potential scam... removing the "http:" prefix seems to fix that problem). For this reason, we should probably disallow it. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about reliability, either, but it's a site for advocacy of afro-american rights, so it will be very biased and POV when treating those topics --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly advocay site of more than just one subject. Zeq (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooops, you are right, I misread their "about us" page. Well, anyways, it makes no claims for fact checking, only for advocacy, so it still wouldn't be reliable --Enric Naval (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting question you've raised, Jay, but it has no bearing on the dispute which you are presumably referring to. The original wording, over at Allegations of Israeli apartheid was, "Some critics who use the [apartheid] analogy extend it to include Arab citizens of Israel," citing Dixon as one such critic. The current wording is, "Several critics, including [...] Bruce Dixon." Thus, it is not a question of whether Dixon is a reliable source for facts on Israel, but of whether he's a critic who uses the apartheid analogy wrt Arab-Israelis, which of course he is. And the source in question was a reprint of the Dixon article on the much better known and respected Electronic Intifada, the largest Palestinian news site which the Jerusalem Post calls the "Palestinian CNN," rather than the obscure www.blackcommentator.com - you kept editing EI out and blackcommentator in. This posting is typical WP:GAME-ing behavior, I'm afraid, of the sort which has plagued AoIA for some time now. <eleland/talkedits> 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Eleland, it's quite relevant. If a "critic" is non-notable or non-reliable then we don't quote him or use him as a reference, it doesn't mean we throw WP:V out the window. Why on earth would we care what Bruce Dixon's opinions are regarding Israel? I'm sure you could find a thousand blogs that say all sorts of negative stuff about Israel, but they don't go in the lead of Wikipedia articles - or are you now proposing that we can also use David Duke as a source for the lead of the article? After all, he too says "It is racial Apartheid, in fact, far more draconian than the Apartheid of South Africa, for at least the Blacks were given in theory the right to self-rule in their own homelands." (see www.davidduke.com/general/the-hypocrisy-of-jewish-supremacism_12.html) As for Electronic Intifada, that's the site the Jewish Telegraphic Agency calls a "cyberpropaganda" site which "may contribute to a better understanding of the Palestinian cause," but "is too biased to be of much use to mainstream publications" - it is not a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There are a couple of "good enough" sources for the purposes of the claim in the lead already, adding inappropriate sources really doesn't help. And your posting is the typical WP:GAME-ing and policy abusing behavior, I'm afraid, of the sort which has plagued AoIA for some time now. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you're comparing one of the longest-term critics of the DLC and former colleague of Barack Obama's to David Duke? Relata refero (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who Bruce Dixon is, that's why I brought him to this board. Is he notable? Is he a reliable source? What's your view? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's a reliable source, though he may be a valuable opinion for a particular sort of of thinking. But the point is that if you compare people about whom you know nothing to neo-Nazis reflexively, nobody is likely to take you very seriously. Relata refero (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good thing I don't "reflexively compare people about whom you know nothing to neo-Nazis" then, isn't it? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, David Duke isn't a neo-Nazi now? Relata refero (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mu. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to exclude all "cyperpropaganda sites" from Isr-Pal articles, it's an interesting proposal. But clearly this is not what you're proposing.

Nobody is claiming that EI is a reliable source for contentious claims of fact. We want to include its attributed commentary. The JPost reviewer praised EI. The JTA reviewer criticized it while acknowledging that it is useful for understanding the Palestinian cause. Lots of sources are criticized by other sources, often in much harsher terms than the JTA used. For example, the editor-in-chief of Ha'aretz dismisses CAMERA as a "McCarthyite" group issuing "tendentious statements and comments" not worth responding to. [21] Yet you're currently arguing to have an entire article built solely around one article from CAMERA, and you've never argued to delete citations to MEMRI, JewishVirtualLibrary, etc. This is WP:GAME par excellence, and your lamebrained mimicry and non sequitors about David Duke don't change that. <eleland/talkedits> 11:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making a distinction that is nowhere reflected in actual policy; if a source is not reliable, then we can't use it, even for opinion. For example, here an editor argues that we can use Stormfront as a source, not for fact, but merely for their own opinion regarding the race of ancient Egyptians. However, as a number of other editors later pointed out to him, if a source is unreliable, then we don't quote its opinions (outside, perhaps, its own article). Wikipedia doesn't reproduce the opinions of non-notable, non-reliable sources - or at least it shouldn't. Also, the source for this claim really is Bruce Dixon, not Electronic Intifada, but in any event, are either noted for third party fact checking? Regarding the Ouze Merham article, the last time I added a source to the article it was the Chicago Sun Times. And, in my personal experience, Electronic Intifada is significantly less reliable than CAMERA, but that's just my personal experience. Regarding MEMRI, you keep claiming they're particularly unreliable, but you have singularly failed to prove it As for the Jewish Virtual Library as a source, I don't know why you're bringing it up - I don't recall having any discussions about it recently. In any event, people can certainly disagree about the relative reliability of sources (obviously no source is 100% reliable 100% of the time, while even a stopped clock is correct twice a day), but there's hardly a need for this vitriol and rancor about it. Finally, if you don't want to have your own words fed back to you, I'll make you a deal; stick to discussing whether or not sources are reliable (which is the purpose of this board), instead of insulting other editors, and I won't mirror your words back to you. Fair enough? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

IS there somewhere where I can !vote in favour of Jay's proposed exclusion of all cyberpropaganda sites? Relata refero (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the term used to describe falsely attributing a proposal to someone who hasn't actually made that proposal? I believe it's trolling, isn't it? In any event, if you are indeed keen on removing all cyberpropaganda sites, here are several hundred articles you can start on: [22] [23] [24] [25] Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Jay, its called a "joke" in this context. Look up the word if unfamiliar with it. That was also a joke. And believe me, I remove CounterPunch wherever I find it unless it is hosting an article by an avowed expert. (Though I don't see how it is cyberpropaganda, merely biased. Also the difference between MEMRI/CAMERA and WorldNetDaily.) May I point out that accusations of trolling and diverting attention from the subject in this manner are not generally considered good practice, to put it mildly. Relata refero (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't "diverting attention from the subject; if anything, your proposal to "!vote in favour of Jay's proposed exclusion of all cyberpropaganda sites" was. And of course, my reference to "trolling" was a "joke" in this context, exactly as your statement was - and just as funny! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Singh

In article Singh one user name User:Gurkhaboy is making up names and Not providing Refs for Claims. User does not seem to be educated in that field and is making up names. see [26] Rajputs used Kumar and Kumari and that Gurkhaboy is Making up Names like Kunwarani which does not make any sense and not related at all. --99.237.254.25 (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• It would probably be better to discuss this on the article's talk page at Talk:Singh. This noticeboard is for judging whether certain sources are reliable enough to use as references. But if no reference is provided, there is nothing to judge. All editors involved with the article should be expected to provide references for the claims they insert into the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Rotten.com

I'm looking for some feedback about rotten.com, specifically its library section, regarding whether it's a reliable source.

It seems to me that this falls under the category of self-published websites. While the site is reasonably popular and has been mentioned in various newspaper articles, the library articles are written by an unknown person and there is no evidence of or reputation of fact checking and such. A question: how exactly do we go about distinguising between a popular website which is not considered reliable, and one which is? (Such as slate.com) --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's for a "pundit" reference or external link for some pop-culture topic, that's one thing. But not for BLP articles. Which article was this in reference to? Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Any article, actually. I've removed the rotten.com references from about 50 articles. If it's basically nothing more than a self-published website, then it isn't acceptable as a reference for any article, other than Rotten.com itself. Or so I believe. If a rotten.com webpage says "Ronald Reagan liked to wear green socks", why is this any more reliable than if I put up a geocities webpage claiming the same thing? --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Rotten.com is self-published. While citing Rotten is not the same as citing the Wall Street Journal, I feel that it is appropriate to use in some areas. For example, the "teabagging" article cited both a book and Rotten to back up some punditry about teabagging happening in some movie. The book was citation enough, but the Rotten article seemed to function as a "footnoted external link" providing additional perspective on the topic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Murdoch fired all the people at WSJ who knew what they were doing, so WSJ has more in common with Rotten.com than it used to. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If Rotten.com is not self-published, then who publishes it? From what I can see it is particularly unreliable. Regarding Slate.com, this is an indication as to its reliability and editorial stance. Now, what do we know about the editors of Rotten.com? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

According to our article on it, it's published by "Soylent Communications". At any rate, it appears to be a "them", not a single author. That said, it might not be reliable on every topic, but if all you want to use it for is snarky comments about a movie, i.e. "The humorist website Rotten.com characterized Rochelle, Rochelle as 'X, Y, Z'", I don't see a problem with that. It's like citing MAD Magazine as a source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, in this case, there doesn't appear to be any semblance of reliability or editorial oversight - to the extent that we don't even know the name of the author or authors. Soylent Communications is not a publisher, it's a web-hosting service - and it too is completely anonymous, leading back to a Post Office box. Your comparison to Mad (magazine) is not apt; we know exactly who publishes Mad, who the editors are, who the writers and illustrators are - in fact, most of them are fairly famous, with their own often lengthy Wikipedia articles. Rotten.com is essentially an anonymous personal website, practically the worst kind of source imaginable; it should not be quoted anywhere except in the article about Rotten.com, and even then with extreme caution. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

From the article on Soylent, "It is also the hub of several websites maintained by the company." It sounds like they are more involved with the content than simply hosting the web site. I also don't believe there's anything wrong with having anonymous or pseudonymous authors. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It "sounds like" they are more involved with the content than simply hosting the web site? Enough speculation. We know nothing about Rotten.Com, not its authors, not its editors, not who publishes it - nothing at all. It is an anonymous personal website, period, and completely unsuitable as a source for anything. It's the same as using http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ as a source - except that http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ is probably a better source than Rotten.com, since we at least know the author is "R. Stephen Hanchett". Please review Wikipedia:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Fan translated games

In an attempt to resolve a dispute for classifying fan translations we were trying find 3rd-party sites. Would a site like this one meet the criteria?Jinnai (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it have any fact checking methods used to prove its reliability? MythSearcher^talk 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there is at least some attempt through forum posting and some referencing to other pages. It also possible, and quite probable, some of it came from 1st-hand experience by going to the website, downloading and installing the patch. Not sure if it's up to the level you would consider good enough though.Jinnai (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert of this, as you can see, it is the first time I came here. However, the site seems to be a self-published source, in which, it lacks enough fact-checking in terms of usual wikipedia standard. However, the terms are in the grey area if you ask me. It is not the most reliable source, yet it is obvious that if the steps were followed, one could verify the facts in a very easy manner. So it might not be most reliable, but at least it is verifiable. (If what you say here is true.) The problem might then move foward to is it notable or not. MythSearcher^talk 08:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it might meet the qualifications of presumed under WP:N, though it's hard to say.Jinnai (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think notability really factors into it. The games we're talking about it all have spawned anime, which is enough to make them notable... we just need to be able to show that an English translation exists, per WP:V. — PyTom (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the legality issue and whether such a site, that provides links to game hacks and unauthorized translations for distribution, meets WP:COPYVIO. Collectonian (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The legality of the patches without games has still to be decided. Those that supply the game along with the patch, or a patched game, are an entirely different matter. We had this discussion on the WPT:WP:A&M page. Also, as this is the only site really with a published source that isn't primary or a forum, it's why I posted this one.Jinnai (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO isn't the policy here, WP:EL is. And I'm not sure it applies to a site that merely links to sites that violate copyrights. Where does that end? (Is there a way to cite a website without linking it?) — PyTom (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL shouldn't really apply here as I intended to use if as a source material, not a link, if possible. But yes, the site does not directly link to the the patches, just the sites. So if this site shouldn't be used simply on that basis, it would be nice to know how many links removed a site needs to be since it's theoretically possible from some of the sources to simply link-jump to much more blatantly illegal material here.Jinnai (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the one-step away is the reason all AniDB links were removed. They didn't link directly to the files, but to the fansubber groups and pretty much said "want illegal fansubs, go get here." The difference here is Jinnai argues that no court case has actually deemed patched or hacking a game to translate it is illegal, so the same rule doesn't apply. Irregardless, though, as Pytom pointed out earlier, the site also completely fails WP:RS. Collectonian (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe is does fall under self-published soruces as per WP:V. The only exceptions might be #2, but I believe #2 was refering to the claims themselves being contriversial in their PoV, and no one here is claiming that their is an issue with neutrality of the site. As long it is used strictly for citing that these works exist and their progress, nothing else.Jinnai (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Self-published applies to the official sites and documentation, not a directory site, like that link appears to be. Collectonian (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me where? I read all the section of questionable sources and saw nothing that says the site cannot be a directory. Just that it had to meet specific criteria, which it does.Jinnai (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Could also be covered by expectional claims, ie "...apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;" which mainstream media would never cover. Whether it is important or not, is, I will admit, highly debatable, but important is to some extent dependant on where you are and who you ask. Certainly to everyone at large this might seem trivial, but for the English gaming community this might seem important.Jinnai (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it can't as it isn't a necessary claim to make at all. The site still fails WP:RS on all levels. Collectonian (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS is not policy. WP:V is. And everything on that page meets the standards of Wikipedia's verifiability for self-published sources as posted. Mainstream media won't cover this and this site atleast attempts to have a level of independent review on it, plus it's quite easy to verify this oneself as pointed out below. There is a reason reliable sources isn't policy, but only a guideline.Jinnai (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

One article where this has been coming up is at Tsukihime. I'll note that nobody here is disputing the existence of the translation. One can easily verify it by going to the translator's web site [27], the list of visual novel translations [28], and news sites devoted to the topic[29]. So I think the question is, what should we include in the article to source the statement "An unofficial translation patch for Tsukihime was release on November 5, 2006."? I'll note that this has nothing to do with the notability of Tsukihime, which has been established by it spawning both Manga and Anime. — PyTom (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A reliable newsgroup posting

Newsgroup postings are considered lower than dirt as a reliable source here on Wikipedia. I think this case is an exception to the rule. In late 1994, the Intel Pentium FDIV bug played out mailing list and in the newsgroup comp.sys.intel. The posters were acoumplished scientist and engineers from major companies. While Intel was claiming the bug was minor, the readers of these newsgroups found out how serious the defect was. (I followed the posting at the time and was amazed at their quality.)

Tim Coe, a FPU (floating point unit) designer at Vitesse Semiconductor, read the reports of the Pentium division errors and was able to reverse engineer the cause of error. He wrote a C program to predict the errors. He did not own an Intel CPU, so he went to a local computer store to check his results. His error predictions were correct. He posted his results on the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel, on November 16, 1994.

• Tim Coe (1994-11-16). "Re: Glaring FDIV bug in Pentium!". Newsgroup: comp.sys.intel. Retrieved 2008-03-24.

The original newsgroup posing can be found on Google groups. Here is a web site that has a good copy of Tim Coe's posting and some other valid links. [30]

His work was reported in the technical press at the time and here is a report from the MathWorks newsletter.

• Moler, Cleve (Winter 1995). "A Tale of Two Numbers" (PDF). The MathWorks News & Notes. The MathWorks. Retrieved 2008-03-24.

Tim Coe later wrote a paper in the peer reviewed journal, IEEE Computational Science & Engineering

• Coe, Tim (Spring 1995). "Computational aspects of the Pentium affair". Computational Science & Engineering, IEEE. 2 (1): 18–30. doi:10.1109/99.372929. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) "The Pentium affair has been widely publicized. It started with an obscure defect in the floating-point unit of Intel Corporation's flagship Pentium microprocessor. This is the story of how the Pentium floating-point division problem was discovered, and what you need to know about the maths and computer engineering involved before deciding whether to replace the chip, install the workaround provided here, or do nothing. The paper also discusses broader issues of computational correctness."

Can the Tim Coe's original posting to the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel, be used as a reference?

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Andy Grove, the Intel CEO, responded to this newsgroup.[31] -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already commented over at Talk:Pentium FDIV bug, but I don't see any need to suspend our usual disapproval of forum postings as sources. If any reliable sources actually reprinted the forum postings, it would be OK to use the reprinted versions. The notability of the people who posted doesn't make Usenet into a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of saying that Tim Coe wrote a journal article based on his findings that he originally posted in the internet newsgroup, comp.sys.intel. Andy Grove, President of Intel, wrote a big check to refund the customers and also posted a response to the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel. The article could explain how this was an early case where the internet allowed customers to force a large corporation to admit to a defective product. The newsgroup was an important factor and was reported in the press at the time. The current article has the vague statement that the problem was "verified by other people around the Internet". It doesn't name them or give details of how the problem was verified. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If these events lead to papers being published and press reports, citing the newsgroup seems entirely unnecessary. Vassyana (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I got a copy of the IEEE Computational Science & Engineering paper today. In a sidebar, the journal editor states how important the internet was in uncovering the Pentium bug. The article mentions several specific posts to the newsgroup by various individuals. For example, "… reporters for major newspapers and news services had Xeroxed copies of faxed copies of Moler's posting." The newsgroup "comp.sys.intel" was part of the story. "At the height of the frenzy a month later, over 2000 messages a week were being posted to comp.sys.intel." All of the facts about the newsgroup posting can be referenced by traditional reliable sources. The 2 or 3 most significant posting themselves can be noted with a proper citation, {{cite newsgroup}}. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is precedent for using professional mailing lists as references. If the details are otherwise confirmed by reliable sources I see nothing wrong with referencing the USENET post. It's a primary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of rickross.com and religionnewsblog.com as external links/convenience links

(The following has been transferred from WP:AN as per the request of User:Durova.)

A number of Wikipedia articles currently link to rickross.com and religionnewsblog.com. With respect to rickross.com, talk page consensus on Talk:Prem Rawat a few weeks ago was that the site appeared to be in breach of WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking:

Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.

Our concern was based on rickross.com's copyright disclaimer:

rickross.com: "All META tags, page titles, keywords and other content descriptions used throughout this website are only intended to assist search engines for research and locating purposes. This in no way, shape or form is intended to mislead anyone by implying any official representation and/or relationship exists between this website and the owners of any trademarks, service marks and/or copyrights, which may contain the same keywords and/or titles." ... "Any publisher, Webmaster or news service (i.e., official and legal holder of copyright) that objects to their material being included in this archive may request that it be removed and/or that future material be excluded. An official written and signed request sent via fax or regular mail made by the copyright holder and/or their legal representative on company or legal letterhead will be honored."

Some of the material hosted on rickross.com is for sale online by the legitimate owners. Example: [32] [33]

Religion News Blog has been mentioned as a similar case; in particular, this subpage was proposed on the Prem Rawat talk page as a suitable external link. Here too it seems that copyright owners' permission is not routinely sought:

"Religion News Blog includes copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner."

The Religion News Blog also carries a rather large amount of advertising.

Please advise to what extent these two sites should be linked, or existing links to them removed.

Note that the Prem Rawat article is also subject to an ongoing Arbitration Case (Prem Rawat arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)).

Jayen466 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rick Ross is a commentator frequently referenced by others, so I don't see we should have a problem discussing what he says in context and attributing it to him, with links to his site to back that up. The blog looks to be a link to avoid, on the face of it. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your feedback. I understand the point about quoting Rick Ross himself. However, this is not at issue; the copyright question arises because of the large number of press articles and other copyrighted material hosted on the site, evidently without a proper process of seeking permission from the owners. Instead, the Disclaimer page states that rickross.com will take down any copyrighted material if the copyright owners complain in writing. Rather than licensing the material, as required by WP:EL, this seemed to me to shift the onus from the site operators to the copyright owners. In other words, the onus is now on the owners (1) to become aware of the infringement and then (2) to write in to ask for their material to be taken down. As it is, the status of any document hosted on the site seems unclear; it may be the case that the owners are aware of their material's presence on the site and do not object, or it may be that they are not aware (yet) and will complain at a future date. At any rate it seems to me that where the same material is available on the legitimate copyright owner's own website (e.g. nytimes.com), it would be preferable from a copyright point of view to link to the copy at nytimes.com, rather than the one held at rickross.com. Jayen466 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. My usual take on sites that play fast and loose with copyright is to exclude on principle, but here we have a notable individual who may be quoted as an authority. It should not be a problem to link to that content which is unequivocally Ross' own, attributed to Ross, if a compelling case can be made for the relevance of his opinion. Better, of course, to link to a reliable secondary source that describes Ross' views and places them in context. I am not a fan of primary sources in biographies, other than the subject's own site as a source for uncontroversial facts. Any copyright violating material may not be linked, period. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Starting at the top of the list of WP articles linking to rickross.com, what would be your view on this link, present as ref. 1 in Kenja Communication (permalink: [34])? I wasn't able to find the article on the Daily Telegraph website (note that this is the Australian Daily Telegraph, not the UK one), although there were articles on the subject present there (and hosted for free). This specific article, however, did not seem to be there. Now, what to do? The thing is that I believe many editors consider rickross.com a very valuable resource, which often has detailed material not available elsewhere. Jayen466 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the citation on Kenja Communication, I see the problem.

The citation is worded: "Secrets of sect in sex case. The Daily Telegraph, The Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey (May 25, 2006). Retrieved on 2007-02-08."

It should be worded more along the lines of: "Secrets of sect in sex case by Brad Clifton, The Daily Telegraph, Syndey, Australia May 25, 2006 - as hosted on: www.rickross.com, Retrieved on 2007-02-08."

This would make it clear that the Rick Ross site is being used as a convenience link to the Daily Telegraph story, which is the actual citation. Now... the question becomes: is Rick Ross's site an allowable convenience link? Does he need permission permission to reprint the story that appeared in the Daily Telegraph, and if so does he have it? If the answer to that is that he did need permission, and did not obtain it, then his site can not be used. We must omit the link to Ross and simply cite the Daily Telegraph without the link. This obviously requires someone double checking to make sure that the story in the Telegraph actually exists and says what Ross said it did... but this should not be all that difficult... I am sure that we could find a Wikipedian who lives in Sydney and whould be willing to go to a library and check the May 25, 06 Telegraph for us. If Ross does not need permission to reprint the story... or if he does, and obtained it... then there is no problem. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The (Australian) Daily Telegraph article exists and is correctly quoted on the Rick Ross website. I confirmed that through a Lexis-Nexis search; it appeared in the "Local" section on page 13 in the State edition. Is there any suggestion/evidence that Rick Ross misquotes attributed news articles, or is it only a matter of him (possibly) not having licensed the copyrighted content ? If it is the latter, the solution is simply not to link to his site as a convenience link for hosted newsarticles. Abecedare (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and verifying the article's existence. There is no assertion that I am aware of that any news articles on rickross.com have been misquoted. There may be a quibble as to how selective the choice of articles hosted is; this on the Prem Rawat overview page for example appears to be a record of a couple's divorce proceedings, with the only link to Rawat being the fact that one of the couple had once, years prior to the marriage, been a follower of Rawat. This article reports on the opening of an enquiry, and there is no corresponding article reporting on the enquiry's findings (which appear to have been that the organisation was in order, from checking the UK charity registration website). But this may partly reflect the fact that newspapers and courts tend to focus more on negatives than on positives. The scholarly Dupertuis article also present on the Prem Rawat page was, I believe, actually written by a follower of Rawat's. So far the consensus seems to be then – do not use either of these sites as a convenience or external link, but verify the articles' existence and credit them (and link to them, where possible) directly. Jayen466 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus you state makes sense to me. Does the Rick Ross website have any original content ? If so there may be a case for using it as a referenced source or external link in some cases; if it only hosts links/extracts from news sources, then it is advisable to cite them directly (after verification), and use rickcross.com only as a convenient resource for editors (as opposed to readers.) Abecedare (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found much material on the site that to my mind would qualify as an encyclopedic source. I think most of the texts on the site are taken from elsewhere. Plus there are the pages where Mr. Ross is offering his services to worried families. But I agree with the principle that any original material on the site written by Mr. Ross or his associates could and should be linked to, if it's pertinent to a topic covered in WP. Jayen466 21:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:C. Do not link to material that violates copyright. Cite the original source, and if it's not online, too bad. we are allowed to cite treeware, after all. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

<deindent>
One final thought for now: It may be a good idea to email Rick Ross (info@rickross.com) and ask him (politely) if he has licensed the information on his website and if he can provide an OTRS verification. We may be able to short-circuit this whole debate if he replies in the affirmative. Any volunteers experienced in the process ? Abecedare (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the wording of the disclaimer and the absence of copyright acknowledgments I think it highly unlikely that any such licenses exist. I get the feeling the database of news articles is really designed to bring in customers, because looking for original material by Mr. Ross on the site I realised that rickross.com is also a commercial site, offering expert witness and intervention/deprogramming services complete with hourly rates: [35] [36] [37] [38] as well as selling DVDs [39] and soliciting donations [40]. All of which makes me less inclined to consider it a suitable source for linking to in WP articles. Jayen466 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My view is that whenever possible, we should link to original sources. However, if those sources are hard for an average person to reach, then also linking to existing excerpts or full copies on the web is reasonable as long as we believe the copies are uncompromised. The owners of newspaper archives presumably are aware of the web, and I'd expect that they see no value in going after people promoting their work, especially when those people have a scholarly purpose in doing so. Respecting the property of others is certainly important, but I don't believe we must respect someone's property more than they themselves do, especially given the centrality of verifiability to our work. Thus, I'd consider both sites an acceptable backup source for linking. William Pietri (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's thrash this out. Well over a hundred articles link to the site; if these links are to be removed (or redirected to legitimate sites), there should be a good reason to start this work, and it should be backed up by solid community consensus. Personally, I don't see how these sites can be compatible with the copyright policy outlined in WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. In addition I have the feeling that the purpose of both sites mentioned here is not just scholarly, but also commercial; and if the above reasoning by William Pietri (talk · contribs) were to be applied to any site that infringes copyright, then there would be no copyright-infringing sites on the net at all. Because then we would have to assume that the ongoing presence of such material on a site generally implies the legal owner's consent. Any other views? Jayen466 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this is to say the least not the best characterization of the Rick Ross site links. Rick Ross is a well known expert on groups that many consider cults with huge publicity budgets churning out uncritically reviewed material. The purpose of these Rick Ross links and similar sites devoted to such groups is to provide a ready reference to hard to find published information on many such groups, not to sell services. Wikipedia's restrictions on critical external links have become such that original, critical material by Rick Ross would not be suitable because it is critical, and now you want to restrict linking to Rick Ross as well because he even collects information on these groups although the claim isn't that the information isn't sourced and there is zero chance of derivative liability for Wikipedia. Meanwhile, you can't even put in an article a general statement that critical information can be found on the internet anymore because advocates will demand that you provide anm attributable source for even that or it is "original research", which is absurd. The fallacy here is that there simply isn't a large body of scholarly, NPOV secondary sourcing, only a large amount of primary soured proponency and much less secondarily sourced, published material, simply due to limited interest, and Wikipedia simply doesn't function well in such niche areas. Wikipedia's increasing inability to address the underlying problem with NPOV in such cases by keeping these articles limited in scope for balance results in almost every article on such groups presenting a skewed view. This is just another "cure" that will make the problem worse. Not much point in editing Wikipedia anymore. Bye. --Dseer (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't know much about religionnewsblog.com, I disagree strongly that a substantial purpose of rickross.com is commercial. The Rick Ross Institute is a registered 501c3 nonprofit. I am of course not saying that any infringing of copyright is ok, but I am saying that there are cases where copyright owners may find non-profit use of limited amounts of their work acceptable and even welcome, and that this is plausibly one of those cases.

We should certainly try to be good citizens and follow the law, but we are not obliged to act as copyright police or to take hard-line positions on IP, especially when it would reduce the quality and verifiability of our encyclopedia. When we have no more official option, linking to web-posted copies of referenced articles on legitimate non-profit sites is not illegal, does not hurt the commercial value of the original work, and is beneficial to us and our readership. I believe we should continue the practice as is. William Pietri (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to weigh in here, but after reading the most recent above comment by William Pietri (talk · contribs) (as well as his previous comment), I don't think I could have said it any better than that. Cirt (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As to newspapers' copyright policies, here are the relevant pages from the New York Times website: [41] [42] There is nothing there to indicate that unauthorised reproduction of their articles on websites like the ones discussed here is welcomed by them. The same applies to Associated Press: [43] and I believe most other newspapers. In my view, the fact that editors like or applaud the work that the owners of a particular website do cannot be material here: that is an argument that would be open to any editor, with any site they link to. As regards the not-for-profit status of the Rick Ross Institute, Mr. Ross does use the rickross.com site to advertise his professional services and those of his associates, as outlined above. An American Professor of Sociology has described rickross.com as an "entrepreneurial lone ranger attempt to solicit customers". I still think that linking to the newspapers' own websites, where this is possible, is preferable and more in line with WP policy, and that simply referencing the article without the link (possibly with a note in the ref that the copy cited was found on rickross.com) is the right thing to do in those cases where the article is not available any more on the publisher's own website. Interested users can still find the article online by googling for its headline. Jayen466 14:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That nonprofit institutions take in money is not proof of commercial activity; every nonprofit takes donations, and many sell DVDs and services. Your quote is from 2003 and about the late 90s, and so appears to predate the creation of the nonprofit. If you think the Rick Ross Institute is violating its nonprofit status, you should talk to the IRS, not a Wikipedia noticeboard.

If you've spent any time in a large American corporation, that newspaper has no lawyer-written policy approving web posting of excerpts or articles should be unsurprising. But that doesn't mean that they actually mind their material being re-used as a non-commercial public good. Standards in Germany may be different, but in the US, the doctrine of fair use is an extension of the core of copyright: a limited, temporary grant of property rights to promote the creation and publication of intellectual works. Rick Ross is probably within the legal and moral boundaries of that, and we certainly are. I agree that referencing the original newspaper whenever possible is the right thing to do. However, when I weigh reduced verifiability against a token gesture of extreme deference to a publisher that may be perfectly happy that people are using and discussing their work, I feel that verifiability wins out. That is especially true given that, as Dseer points out, rickross.com has articles about organizations that in many cases work very hard to present and promote a one-sided view of themselves.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that Rick Ross is necessarily a reliable source on anything other than the views of Rick Ross. He's clearly partisan, so I don't think he personally should be cited except in a "critics say" kind of way. But if he's the only guy with a web-accessible copy of a text that we are citing, we should not place unnecessary barriers in the way of verifying Wikipedia articles based on those texts. William Pietri (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite certain, judging by the Disclaimer quoted above and the sort of material hosted, that rickross.com does not operate within the realms of fair use. Just try getting one of these NY Times articles that he hosts uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with a fair-use rationale and you'll see what I mean. Re your concern for WP:V: my suggestion is either to link to the publisher's website or to omit the link to rickross.com, but state that the copy of the article viewed was that found on rickross.com. That should be done anyway – see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. (I don't know what the status is if the copy viewed and cited infringes a copyright – perhaps we'd have to raise this in another forum.) In either case, then, verifiability would be ensured. Readers either get the original article, on the publisher's website (preferable in any case), or they can look for the article on rickross.com, since our reference tells them that we found it there. As for the site being non-commercial, I don't think you understand that Mr. Ross makes his living as an "intervention specialist" or deprogrammer, and as an expert witness in court cases. In other words, these pages [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] advertise the professional services by which he makes his livelihood. So in what sense is the site non-commercial if it advertises his commercial, for-profit services? Surely, the business idea is that people surf to the site to read up on the group that a member of their family has joined, and then at least a small proportion of them will click on "Getting Help", where Mr. Ross's services are available at the quoted prices. See Duck test. Jayen466 20:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but the determination of fair use is made by judges, not by Wikipedia's policies, which are and should be much more stringent than what is legal in the US, which in turn may be stricter than what a particular rightsholder allows. That someone makes a living at a non-profit endeavor does not make it suddenly for profit, and neither does providing services. Most educational institutions, for example, are non-profit, but certainly charge money for services, and just as certainly provide a living to their employees. Do they put up their websites partly because the will attract paying students? Surely. But that alone does not mean they are suddenly a for-profit institution, or that other material on that site would suddenly fail the first part of the US fair use test.

Making readers and editors go the extra step of searching the web for a reference whose location we describe doesn't benefit anybody, and it harms the encyclopedia. If we are going to use the article and say where we saw the material, then we should link to it. William Pietri (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can follow your reasoning, but there remains the fact that the links to these sites appear to be a clear breach of our above policies. And the same argument could be made for any other site hosting unlicensed public-interest material. I've left a note on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems to see if we can get some editors with a clearer understanding of WP copyright policy to comment on the matter. Jayen466 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Many news websites have links and advertisements to items they do not own the copyright to, or host items for sale. They are still acceptable on Wikipedia. However, if an item is a blog, it should not be allowed, except as opinion (and chances are this is reflected in legitimate news websites). I believe the policy deals with things like linking to excerpts of Harry Potter on a website that does not have permission to use it. If the text that you are linking to is rightfully used by the website, then it should be okay. If not, well, there you go. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty straightforward situation. If a website illegally hosts infringing material, we should not link to them. Policy makes this clear (Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, among other places). Additionally, simple legal realities preclude us from linking to such sites. Contributory infringement requires both a reasonable belief that the infringing party should have known the material was in violation of copyright (which is apparent for news "scraping" sites of any sort) and a material contribution to the infringement (which linking from a top ten website would almost certainly qualify). IANL, but a law degree is not required to see why linking to such sites should be vigorously avoided. Vassyana (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is largely affiliated with the open-source community and copyleft, I think we should clarify here: F*** copyright law. People seem to pull out claims of copyright infringement in content disputes, just to push their point-of-view. I.E., a while back, some images I'd uploaded to Wikipedia were deleted by some annoying people because I used copyrighted Wikipedia logos, in the images. Thus, they argued, "That's in violation of copyright." Yes, but is Wikipedia going to sue itself? Is anybody going to somehow use my images, pulled from Wikipedia, in a way that harms Wikimedia financially? Later, I found images which had done the same thing, elsewhere (used copyrighted Wikipedia logos in images uploaded to Wikipedia) which remain untouched. Sometimes, Wikilawyering actually involves real laws, not just made-up ones.

So, the relevant question isn't, "Is this in accordance with the letter of the law?" but rather, "In reality, will Wikipedia get sued?" The second question is particularly important since the government itself often ignores the law and the answer to the second question is no. The legal culpability for linking to another website which violates copyright law is minimal, if not entirely non-existent. Much less, the legal culpability for the Foundation, which delegates editing responsibility to the community is minimal, if not non-existent. Technically, it could be argued that knowingly linking to a site which knowingly links to a site which knowingly links to a site which infringes on copyright is "copyright infringement," but such a ridiculous argument would be thrown out of court. The internet, period, is rampant with copyright infringement. The only way to completely avoid this would be to avoid secondary sources, especially sources like blogs and self-published websites. WP:Copyvio (and all policy, period) isn't like legalist dogma which we pedantically follow, literally, because we all somehow think policy was somehow written on stone tablets, by God, or we have some kind of undying love for copyright law. It's simply practical, pragmatic steps we take to keep Wikipedia functioning and to avoid getting Wikimedia sued. In this case, Wikimedia is not going to get sued from citing Rick Ross and I suggest e-mailing the Foundation for clarification, if you're still concerned.

With that said, what Rick Ross and religionnewsblog.com do could certainly be construed as fair use. If a company thinks they're infringing on copyright, they can issue a DMCA takedown provision very easily and Wikipedia will respond accordingly. Until then, this is just wikilawyering, literally. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This has to be the most sensible post I've seen on this topic - thank you Zenwhat. Orderinchaos 22:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reproduction of entire works for public distribution is not anything close to fair use. However, it is classic infringement. You may wish to say f*** copyright, but copyright is a reality and numerous people depend on it for a living (writers, artists, etc). Is there a good chance we won't be sued? Sure. Does that make violating the law or encouraging the theft of someone else's work correct? F*** no. Also, contributory infringement for linking directly to infringing works is not an obscure technicality unlikely to result in court enforcement, but rather a legal reality upheld by courts in the United States. Vassyana (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I believe that rickross.com is not doing anything illegal or morally wrong. First, copyright is not an absolute right, and not all copies are illegal, as section of the law on fair use makes clear. As the US Constitution says, copyright exists, "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Further, not all uses of somebody else's property are crimes. When the neighborhood children sit on my porch after school, they are indeed on my land, but if a neighborhood busybody called the police for trespassing, I would be outraged. We certainly shouldn't link to people who are engaging in wholesale, for-profit violation of actively marketed intellectual property, and I think nobody would suggest otherwise. But there is a complicated spectrum here, from obvious piracy to sharing abandoned works to educational fair use to simple quoting. We must be responsible citizens, but equally we must not be extremists or prudes. William Pietri (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wholesale copying for broad distribution is not even remotely close to fair use and asserting otherwise is simply ludicrous. I agree there is a whole spectrum of use involved in using copyrighted materials, but I disagree that the use by rickross.com constitutes anything but obvious wholesale infringement. Vassyana (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Then it's a good thing I asserted the opposite. Sorry if my writing was confusing, but "wholesale copying for broad distribution" is one end of the spectrum I'm pointing at, and fair use is close to the other end. Rickross.com is far from the ugly end of the spectrum. It is a legally registered non-profit with an educational purpose collecting small portions of the original salable works, and only those portions related to its mission. Those articles bear no commercial ads. They do not charge for access. The value of the original work seems unharmed. I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like fair use to me.

Back in the days before the Internet, any serious public library would maintain files like this on topics of local interest, and would happily let you read and make copies of articles in the files. This is a functional modern equivalent. We should make use of it to increase the verifiability of our articles when (and only when) we cannot link to the original publisher's version. William Pietri (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Wholesale copying for broad distribution" is exactly what rickross.com does, so your position comes across as more than a bit incoherent. Whole articles are considered single whole works (just as a whole essay or whole short story from a book is a whole work), not "small portions". Since many of the news services charge for archive access, it most certainly is harmful to the value of the original work in those instances. Regardless, there's a big difference between making private copies from legitimately purchased materials (such as your library example) and publishing the material publicly on a website (which is equivalent to handing out thousands upon thousands of copies for free). Also, the for-profit or non-profit legal status of a venture does not affect the status of infringement. It only affects the fiscal culpability of the offending party. Vassyana (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As you'd expect, I disagree that my position is incoherent. AllOfMP3 is the kind of thing I mean by "wholesale, for-profit violation of actively marketed intellectual property". I agree that we should stay far away from that end of the spectrum. If there are articles in the rickross.com database that people are actively trying to sell, then yes, let's link to where they are on offer. But otherwise, I see what he's up to as no more sinister than archive.org, which we happily link to. Indeed, much less so, as his collection is surely less than a millionth of theirs. William Pietri (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there's no real comparison between a web-archive that is cautious to move within the law, has solid academic respect and endorsement, obeys robots.txt and readily complies with the wishes of rights holders, and an advocacy site that republishes news articles without permission. In my own view, your position is logically and ethically flawed (as I've detailed in my responses). Since we are apparently operating on different assumptions and standards of analysis, we will just have to agree to disagree. Vassyana (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note e.g. [49], [50] and [51] – ? Jayen466 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org may be many things, but they (and Google) have not been legally cautious. I know people who worked on it, and they definitely saw themselves as breaking new legal ground. As Lauren Gelman says "The Internet Archive has been involved in the debate over the future of copyright in cyberspace since its formation in 1995." Like archive.org, rickross.com offers to remove any material on request of the rightsholder. The only obvious difference is "solid academic respect" which is not, as far as I know, an excuse under the law for wholesale distribution of other people's copyrighted works. By your own arguments, we should pull both sites; I believe we should pull neither. William Pietri (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that a lot of people, including Jimbo Wales and probably quite a lot of others don't agree that the criterion should be 'do we get sued'. That is why for example, we respect the copyright laws of countries like Bhutan, even though we are not legally required to (hint: try reading WP:Copyrights). Indeed the very essesence of the copyleft and open source movement is that while the current copyright regime may be flawed, we need to work within it an do our best not to violate it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If people wish to change our policy on linking to sites with unlicensed copyrighted materials, they should attempt to get consensus to change Wikipedia:EL#Restrictions on linking and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. If people disagree with the copyright regime, they are free to petition the copyright office and elected officials. Unless the policy is changed, links to such sites should be removed without serious debate. Vassyana (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong concern that some editors are using valid copyright concerns to remove ANY links to sites with critical information about religious groups they favor. Red herring arguments such as "they make money off of this website" confirm my concern -- the New York Times makes money off of their website; should we be banned from linking to it?

I think there is a high value in linking to external websites that simply keep tabs of news stories on whatever issue an article is about, in this case controversy over religious organizations. They should include links, or make their own summaries, instead of simply violating copyright of course. It's best is they are scrupulously fair, but it's not necessary (and not Wikipedia policy) to force external links to meet all of our very strict requirements, such as BLP, no OR, etc.

How about this alternative to RickRoss.com, et. al.: CAIC.org It seems reasonably fair and a site that summarizes copyrighted material instead of copying it. I know that the word "cult" is fightin' words for some, despite the disclaimer on their front page ("Read This First (disclaimer). Both Cults & Isms are listed here. Not every group mentioned on this site is considered a destructive cult. Some are 'benign isms' — different but not emotionally or socially destructive.") We can avoid that word in any case by simply referring to it as CAIC, and linking directly to the page about a certain group or figure, for example [52]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 March 2008

it's not necessary (and not Wikipedia policy) to force external links to meet all of our very strict requirements, such as BLP Note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#External_links Jayen466 01:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been hashed out at length before, with no clear resolution. See Wikipedia:Convenience links. If anyone seeks to remove links to articles hosted on Rick Ross's website they should be sure to not delete the articles as sources - we don't need hot links to use newspaper articles as sources. Instead they should reformat the citation so that it lists the bibliographic information about the article so that interested readers can look up the reference on their own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the fair use rationale, there is a somewhat similar case described here: Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense Jayen466 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have written to the New York Times and Associated Press copyright/permissions departments to seek their advice; when and if I hear from them, I shall report back. Jayen466 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this further, here's my view. From Wikipedia:Copyrights, we are allowed to link to "internet archives", but we don't define what those might be. I can find two obvious ones in use: archive.org and webcitation.org. Both take previously published material and offer it to anybody on the web who cares to ask for it. Both have policies where they will take down material on request. Neither asks for permission in advance. Both are non-profits, and do not put advertisements on the archived material. They do solicit donations and/or offer services. Rickross.com appears to meet all these criteria. Religionnewsblog.com claims to be non-profit, but I haven't confirmed that. They also run ads, but I didn't see requests for donations or offers of services. Otherwise, they fit these criteria. So I would say that both of these sites appear to qualify as internet archives (albeit with RNB possibly closer to the margin) and so should be kept. William Pietri (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For more info: the term internet archive is wikilinked in Wikipedia:Copyrights; archive.org has official recognition as a library. Not sure it solves this issue, but there it is, FWIW. Jayen466 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excellent point. I was thinking mainly of the US fair use criteria when I was comparing things, as that is the legal hole through which they appear to be driving their multi-petabyte truck. The Internet Archive indeed recently (June 2007) became an officially recognized library as part of seeking some federal funding, so that's indeed an interesting difference. They appear not to have done anything more than they were doing before, however, so I don't think that helps us with a duck test for internet archives. William Pietri (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Both archive.org and webcitation.org are automatic (bot) archivers and obey robots.txt and provide information on how to block them via robot.txt. The archive pages precisely and do not reformat or modify pages. They only archive from the internet. Do these apply to rickross.com? From what I can tell, the answer is no. The pages there are 'archived' manually by the site owner (so robots.txt becomes irrelevant), they are reformated for the site, and I'm not even sure if he only archives from websites. I don't think rickross.com is what we mean when we say internet archive. I would suggest if people find stories online that are relevant to an article, they submit them to webcitation, rather then relying on some more dubious website Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no justification to link to sites that repost copyrighted material without permission. None whatsoever. "F*** copyright" might work as the slogan for some anarchist wannabe who doesn't understand the whole point behind intellectual property, but it does not currently and never will fly on Wikipedia. With Wikipedia as big as it is, if it did start knowingly violate copyright laws as policy, it would get lawsuits left and right -- and deservedly so. DreamGuy (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, so far this discussion is more or less stalemated. How would you suggest resolving it, one way or the other? Jayen466 20:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've had a response from the New York Times Permissions Representative at PARS International, short and sweet:

Thank you for your patience as I checked with "The New York Times" legal department.

In all cases, the publisher would prefer to have links directly to the nytimes.com site, all of which is now freely accessible.

Thank you for your consideration of 'The New York Times' copyright material.

(To receive a copy of the mail, contact me by e-mail.) Jayen466 08:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just learnt that, interestingly enough, Rick Ross has a post in his blog on the man running the "relgionnewsblog.com", "Apologetics Index" and "Cult FAQ" sites. It appears that Rick Ross characterises the man as a fugitive sex offender who runs the sites for profit: http://www.cultnews.com/?p=1636 [53][54] Hmmm ... Jayen466 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Proper link between two sources

I'm working on List of Alpha Phi Omega members and have a question about linking two sources. Documentary maker focused on blacks states that St. Clair Bourne was a student at Georgetown in the 1960s before being expelled for participating in a Sit-in. The list of members of Alpha Phi Omega at Georgetown lists a St. Claire Bourne as a member of the Spring 1961 pledge class. I'm not that concerned about the difference between St. Claire with an e and without an e as the page at imdb shows him with the e, but having done work as St. Clair Bourne. Is this enough to fit the reliable sources for Wikipedia given that *theoretically* there could have been two different St. Claire Bourne's at Georgetown University at the same time. Yes, I know that this is *significantly* less likely that two Joseph Brown's there at the same time, but I'm trying to bend over backwards here... Thank You.Naraht (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The obituary uses both spellings of the name. However, making this connection feels like the synthesis form of original research to me, and thus should be excluded on those grounds. YiLFS, GRBerry 02:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RS?

Can anyone tell if the following RS or not?

• Bangladesh.com
• Banglavasha.com

I want use these for geographical location related articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Using verifiability, it kind fails some tests such as as academic, third party review but it is borderline on is it a mainstream publication , it is definitely is not a wiki. So if I have to use it, I will attribute it. But it should not be used to contradict any facts that are supported by RS sources. Just my opinion. Taprobanus (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Further Discussion of the Nation

(clipped from closed thread.)

I suggest we don't. Not on that note. I've just pointed out that McNeil performed a guilt-by-association slur on Pipes in which she got her facts wrong.[55] How this article, or by implication The Nation, can be considered a "reliable source" when their unreliability is proven beyond doubt is beyond comprehension. Andyvphil (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, we're done discussing this. I judge from a look at your contributions that this is probably related to your efforts at Barack Obama media controversy or whatever that article is, but I think this issue has been addressed. Relata refero (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I had just pointed out that McNeil performed a guilt-by-association slur on Pipes in which she got her facts wrong just before your premature attempt to close. This hasn't been addressed. I don't know what Obama has to do with this. Andyvphil (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It was presumably considered irrelevant to the overall reliability of the Nation. What an article on Obama has to do with it is evident by looking at your contributions. Unless you have something new to add, I don't think there's anything further to say. Relata refero (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a serious issue with a particular article that was printed in The Nation, and how it is used in a particular Wikipedia article (and it seems you do), then that is something that should be discussed on the talk page of the wikipedia article in question. Go to your fellow editors at the Daniel Pipes article, explain your problems with the McNeil article, and try to reach a consensus on it. If the consensus of your fellow editors is that the McNeil article should not be used... then don't' use it. All we can say at this noticeboard is that The Nation is considered a reliable source. That determination isn't going to change. To continue to beat this dead horse after this determination has been repeated several times by multiple editors is counter productive... and is starting to become a WP:POINT violation. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There are degrees of reliability, of course, not absolutes. The Nation is generally considered reliable, but it's not, for example, a peer reviewed journal. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would note that even the most enthusiastic readers of The Nation would not consider it a source that espouses a neutral point of view. The reason I indicated above that it could be used in the Daniel Pipes article was because the article's writer (McNeil) made certain claims about things Pipes had written, which could be confirmed as things Pipes had written from looking at Pipes' own columns. Furthermore, the Nation article was being used to illustrate what Pipes' critics say about him -- not to report neutral facts. It may be that McNeil also stated other claims about Pipes which were not true, but those other claims were not going to be incorporated into the Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if a source was intended to be used in Wikipedia only to provide neutral facts, then contentious claims in the source would taint the source and make it a poor source to use even for the non-contentious claims. To put it another way, suppose a source said, "George W. Bush was born in Connecticut, has two daughters named Jenna and Barbara, and planned the September 11, 2001 attacks." I would not cite that source even in support of the statement "George W. Bush's daughters are named Jenna and Barbara"; I'd look for another source instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The false claims have in fact been been incorporated in the article, off and on. And should be, since the fact that they are both made and false is relevant context to the other criticisms by McNeil that are quoted. The claims that Pipes is "notorious" and "anti-Arab" are undermined by the double falsehood engaged in by the same author to link him to ethnic cleansing, and that ought not be concealed. Consider if your example had instead read "George W. Bush shirked his duties in the National Guard and planned the September 11, 2001 attacks." Merely quoting the former assertion, arguably merely a POV take on true facts, misrepresents the flavor of the source. The fact that critics in venues as semi-respectable as the The Nation are allowed, unquestioned, to demonize Pipes in ways unmoored to facts is a very legitimate subject in a section dealing with the criticisms made of him. Andyvphil (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For Pete's sake... just attribute the view in the text, as we usually do for reliable sources which have a somewhat subjective perspective. As in, "The Nation wrote X about Y." If other reliable sources have disputed what The Nation said about Pipes or whomever, then the following sentence should read: "But source X said Y." Many literate adults are familiar with The Nation and its viewpoint; those who are not can click on the wikilink and see it described, in the first sentence of the Wikipedia lede, as "the flagship of the Left." What's the problem again? MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem, again: Actually, McNeil does make "wild, out-of-the left-field [and] potentially libelous claims". She writes, e.g., "Pipes is also a regular contributor to the website of Gamla, an organization founded by former Israeli military officers and settlers that endorses the ethnic cleansing of every Palestinian as 'the only possible solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict."

The Nation's POV is not what is at issue here. It could be both highly biased and reliable as to facts. But in this case it isn't. GAMLA does nothing of the sort and Pipes is in any case not a regular contributor to GAMLA's website. Since the Nation 's fact checking process was clearly not applied sucessfully to this article this article should not be considered reliable for the truth of any factual claim made in it. That said, the Nation 's website is a RS for the content of the article, and to the extent that the article is mentioned in secondary sources (e.g., claims are made and attributed to it) we can mention its content. But only in the context of supplying the evidence that it is a tendentious piece of crap.(quoting self, 11:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

As Jayjg says (what a phrase, coming from me) "There are degrees of reliability, of course..." Blueboar's "All we can say at this noticeboard is that The Nation is considered a reliable source" is nonsense. We can, indeed must, use The Nation in describing the emanations of Pipes' critics, but then we must note that venom directed at Pipes in that venue is not well fact checked. Andyvphil (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I request a bit of clarification here from user:andyvphil on why, considering his argument here against the nation as an RS, why he has repeatedly advocated for the use of a Nation article on the Obama campaign page, and why he has reverted back to that version even when other editors' consensus found the text obsolete, if there is such a problem with the Nation? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As usual, without diffs or specifics it's pointless to attempt to reply to 72etc's vaporings. What text is "obsolete"? Andyvphil (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As usual, you don't seem to realize people can look at your edit history andy... first I want you to deny it happened and then you can have your diffs. this is the Hayes article we're talking about here, in case you're wondering... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think you've said that I'm supposed to deny. The Hayes article is also a piece of crap, now that you mention it. I've said so before, so it is clear that you haven't been taking things in. Nothing new about that. Andyvphil (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Again... The Nation is a reliable source. It is a notable publication with extensive circulation and editorial oversight. It is no less reliable than the New York Times, Newsweek, US News and World Report, or any other major periodical. The fact that it has a distinct political slant does not negate its reliability. The fact that a given article in The Nation may contain statements that are deemed inaccurate does not negate its reliability (the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not "Truth"). Thus, it may be used as a source in Wikipedia articles.

Now, questions about whether any source should be used in a particular Wikipedia article, and questions about how it should be used (for example: should it be used in support of a statement of fact or only in support of a statement of opinion) are legitimate. But these have to be decided at the article's talk page... not here. So... stop being POINTy. Take this argument back to the talk pages of the articles involved. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already pointed out that what you are saying is nonsense, and repeating it doesn't make it any less nonsense. "The Nation is... notable publication with extensive circulation and editorial oversight. It is no less reliable than the New York Times, Newsweek, US News and World Report, or any other major periodical."? Really? I don't think so. It appears to do very little fact checking of assertions that align with its biases, as shown by the example I've provided. And the Hayes article 72etc mentions also fabulated an importance to a nonentity named Andy Martin, unsupported by any fact, to perform a convenient smear. Do you have any evidence that it does fact checking, or are you just pulling an assertion out of your rear end? Andyvphil (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil, you've made your point, and consensus appears to be against you. My recommendation is that you accept that and move on. We are all sometimes in a minority of one. Relata refero (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly as simple as that. The Nation is generally considered a reliable source; however, if the claims in question are highly contentious and provably false in some cases, the author in question an otherwise unknown, and the subject a living person, then the determination is quite different. The standards for articles about living people are considerably higher than the usual Reliable Source requirements. I refer you to the opening paragraphs of WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We're all aware of that. If you read the discussion above, you'll see that we are not proposing using it for "provably false claims", so your concern is irrelevant. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether The Nation is a RS for McNeil's highly contentious claims when they are made in conjunction with provably false claims, something it is proposed we not mention. I've already given my answer: "...we can mention [the article's] content.... only in the context of supplying the evidence that it is a tendentious piece of crap." Andyvphil (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that you dont have anythong close to consensus for. Unsurprisingly. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Latimer

What do people think about the reliability of this court transcript of a witness hosted on Robert Latimer's website? [56] I don't have any reason to doubt its authenticity but would like to know if we should be using it given that I can't actually find it on a more independent/reliable source. --Slp1 (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say no... nothing indicates that it is a "true" copy of the original. It does not even indicate basic information that will be found on any official transcript... such as the case name or the date. I note that a few lines are highlighted or underlined... this would not be the case on an official transcript. All we can say in an article would be that Latimer's website prints something that appears to be a re-typing of part of a court transcript where the witness said X, and that is definitely not reliable. Sorry. Blueboar (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(the following was posted by IP user 70.66.167.249 in the discussion below... I assume that it was simply misposted and have moved it Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)): If any of you have doubts as to the veracity of the court transcript, you need only to refer to your local library, a place where they have books available for reading by the public. If they don't have it on hand, they will certainly bring it in for you. Any respectable law library, such as McGill University, will certainly have it available.

The problem isn't actually the court transcript, but the copy of it that is found on Latimer's webpage. If someone cites to a verifiable copy of the actual transcript (as might be found in a respectable law library) that would be fine. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually have access to McGill's law library and it isn't available through them electronically or on the shelves. Not sure where that leaves us. Can I also clarify one additional thing? I believe that for an editor to use the transcript as a source we must actually have seen and verified a reliable version of the transcript, not just that on Latimer's website. In order words, we can't just cite a verifiable copy of the transcript unless we have actually seen that copy in some way (electronically or physically). Is this correct? --Slp1 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Whoever adds a citation must have seen the document they cite too. That is part of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

From what you are saying, it appears that there is no transcript of the trial and that Dr. Dzus never did testify. Supporters of Robert Latimer just made the whole thing up to fool the public. If that is the case, you should delete all reference to this transcript hoax, and while you are at it, everything else that could in any way be interpreted as favourable to Robert Latimer. If you are going to have a public lynching, which would obviously be your first choice, don't stop halfway :::::— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.167.249 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No... this is not what I am saying at all. All I am saying is that we can not use the version of the transcript that is on Latimer's Page, as that version is flawed (it is incomplete and with non-original markings). In all of this, I am assuming that there is a clean verifiable copy of Dr. Dzus's testimony somewhere out there that we can cite to. All we need to do is locate it. Has anyone tried seeing if there is a public record at the court where the trial took place, or contacting a court reporting service? It does not need to be available on line... just accessable to the public. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, not just "accessible to the public", but also accessed/verified by the editor who adds the citation to the article, as Blueboar mentioned previously before. --Slp1 (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is how the information could be accessed, I believe.[57]--Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to use the transcript for? Primary sources like court transcripts need to be used with great care, particularly on BLPs are they can easily lead to OR, UNDUE etc. You may want to read WP:BLP about the use of primary sources. I would take particular clear if you are trying to advance a position, whether negative or positive, which is not already supported by a secondary source. If the primary source is simply be used to back up the secondary source then fine. Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually, I wasn't really wanting to use the transcript for precisely the reasons you mention [58]. However, the IP address was/has been, and to advance a position just as you describe. I have now replaced the unreliable and overused transcript with secondary sources, but I would be glad of any extra eyes on this article, since it has been a bit lonely over there dealing with some clear soapboxing and lack of civility (check some of the edit summaries and archives!) Slp1 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Gothamist LLC blogs

Resolved

• sfist.com DigitalC (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Right... could you explain that a little more please? Relata refero (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If your question is whether we can link to sfist.com in the Gothamist article ... the answer is Yes... In that article, it essentially falls under WP:SPS. The article is (in part) about Gothamist LLC. sfist.com is included in a list of "city centric" blogs that are run by that company. I am not sure if listing all of these blogs is appropriate (it slightly smacks of turning the article into a promotion for the company and its various blog sites), but that is a different issue. If we are going to include the list, it is appropriate to provide a link to each of them as verification that they exist and are indeed owned and run by Gothamist LLC.

If your question is whether sfist.com can be used as a source in any other article, then I would say Absolutely Not. In other articles it falls squarely under our "No blogs" rule and is unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to add other than to affirm what Blueboar just said. Sfist.com could not, however, be used as a source for other articles. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Blueboar, how did you read his mind? Relata refero (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just another of my psychic Super Powers. No biggie. :>) Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero, thanks for the bite. Blueboar, thank you for answering my question, which I apparently could have been MUCH more clear on. DigitalC (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Trumpet

Would The Philadelphia Trumpet be considered a reliable source for a statement on Middle Eastern politics? It is a monthly news magazine published by the Philadelphia Church of God. I have to admit I'm no expert on the PCoG, but my understanding of it is that it is a fairly fringe-y religious organisation (according to a Watchman Expositor profile, it is an "American-born cult" with about 6,000 members -- [59]). I feel that this would have to be considered a non-mainstream source - what WP:V would call a "questionable source" - and that Middle Eastern affairs would be outside its area of competence. It strikes me as being rather similar to contemplating the use of a Church of Scientology magazine as a reliable source for a statement on Scientology's pet hate, psychiatry. I would be interested to know what others think. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not the best source - certainly not at the level of a newsmagazine like U.S. News & World Report, or even The New Republic. It does seem to have a fairly high circulation, assuming the figures are accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely skeptical of those figures. It seems highly implausible that a fringe magazine for a 6,000-member cult has higher circulation than The Nation, The Weekly Standard, or The New Republic, just to name a few. Cults have a reputation for exaggerating membership and publication figures (with Scientology, for instance, they often buy books en masse off the shelves and then re-sell them, to juice their sales figures). *** Crotalus *** 15:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Those figures are extraordinary. 300,000 copies per month for an organisation with 6,000 members works out at 50 copies per member. It's most likely that those reflect free distribution copies rather than commercial sales figures (Scientology's Freedom Magazine works in much the same way - they give them out on the street). Be that as it may, it occurs to me that a good way of assessing its reliability would be to see whether anyone else quotes it as a source; bear in mind WP:V's requirement that sources should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I've done a search of news archives and Google Books but found negligible use of the Trumpet as a source. The few sources I did find used it mainly as a source on the PCoG, which is fair enough given that it's the official organ of that outfit, though I was amused to see that one source described it as "hopelessly fundamentalist"! It seems to me that if other reliable sources are not citing the Trumpet as a source for information on general issues, we should not do so; I've found nothing that suggests it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

CounterPunch

I've come across a few references to CounterPunch which, I note, has a number of links from article space. I see from this page's archives that CounterPunch's reliability has been discussed briefly before, but I'm unclear as to what the general view is of this source's reliability. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It has a strong political agenda and bias. It's probably about as reliable as FrontPage Magazine, which would be its counterpart on the right. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My expsriance froma personal angle: CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts. Zeq (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to remove links to CounterPunch unless the individual writing for them is notable enough in his or her own right. Jay's comparison to FPM is apt. Relata refero (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

None of these should be used as sources in contentious articles related to political/social topics, unless the author is particularly well known and their opinion is likely to be of substantial interest in and of itself. *** Crotalus *** 15:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how I approach it. Relata refero (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. <eleland/talkedits> 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Relata refero. It depends on who writes there. In itself it cannot be called a reliable or unreliable source (the same goes for mainstream papers though). One might add that, contrary to what was asserted, it doesn't have a 'strong political agenda', except for those unfamiliar with it, since the views expounded in its pages can not be affiliated with those of any political party. Its regulars include an (ex?) economist who was an undersecretary for the Reagan Administration (e.g.Paul Craig Roberts), former analysts for the C.I.A., libertarians, ex-Wall Street Journal journalists of repute, historians of repute, senior officers of the American military (Col. Dan Smith), many academics, etc. It opens its pages to what are called fringe views, but also to quality analysts from all areas of controversy. It is equally critical of the Democratic Party as of the Republican Party. It has a strong record for quality reportage on certain key issues that has proven, in retrospect, more accurate of the inside-stories in matters like WMP in Iraq, the politics of the war on Terror, and the invasion of Iraq, prescient on the present economic crisis long before 'mainstream' newspapers starting to talk about possible sub-prime problems and the structural dangers of derivatives-trading. It is, yes, highly critical of Israel, but most of that material comes from varied voices within Israel or the north-American Jewish world, from Uri Avnery to Michael Neumann. It does not have a 'line', however, since its regular commentators have disagreed quite vigorously on a one or two-state solution. In short, Counterpunch is what is called a muckraking magazine, hosting a great diversity of prominent critics, academics, writers and journalists, from Diane Johnston, Gore Vidal, Uri Avnery, Ralph Nader, Paul Craig Roberts, Robert Fisk (one of the West's best writers on Lebanese affairs and history), Oren Ben-Dor, Frank Menetrez, Gary Leupp, etc., to name a few off the top of my head. The comparison to FrontPage Magazine, is completely off-key. If it has an agenda, it is in getting informed reportage from around the world that is not on the Front Page, and cannot be qualified as a 'left' wing mirror of a right-wing rag, for the simple reason that many who write for it are far too critical of the ideological or political left to be denominated under that vague and lazy rubric. What applies to it, applies to all sources: a judgement of quality, which can vary as much there as it does in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, mainstream papers which have proven to be far less reliable as sources on several major events of the last decade than Counterpunch.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC).

Nishidani's point about the heterogeneity of views and reputations on offer is well taken. I agree, too, that some of the sources most reliable by our standards have shown themselves to be somewhat problematic recently when it comes to the bigger picture. (Read Michael R. Gordon for gory details.) But the difference is that (a) CounterPunch prides itself on heterogeneity and giving space to marginal views; by focusing on the things in which they were right about facts, we would be subject to selection bias, and would not get useful information about the probability of them being right about facts. (b) As a self-defined muckraking magazine, it cannot be expected to hold itself to the same standards of fact-checking and confirmation using multiple independent sources that newspapers we consider reliable by our metric at least nominally honour. (c) As a magazine devoted to heterogeneity of views and reputations, it cannot be immediately assumed that publication in it makes the opinion of the contributor notable by our standards. Its strength as an unaffiliated, "independent" voice is a weakness as far as meeting the criteria here are concerned. Relata refero (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Applying the WP:V criteria of having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", is CounterPunch cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed a good point. In the end, that's all that matters. We must all resist the natural tendency to see publications we agree with as inherently more reliable and neutral (really, any mag that publishes Chomsky, Fisk, and Churchill is left-leaning, and these days paleoconservatives have more in common with the left on major foreign policy issues than anyone on the right). I agree with those above we should only reference an article in this mag and others like FPM if that article's author is notable in his own right (e.g. Chomsky for Counterpunch, Pipes for FPM). - Merzbow (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when is Daniel Pipes notable in any way similar to Noam Chomsky? Chomsky has a very wide and international notability in several areas of scholarship and political commentary, whereas Pipes certainly does not. Do you mean that within arch-conservative cultures Chomsky is regarded as a wackjob the way that Pipes is amongst those of the far left who even know who is? While I get the similarity here on Wikipedia in terms of perceived POV lets not delude ourselves about the notability of minor ideologues (vs. quite major ideologues).PelleSmith (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To quibble a minor issue in Merzbow's point above: Fisk's main output is for The Independent which isn't left-leaning but centre. OK, UK centre = US far left, but we have to live with that. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsure about this source

This source for the material below appears to be on the edge of what may or may not be acceptable for the content. It is a transcript from a radio interview of one of the principals that seems to confirm the content. However the tricky part is the transcript and website appears to be self published by the producers of the radio show that is no longer in operation.

From ME/CFS nomenclatures:

Also Infectious venulitis (IVN), this term was used to describe an outbreak at the Mercy San Juan Hospital in Sacramento, California by Erich Ryll. Source
RS or not? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

FreeRepublic

FreeRepublic.com is by and large an unreliable source because it is a self-published source (blog). However, it does have a reprinting service where users add articles to the site from reliable sources that they find interesting followed by frequently lengthy comments on the article by the readers of the website. As an example, [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507163/posts this link] is used as a source in Hindu nationalism. Can the reprints on freerepublic be used as a reliable source, or does the reputation of FreeRepublic and the following comments by the readers of the site eliminate the reliableness of the source. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Since the original newspaper and article publication date are provided with the FreeRepublic article, it would be better to find a way to look up the original article (even though it's no longer available free online) rather than relying solely on the convenience link at FreeRepublic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Cite the original source, not the reprint. Wikipedia is not a method of increasing web traffic to Free Republic. Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I wasn't considering adding links to the site (I've been slowly going through the externals links to it and removing them), just ran across a user that was repeatedly adding a link to an article on the site and was claiming it was acceptable to use it, so I came here for clarification. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking to copyrighted articles reproduced in FreeRepublic is not allowed because they are copyvios. - Merzbow (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Should the site be blacklisted then? Particularly the http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news portion of the site. That seems to be where the reprints are kept. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Relata refero (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I know the site pretty well and even have written on the forum, but I hadn't thought of the problems. If it should be blacklisted, how does that get done?Doug Weller (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that the topic of FreeRepublic.com came up in the fair use discussions above, under #Use_of_rickross.com_and_religionnewsblog.com_as_external_links.2Fconvenience_links. I believe these are essentially similar cases. Our article on fair use has details of a copyright case against FreeRepublic.com: Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense (they lost). I would cite the original articles only. Jayen466 08:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

FreeRepublic is notably different from RickRoss.com. From my viewing, it appears the RR.com includes the full text of articles, with little or no commentary. FR.com mostly posts excerpts, sometimes with commentary interleaved, and always with highly partisan, non-expert commentary following. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, the problem of FR being used for citations has come up so often that blacklisting appears to be the best solution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the commentary adds significantly to the problem, making this a more clearcut case. Jayen466 19:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's essentially just a forum. It's not a reliable source in any way, shape, or form (like its arch-nemesis, Democratic Underground). - Merzbow (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I added it to the blacklist request page back on the 31st, but it still hasn't been acted upon. I just asked for a status check. One thing, www.freerepublic.com itself should probably be whitelisted as the site itself is notable and it should be okay to include a link to the site on Free Republic's article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#freerepublic.com. Blacklisting this, while it may be justified, would take a lot of upfront work, which I have described in my response. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dictionaries in general

To what extent are general-purpose dictionaries considered RS with respect to inherently complex topics? For example, in the current insurgency article, several respected dictionaries are used as examples of "historically accepted" definitions of insurgency. My sense is that the space limitations of a dictionary make a definition there much less reliable than a discussion, of the same word, in a peer-reviewed report, journal, or monograph. Is there any guidance here?

Note that I understand that certain "dictionaries" are actually specialized monographs, encyclopedias, or textbooks. Here, I'm referring to things such as Merriam-Webster or the OED. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dictionaries are reliable tertiary sources. We try not to use them too heavily, but comparing/contrasting a couple of dictionary definitions should be fine near the beginning of an article, to explain what a word means. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

accesshollywood - Reliable source?

I am just wondering, is it a reliable source? It has lots of users. http://www.accesshollywood.com/ Thank you. --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to specify an aspect of it. Some or many of the news items it publishes are in fact republications from reliable sources. Other parts of the site contain blogs (unreliable). Someguy1221 (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what I meant was. Articles submited by their staff, not bloggers. For example, http://www.accesshollywood.com/article/8864/three-rising-stars-land-coveted-high-school-musical-3-roles/ Is this a reliable article? --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that access hollywood is itself notable, there seems to be a system of editorial oversight present, and its parent company (NBC) is a reliable source, I'd assume it to be reliable in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Great Scale of Celebrity Gossip, Access Hollywood is more People Magazine, less US Weekly. Relata refero (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

US Supreme Court cases and sourcing issues

There's a debate going on over on WP:ORN (see section "Clarifying Summarizing vs. Original Research" and start reading where it says "I've seen some situations recently") about the manner in which statements about decisions of the United States Supreme Court can or should be sourced. The other editor and I had hoped to attract some outside perspectives on this issue (as an alternative to going back and forth on the article talk pages or simply descending into an edit war), but so far no one other than the two of us has chimed in.

Originally, the argument seemed to be over whether certain kinds of statements, supposedly based on the content of a court opinion in a case, were valid on their own or should be considered "unsourced". That's why I first brought up the question on WP:ORN. Now, though, I'm wondering whether maybe the point at issue would be better characterized as where the line should be drawn between reliable and not-so-reliable sources.

If some people who hang out on this noticeboard might take a moment to hop over to WP:ORN, read what's already been said there on this issue, and offer some guidance, I think we would both be grateful. Or, if people here think that this topic really ought to be discussed here instead and want to move it to this forum, that would presumably be fine too. Thanks. Richwales (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy Books or Book Summaries

Do Holy Books count as Reference for an religous article and is it possible to insert text straight out of Holy Books and then summarise it into an article ? Or would Actual Pictures from an holy book be listed as an reliable source? i mean the text mentioned in a holy book should have the right to be inserted into an holy article and the text is the absolute truth. so do Actual Text and Actual Photos straight out of holy books become an reliable source or is an Summary Book from somebody else point of view better ? so either Holy Book or Summary of Book from an author which are reliable, Or are the two of them reliable sources? please let me know before i make movements and get into conflicts. --Mohun (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The original text of a religious scripture is a primary source for articles on that scripture, so we would try and avoid using it. Although reliable, the use of "summary" books or other work discussing the scripture in question would be preferred, especially if published by a well-known press. Please see WP:PSTS. Relata refero (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• In many cases, articles about religious subjects need to cite holy books. See, for example, Jesus#Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels, where the point of the section is to describe the narrative of Jesus's life as the New Testament describes it. (This doesn't mean that Wikipedia officially accepts the truth of the New Testament -- just that it is relevant to describe what the New Testament says.) Saying that "the text is the absolute truth" is only true for believers in the particular religion -- it is not a neutral point of view. Descriptions of the summary of a religious text may also be useful as reliable sources for describing the teachings of that religion. I am not sure which holy books you are thinking of that contain actual photos, given that most religious texts predate the invention of photography. Furthermore, Wikipedia could only use such photos if they are no longer in copyright or if they are freely licensed. If you have a particular text that you want to cite for a particular point, please provide further details and someone may be able to advise you further. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For the background to this see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Mah.C4.81mada. Mohun is a sock of DWhiskaZ. Paul B (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Actual photos" apparently means scans of textual illustrations in books, such as can be seen in this old version of the article in question. This is more than a little dubious. First, since the purpose is to show text, the text can be quoted directly. Second, in this particular case, the "photos" in the source book are of poor quality and possibly not sourced themselves to reliable versions -- for example, this image not only has a typo, it also betrays a non-standard numbering in the "original" source from which the illustration was made for the book. rudra (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Corporate Page Problem

Having a problem on this article: Laqtel which is a corporate stub. The article was started as essentially a copy and paste of press releases. I went through and remove most of the corporate PR from the article and trimmed it down to the basics. However two users are constantly reverting the edits. Am I off track here? I can't see any justification (in my mind) as to why the content deserves to be on Wikipedia. All it talks about is business transactions and visions, throwing figures in there, with no references what-so-ever. The only reference in the entire article is something I added based on a recent development (where the company got into serious legal trouble). I am questioning as well the motives of those editing the articles repeatedly. Rasadam (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources are acceptable, though for style - not RS - reasons, the article should not sound too press-release-y. For the other issues, have you looked at WP:COIN? Relata refero (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

reliability check

I'm fairly sure that http://www.edbrill.com/ will not constitute a reliable source, but I want third-party corroboration before I take that back to the article. Thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a personal blog to me. As such, it is not RS. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Another: http://www.metalstorm.ee. Not my cuppa, and I'm unfamiliar; please vet. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDb - again

Hello, I'd like to reopen discussions on the reliability of IMDb. Whilst posts etc are user generated, the majority of factual edits are first moderated by internal editors. You can't just ADD information willy-nilly, it takes a while, and sometimes your input isn't accepted. Why isn't it considered reliable? Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#y.21m Adaircairell (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Are author/publisher bios reliable sources?

I regularly come across WP articles on authors or musicians where the primary source for the info is the author's homepage or the publisher's bio. Often, my online searches fail to turn up additional info or even confirming sources. My question: Is a author bio (particularly one probably written by the author) a reliable source? I debated posting to the WP:BLP/N but this is really a reliability question. It seems to me these sorts of author bios aren't remotely independent of the subject. If the info was republished in a RS like a newspaper or mag article or a valid online source, that would probably work but trusting what is, for all practical purposes, self-reporting?. I have doubts.

I guess my main concern is that there is also a question of notability if they don't have at least some significant RS coverage. Input? Cheers, Pigman☿ 17:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not reliable, per se, but you just treat it like any self-published source. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In other words, if it's being used for something like confirming the real name of someone, where they were born, etc, it's probably fine. If it's being used exclusively to support the claim the person won a Nobel Prize, probably not. Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedias

Hello, does this book 'Encyclopedia of Hinduism' become an Reliable Source ? and if so would there be any rejections for it ? is there an certain company that i could only provide as Ref.

because i noticed in many wiki articles they just have books (not encyclopedias) from authors point of view and doesnt seem to be fair to other books and information that could be provided in articles.

and my libray has many encyclopedias from old books and new books and many different publishers. could you provide me with proper guidelines. --99.237.254.245 (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some information about the publisher, editors, contributors etc, a link to an online description, or at least the ISBN ? It is difficult to judge the reliability of a source based solely on the title. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure easily no problem here

Book Name - Encyclopedia International

Copyright- 1974, 1973, 1972, 1971, 1970, 1969, 1968, 1967, 1966, 1965, 1964, 1963 by Grolier Incorporated

Copyright - Grolier Incorporated 1974

Copyright in Canada - Grolier Limited

Encyclopedia International

Includes bibliographies

1. Encyclodeias and Dictionaries

AE5.E447 1974 031 73-11206 ISBN 0-7172-0705-6

Note - Its just One of my Sources for information, and it also covers some areas i will be investigating in and has over 30 books. is it considerd reliable ?

--99.237.254.245 (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that seems to be a somewhat obscure and outdated tertiary publication that according to World cat is directed towards a "Juvenile" audience. As such it doesn't appear to be an appropriate source for wikipedia. Do other editors want to chime in ? Abecedare (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Whats the difference if its based on 1970 or whenever, its still actual Encyclopedia that holds enough information to calim what i need on articles. --99.237.254.245 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• One problem is that the book you have referenced is the Encyclopedia International instead of the Encyclopedia of Hinduism. In other words, it's a general interest juvenile encyclopedia, instead of a subject-specific encyclopedia as suggested above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, my take on it is that an encyclopedia should be where we start our research on a topic, not where we end it. A high quality encyclopedia will have references to show where it got its information. We should read these references and cite them, rather than citing an encyclopedia which summarize them. Good research is a multi-step process. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Shofar ftp archives

In the article Nazi propaganda a paragraph was very recently introduced that uses the following as source (text from the reference given):

• [60]German newspaper editor outlining the claims of Polish atrocities against minorities

My question is, is this a reliable source? Can I too use this and similar material to source articles?--Stor stark7 ^Talk 20:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It purports to be a translation of the affidavit by Hanz Fritzsche at the Nuremberg trials. Given that the original source the volumes of Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office; 1946. Office of United States Chief of Council) are all in the public domain, I see no reason to doubt that this is an accurate reproduction of the original report. Fritzsche is, of course, a reliable if primary source on Nazi propaganda. Relata refero (disp.) 08:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely on both counts. It may be preferable in some sense to link to the Library of Congress (page with pdf) distribution, but the text appears to match. It should, of course, be kept in mind that this is a primary source, but it is certainly reliable and citeable. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Are Forbes and International Herald Tribune reliable sources?

As silly as it sounds, I need input from the wider community as to whether Forbes and the International Herald Tribune are reliable sources? There is a long-running dispute on Singapore Airlines where User:Huaiwei claims that The IHT is not an authority in deciding for SIA who its parent company is and in relation to Forbes, The only reliable source on a company's structure is obviously the company's own publications. And they simply do not show such a relationship. If others can look here for more information and provide their input that would be great. --Россавиа ^Диалог 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, they are reliable sources for business topics. If they have published incorrect information, then the company needs to take it up with them and request a correction. Jehochman ^Talk 21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Ditto, in the absence of reliable sources to the contrary, info published by the IHT and Forbes is reliable. If the company's literature contradicts this, include a note to that effect as a caveat. Attribution/transparency is always a good move in sourcing disputes. Skomorokh 23:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Jehochman and Skomorokh. Not only are Forbes and the IHT reliable sources unless there is evidence otherwise, but there isn't even a contradiction between them and the company's literature. The company's web site indicates that it is majority owned by Temasek Holdings (Pte) Ltd which is consistent with what Forbes and IHT say. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks people. The SIA annual report states the following, Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore., meaning that SIA is the subsidiary, Temasek is the parent, so no caveat would need to be placed, because even the company acknowledges this relationship. --Россавиа ^Диалог 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The HistoryMakers

Is The HistoryMakers a reliable source for information about its subjects? TheslB (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, biographical information. TheslB (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A new way to sneak in unreliable sources?

I've been engaged in 'debate' (with someone very heated) about a particular source used for the Baghdad Battery article. The other party involved seems to have written most of the article (he did its 3rd edit) and says he used this source to write it -- see [61]. It's not just that the source is a Swedish UFO web page, it is that the article itself [62] is also very bad. The stuff about its discovery and Gray is well sourced elsewhere, the stuff at the bottom about someone called Thatte is apparently fictitious, or at least I cannot find any references to anything there except the word Maitravaruna which seems to mean priest. I removed it twice and he put it back giving me some abuse. He's now created a new section on "World Wide Web sites that were used by some editors in the construction of this article." which he seems to think gives him carte blanche to add any links he wants so long as he has used them in the past for information. While I'm at it -- some of the other links I'm not sure about. Youtube? http://www.answersingenesis.org? The Unmuseum? And the images - a bit OT here - how do I check whether they are licenced? I'm pretty new here and still coming to grips with what meets policy/guidelines and what doesn't, so any help is appreciated especially as I hope to spend more time improving articles (such as the Terracotta Army one) then sorting this sort of thing out and want to practice what I preach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 05:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The information in the article from the Swedish UFO web page apparently came from "Teknik i Forntiden (a book in Swedish), by Henry Kjellson and C-A Matsson. Amateur Astronomy and some other articles" (see the bottom of the article), which appear to be reliable sources. You could also try emailing the chairman of UFO-Sweden (Clas Svahn, clas.svahn@ufo.se) and ask if he could put you in contact with the article's author (Anders Persson) so that you can ask where the info about Thatte etc came from. (The article mentions that the Thatte info came from an Indian technical publication called "Shilpa-Sansar". You may want to ask someone who knows Hindi about that publication.)

Keep in mind that the article was originally written in Swedish before being translated to fairly poor English -- it makes a lot more sense in Swedish. I haven't bothered to check what the article is/was being cited for in the Baghdad Battery article or what its relevance is. This is a general comment about the article from the Swedish UFO site. –panda (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

YouTube is not considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources? You may want to read that essay for additional examples of what are and aren't considered reliable sources. –panda (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the other editor doesn't care. He writes about 'septics' and says "Ignore all rules. Period. J. D. Redding 14:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)" I'm sure the article on the Swedish site makes better sense in English, but the bottom stuff about Thatte I can't find in English or any other language so it's not exactly Wikipedia material or reliably sourced.

How can Matsson, Kjellson and Persson, all involved in UFO stuff, be reliable sources?Doug Weller (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Try contacting Anders Persson to ask *where* some specific info you question came from and to find out what his background is. I don't know who Anders Persson is, which also happens to be a fairly common Swedish name, so Googling it doesn't result in anything useful. The sources listed at the bottom of the article aren't specific, that it, it doesn't say that the info about Thatte came from "Teknik i Forntiden" and I don't have a copy of the book to check either.

I assume that "Teknik i Forntiden" is fairly reliable since it is cataloged under "Teknik, industri och kommunikationer" (Technology, industry, and communication) at the library vs books by Däniken, which are cataloged under "UFO". Also, sv:Henry Kjellson was a Swedish engineer interested in ancient technologies. Kjellson didn't write about UFOs, he wrote about how ancient technologies may have been as advanced or more advanced than today's technologies. According to the description of the book at Parthenon, when his book was first published in the 1950s they created some lively discussions in technical publications around the world. (Författarens påstående att tidigare civilisationer tekniskt sett stått på lika hög nivå som vår - om inte högre - gav anledning till livliga diskussioner i tekniska tidskrifter runt om i världen när denna bok kom ut på 1950-talet.) So people seemed to take the info in the book seriously. Having never read the book, I wouldn't be able to state for sure if it is reliable or not.

There is quite a lot of info that doesn't get translated into English that comes from reliable sources. If you question the Thatte info, my suggestion is to (1) find out where that info originally came from, (2) ask someone about the reliability of info from "Shilpa-Sansar" and (3) ask someone who knows Hindi to check a library in India. One place you could try this at would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India

–panda (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Email from an official source

Resolved

Is an email from an official source, in my particular case an embassy or ministry of foreign affairs, a reliable source? Over on the International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence page we're trying to gather the positions of as many countries as possible and since less media-friendly or geographically distant countries do not announce their positions on Kosovo, it's often necessary to email them and ask. I can see this becoming a dispute as it becomes a more common practice for us to do so, thus I seek an opinion from this page. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, personal emails are not absolutely NOT reliable. What's more it would be a WP:No original research violation to add information gathered from such a source to an article. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. You can ask the country reps. if the they can point you to published documents (press releases, quotes in newspapers etc) where they have stated their position in the Kosovo situation, and cite those published documents; but you certainly cannot cite any personal communication. Abecedare (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Award databases

Is the official website of a sports tournament or a film festival considered to be a primary source as mentioned in WP:PSTS? Can the award database of such a website be used as reference for a featured list about awards?

This issue was raised on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1928 Summer Olympics medal count by User:Matthewedwards. It does not only involve this list, but also lists that are already featured, such as:

• Golden Globe Award for Best Director - Motion Picture
• Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score
• List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film

My reasoning was the following:

For a sports tournament such as the 1928 Summer Olympics the authority of the organization is decisive in recognizing medals, and therefore I believe that the medal count can be based on these sources.

in which "these sources" refers to www.olympics.org and the official report of the 1928 Summer Olympics, written by the Dutch National Olympic Committee.

I would appreciate your feedback on this issue. Best regards, Ilse@ 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, WP:PSTS says care should be taken when using primary sources and the information garnered from those should be verifiable by secondary sources, which Wikipedia articles "should rely on". Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, in which case can someone let me know. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 13:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I think we can agree that the topics on which these lists are based are notable. Secondly, these lists serve as sub-articles to the main articles about the topics. The question would be if it is OK to have a sub-article based on primary sources to complement the article based on secondary sources. Databases can contain indiscriminate information, but I think that if one can establish the criteria for certain types of information to be important, it can be brought in. For example, I am pretty positive that the general notion of medal counts is accepted in the mainstream, whereas a compilation of all Olympic athletes' height and weight may not be types of information as indisputable. In the cases of the examples provided above, I doubt that the information would truly be challenged. I do not see what kind of controversy these particular lists could foment. There are probably examples of lists where primary sources would be questioned, but I don't think these are a problem. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikibooks, wikisource : RS???

I am Ga reviewing Artaxerxes III of Persia. Need help to decide are these RS:

• [63] retrieved 9 Mar 2008
• [64] retrieved 2 Mar 2008

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are wikis reliable sources?, wikis are not considered reliable sources. –panda (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource is not a normal wiki... It contains material quoted from other sources. So... While it should not be used as a source... the material posted on it can be. Cite to the original work, and link Wikisource as a convenience link. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the American Medical Association a reliable source?

In the article on "orthomolecular medicine" also commonly known as "megavitamin therapy", it is disputed whether a statement from the AMA Council on Scientific Affairs dealing with Alternative medicine section on Diet/nutrition is a reliable source to which we can attribute criticism of alternative medical systems that use diet and nutrition: particularly the discussion of systems that, as the report says, "promote dietary supplements beyond the Recommended Dietary Allowances". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say since its issued by a reputable and well-kown organization in the field in question, to which many people in the field look for professional guidance and standards, it would be reliable in the conext you describe. MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The AMA is most definitely a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That said, it should be noted the webpage you linked to was actually a tertiary source, so you may find even better sources by hunting down its own, which were well indicated. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article has a large number of links to the primary literature, which poses its own challenges. I was trying to find as an authoritative mainstream overview of the field to cite in the lead. User:TheNautilus rejected a direct quote of the American Cancer Society from this report dealing with the subject of "orthomolecular medicine" in general, since he argued they had no expertise outside cancer. This was the best alternative I could find. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This user has indicated that he may refuse to accept any consensus that forms on this noticeboard diff. I get the feeling this is headed irrevocably towards dispute resolution process. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made repeated attempts to offer AGF versions that balance and report all sides rather than prominently promote POV. You are repeatedly making (not so?)subtly unfair & provocative statements with undertones that suggest that you want to target me in some way. That needs to change.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing is that AMA has been cited for anti-competitive behavior about disparaging competitors before, the specific page does cite other fields by name but not "orthomolecular" anywhere - an WP:OR violation, and has had highly flawed (but slowly acknowledged, 20+ yrs) attacks on this area, orthomolecular medicine, since Pauling demonstrated a number of embarrassing or serious scientific errors in their methods and publications. Favoring a compromised medical faction to pre-emptively settle or deprecate scientific disputes with flat contradictions this supposed "RS infallibility" is inappropriate.

Blind credibility to economic competitors with repeatedly demonstrated bias and error fails WP:V in multiple ways. WP:V, UNDUE weight, bias, and WP:OR are crucial issues here.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that any peer-reviewed article, as opposed to editorial, in an AMA journal, is reliable. If an editorial clearly states the position of an author in that debate, it is authoritative in terms of that position. The New England Journal of Medicine is very good about making biases clear. Policy papers of the AMA, however, are quite another matter. Membership has dropped to about a third of American physicians, and a good number of the members do not participate in AMA politics, but join for journal and other discounts.

Your mention of Pauling, however, does concern me. Now, I have read more of his work on chemical bonds than in medicine, but I have not seen, and they may exist, well-designed randomized clinical trials of his theories in medicine. I have seen things he wrote that seemed essentially anecdotal. I'd really like to see some independent review of Pauling's demonstrations of errors, before I would be ready to accept Pauling, Nobel Prize and all, as a reliable source in clinical medicine. If Pauling was a co-investigator with qualified clinical researchers, with a research protocol approved by an Institutional Review Board, that would be an excellent start. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of Pauling's comments about rigor in handling and representing data, as well as his critiques of his opponents, have been quietly acknowledged or adopted over time, without (much or any) credit. In a number of cases, Pauling doesn't have to be right on his hypotheses to show his (AMA, too) opponents were wrong or even grossly out of line in terms of scientific conduct and method.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The source you cite claims that: "But the approach taken by some alternative practitioners encourages what many consider the excessive use of health foods and dietary supplements, often of a proprietary nature and meant to enrich themselves while promoting several myths:⁴

1. it is difficult to get the nourishment one requires from ordinary foods
2. vitamin and mineral deficiencies are common

As a study found that selenium supplementation far above the RDA reduced the rate of some cancers by approximately 50%, it would appear to me to be unwarranted to include this pronouncement by the AMA as anything other than an opinion, which must be contrasted with other, competing, belief systems.--Alterrabe (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly, that study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which seems to be somewhat ironical. It actually failed to show a reduction in the kinds of cancer the study was designed for, but some indication that some other kinds may be affected. It clearly states that a followup-study is necessary before a final conclusion can be drawn. Anyways, this is not any indication of wide-spread selenium deficit - chemo will help many cancer patients as well, but few people claim a lack in cytotoxins.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you understand that selenium is a substance naturally contained in one's diet, whereas cytotoxins are not. I also hope you understand the distinction between prophylaxis and treatment. If you take the time to do the research, you'll see that Szent-Györgyi explained the theoretical reasons why Se should be a prophylactic against cancer.--Alterrabe (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is an "opinion" in the sense that any summary of medical evidence is an opinion. As the opinion of the AMA, it carries suitable weight to be included in an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure what the complaint is; the whole article consists of describing "other, competing belief systems". MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

An accomplished biochemist has explained to me that it would be a war crime to force prisoners of war to work the hours that residents at medical schools must because such overwork deprives people of the ability to critically examine what they are being taught, "brainwashing" in the vernacular. I wouldn't describe the point I was trying to make as a "complaint," but rather as an insistence that no blanket "appeals to authority" be made. One text that would do this justice would be: "While the AMA declares that there is no evidence that vitamin deficiencies are common, it has published a preliminary study in its own journal that suggests otherwise."--Alterrabe (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

← I would caution against the approach that Wilk v. American Medical Association invalidates the AMA's position on everything. Jayson Blair's fabrications don't make the New York Times an unreliable source. The question is not so much whether the AMA is infallibly correct, but whether it is a useful representation of mainstream medical/scientific opinion, which for the most part it is. Hence it is a reliable source, as Wikipedia defines the term, regardless of our personal opinions of its reliability. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My position is that I have offered a neutral acknowledgement that there are significant disagreements, some highly critical and some more neutrally stated in the next to last sentence. The single paragraph designed to good faith represent all sides without overpowering the article with POV that has significant flaws (& attack), in the vein suggested by the uninvolved editor [65], Furthermore, the paragraph could be accurately summarized simply as "This controversial field needs more scientific research to support its claims.".--TheNautilus (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the article in general, but to decide if the AMA is a reliable, notable and mainstream source to which we can attribute an opinion on this form of alternative medicine. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"mainstream"? the medical one, yes, not necessarily the Scientific one. "notable" yes. "Reliable" case by case, it is a trade organization beholden to its politics and concentrated financial concerns, where WP:V has too frequently punched holes in its WP:RS on matters of competitors and orthodoxy. Again, the WP:OR concern, and the particular pedigree of the material (many highly partisan sources, not a peer reviewed paper AFAIK).--TheNautilus (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The AMA is unquestionably a reliable source (as per wikipedia's use of the term), and in most instances also a noteworthy source. Just need to be careful that any AMA opinion/recommendation is properly attributed to the organization in the main text itself. Abecedare (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the lead says "However, the scientific and medical consensus is that the broad claims of efficacy advanced by advocates of orthomolecular medicine are unsupported,[8][9] with the American Medical Association saying that the idea that most diseases can be prevented by nutritional interventions is a myth.[10]" Is this direct attribution acceptable to everybody? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine as far as sourcing and attribution are concerned. It would be a problem if the article stated, "X is a myth.[10]" instead. Abecedare (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course more comments in the RfC would be most welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a temporary fix. Having named the other nutritional groups, it is still offtopic or OR, whether or not AMA or the webpage is WP:RS. The specific webpage for that text looks like just partisan opinion inadequately noted or structured, misrepresented as some kind of "nutritional" authority where drugs and nutrition have different evidence bases.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The American Medical Association is an excellent RS for describing the mainstream POV in medical science. The different wording (orthomolecular vs dietary supplements in excess of RDA) is not troubling: the former is an "in-term" among those who ascribe to high-dosages, while the latter is a more mainstream description of the same phenomenon. Therefore, the AMA is not only a reliable source in general, but it is also reliable in the context of this article. Antelan^talk 20:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, you are confuting "big supplements" willy nilly in excess of RDA = "orthomolecular". This is incorrect. Big iron, d,l alpha-tocopheryl acetate, (long) time release niacin, Synkavite (K3) are not "orthomolecular" especially where one component accelerates demand of another (per Menolascino, 1988). It says nothing about protocols, *including the conventionally accepted megadose ones*. If AMA wants to criticize orthomed, they needed to do so directly, or more clearly, in this equivalent of a 16 page precise' to avoid OR issues. The various nutritional groups have significant differences that require identification to avoid OR, especially where some were named.--TheNautilus (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Establishing "mainstream" for clinical medicine, yes. I often find JAMA articles (and advertising) at variance with best medical science, e.g pushing the old LDL biomarker as the crucial CVD risk factor, when so many others/combinations already had much better correlations.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this article is about a form of clinical medicine, do you now accept that the AMA is a reliable source to which we can attribute mainstream medical criticism of OM? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AMA is sometimes a reliable source. See WP:COATRACK. This particular, lengthy tertiary work (~16 pp) which is itself built upon some reknown, less-than-reliable references that have WP:V problems, is not a reliable source for the WP sentence that it purports to support. This particular AMA article's non-specific blurb is being used as a soapbox for twisted text without RS and balance - e.g. " Claims of consensus" & the underlying sources factchecking is dubious. Work the text to achieve its corresponding RS or suggest a better reference.--TheNautilus (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Our personal opinions on the accuracy of this AMA council report are irrelevant to the discussion. Remember, Wikipedia depends on verifiability, not "truth". However, it seems to me that there is a clear consensus amongst the other editors here that this report is a reliable and notable source to which we can attribute criticism from a mainstream medical organisation of orthomolecular medicine. I'll therefore like to ask you to stop your attempts to remove this source from the lead. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a weakly related, POVish source (COI sources that seriously fail WP:V), where an NPOV, direct statement (Orthomed...) really is needed. I am going to ask you to try to collaborate objectively in good faith, and to quit belittling my intent[66] and efforts[67][68] to get an accurate, NPOV lede. Other editors have managed to parse my complex discussions of a complex subject littered with distorted, highly loaded statements from conflicted sources with more collaboration and better WP:V, NPOV, RS results.--TheNautilus (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to understand the concept of the policy here. Is the AMA "most definitely a reliable source" because they are big and famous? No. We should look to third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and I think that the Journal of the American Medical Association just sometimes meets that policy standard. Considering the criticisms that the AMA at times acts as a guild would violate our policy because in those cases they would fail the third-party threshold. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To check that I understand you correctly, SaltyBoatr, are you saying that the AMA is a notable mainstream medical organisation, but the official report from the AMA council is not a reliable source to which we can attribute the fact that the AMA is critical of this form of alternative medicine? The exact sentence this reference is used in says "..with the American Medical Association saying that the idea that most diseases can be prevented by nutritional interventions is a myth.[10]". What source do you think we should we use to support this statement? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that the AMA is acting in the role of a guild here, and making a statement about the policy practice of their members. Still, the statement appears reliable as a statement of the AMA about their medial standards, and does not extend to a greater 'truth'. Therefore I would word the passage "...the AMA has stated that the idea that nutritional intervention can prevent most diseases does not conform to standard medical practice." SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is only used as source of verifiable and directly attributed criticism from a notable medical organisation, the consensus that this report is a reliable source for this criticism now seems clear. As to the specific wording, if you look at the section on Diet/nutrition they use the word "myth" to describe this belief and make no direct comparison to standard medical practice, so I wouldn't want to change their meaning. This sentence was written to be a paraphrased quotation. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Plainly, per their policy statement, "The Council on Science and Public Health (CSAPH) reports on medical, public health, and scientific issues that affect the practice of medicine, the public health system, the quality of patient care, and the translation of scientific research into patient treatment.", I see that their declared purpose is to improve "the practice of medicine" in context of the "public health system" and their "patient care" and "patient treatment". In my opinion, I read their policy statement to mean they are speaking to their members about their standards of medical practice as opposed to making at statement about a greater 'truth'. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the purpose they might have had in making this specific criticism, do you agree that this report is a reliable source for supporting the statement that they did make this statement? Please note that the lead does not state that this idea is a "myth", just that the AMA has said that this idea is a "myth". i.e. as the NPOV policy says "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." Tim Vickers (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Their statement was made in a context of their policy, which is the AMA practice of medicine. A 'myth' in the context of the AMA practice of medicine, yes. But a general myth, no. To omit the context would be a distortion in violation of WP:SYN and WP:NPOV policy, in my opinion. Bear in mind that this also raises a question of global context, and that the American Medical Association is not speaking for global medicine, yet this is a global encyclopedia and a global article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What about "Such ideas are not accepted in mainstream clinical practice, with the American Medical Association saying that the idea that most diseases can be prevented by nutritional interventions is a myth.[10]"? The problem I've faced in finding other mainstream opinions on this form of alternative medicine is that it seems very little-known and most other prominent medical organisations do not discuss it at all. If you can find any other statements by such organisations on this topic I'd me most grateful. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This may be part of a workable solution. It would, however, require that we mention that different countries have medical societies devoted to orthomolecular medicine, some of them with websites. Such as Australia [69], Italy [70], Japan [71], Korea [72], the Netherlands [73], Switzerland [74], the United Kingdom [75], and Canada. The complete list is here [76]. This clearly is a despute between experts, each with their own medical societies, and not between physicians and lay quacks, and if the AMA is invoked, the dissidents must also be. --Alterrabe (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, giving equal weight to "The Institute for Optimum Nutrition" and the AMA would be a clear breach of our policies, please read WP:WEIGHT. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Quoting the AMA to reflect "mainstream" thinking is fine. But if care is not taken, quoting the American Medical Association as an authority, which it is perceived to be by many, without making it clear that physicians who disagree with the AMA's pronouncements have their own medical associations (and obviously have doctors who have taken the time to investigate the claims and stake their reputations to their belief that the AMA is mistaken) is misleading because it doesn't meet the policy of BALANCE.--Alterrabe (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

¹That pushes a highly presupposed POV, Tim - that the statement is right, dominating importance to get this AMA message out about (not) orthomed. Part of the problem is that *your* 1st paragraph lede miscasts this issue, where OMM generally attempts to correct deficiences (e.g. blood, target tissue level or other accessible sample, or presumed due to diagnosis & treated empirically) to an optimal zone or level, irrespective of clinically diagnosed disease and ameliorates symptoms of people with incurable disease.

²The tertiary source itself, the 11 year old "official" webpage of a trade group, uses bad references with *multiple known errors and serious distortions* (WP:V problems) from known extremist partisans (WP:RS, COI). The version of the statement you are pushing needs both better textual sourcing (e.g. "Orthomed...sux") and a more WP:RS source (page) because it miscasts the overall issues, does not directly address orthomed (despite some OR feeling it does), and gives UNDUE weight to partisan opinions that often have *no* experimental basis (mainstream science??? really?) relevant to orthomed, presented to the casual reader as if they were authoritative, including being the final word of the section.

³Further, I feel that this whole effort, initiated by you, represents the equivalent of pre-emptive forum shopping while misframing the question, "Is the AMA a reliable source" (definitely not always, despite the strong reflexive show of support here). ⁴A better route would instead have been exploring the *various* policy issues with the particular AMA webpage for that quote, finding a better reference, or acknowledge that such a glittering generality implies that AMA is suspicious of the (missing) accused and supports something like " A controversial field deprecated by some critics,[12] many medical commentators...".

⁵For my part, I am willing to provide the references (this weekend) to support "my" version of the 1st three sentences^{(1st paragraph)}, with its crucial distinctions for accurate rendering. The second paragraph currently remains COATRACK hijacked by spurious content from known partisans, not adequate WP:RS. ⁶I strongly suggest that you review proposed version (3c) for the end of the lede's second paragraph and try to collaborate from there.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not altogether sure what you mean by "represents the equivalent of pre-emptive forum shopping", this is the correct place to get wider community input on your repeated assertions that the AMA citation fails to meet the reliable sources guideline. In addition, your reference to the opinions of the editors who have chosen to comment as simply a "strong reflexive show of support" is rather rude and dismissive. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You've ignored my positive suggestions,^4,6 above,^dif as well as most points^1,2,5. My "reflexive"³ comment simply refers to the facts that they apparently are not looking at, such as its political nature[77], the AMA's "infallible" credibility for sale (eg. cigarette ads^{(1933-1953 ads after 1932 cancer link)} & the 1997 Sunbeam scandal(1997)^{contemporaneous to AMA reference}), or the specific AMA webpage's *known* bias, errors & falsehoods in the underlying references. One problem is that as long as this old AMA committee report, and its adversarial references that fail factchecking (WP:V), are treated as WP:RS asserting it "true" in the lead, the factual situation on WP:V is much like Hillary brazening out her Bosnian tale despite repeated challenges, expecting to be carried on PR capital and TV coverage despite the long documented facts until just blown away by the visuals, at last.

You have been overstating text with undue weight and dismissive to me^{[78],[79][80]} since beginning this, moving too fast to advertise for the more numerous "skeptics" in various ways rather than discuss fairly, collaboratively, or "scientifically" to develop accurate, encyclopedic text in the first place,³ heavily pushing a conclusion with a poor quality reference.--TheNautilus (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning margin and trying for clarity

May I suggest that saying "the AMA" is too broad a term to judge RS? Offhand, I can think of several levels of reliability/verifiability:

• Peer-reviewed research report in a major journal such as Journal of the AMA or Annals of Internal Medicine
• Review article or consensus committee report published in a major journal, with all members required to disclose any conflicts of interest
• Report on an external committee (e.g., NIH consensus, FDA advisory) with disclosures and appointment to the committee by scientific, not political reasons
• Single-author editorial in a journal
• Resolution of the Board of Trustees or other group not organized around scientific criteria
• Report of an external politically-appointed group

I would suggest that the first is reliable, and in all probability the second. The third and fourth are more questionable, although some journals are very careful about #4, such as the (non-AMA) New England Journal of Medicine, where an editorial is almost always supplementing original research reports in the same journal issue.

The last two are indeed questionable. Going back to the more reliable sources, there are research reports that are more or less strong in their methodology. For example, a randomized controlled trial, with double blinding, crossover, and a statistically significant population is pretty much the platinum standard. Meta-analyses that purely compare other original studies can be meaningful, but have to be read much more carefully.

A report that challenges the methodology of another study may indeed point out deficiencies in that study, but that doesn't mean that the position of the challenger is RS and V -- only that the challenge is RS and V.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This depends on what a source is used to support. This source is used to support a statement about current consensus within the medical community, in particular the position of the AMA as a prominent medical organisation. Other sources, such as the ones you mention, are better to support statements such as "vitamin supplementation may be harmful in smokers", but this is a statement of the opinion of a notable group, not a simple statement of fact. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Howard. One of the references in the 1997 AMA report, Saul Green's 1992 JAMA article has multiple factual errors that are not even repeated in the subsequent ca 1994 QW/NCAHF webpages attacking a physician scientist despite the QW/NCAHF webpages on the specific MD-PhD still being considered at least recklessly erroneous & misrepresentative by independent 3rd parties (e.g. prize winning investigative reporter with Stanford degrees ). Even where NCAHF dodged state registration renewal for several years after losing another lawsuit and not paying. Incorporating the highly flawed 1992 JAMA reference in 1997, after others' corrections for the public record in 1992-4, is a serious bias problem for the AMA report, and WP:V, WP:RS failure.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim, properly referenced discussion in the body is fine. Projecting obsolete, flawed work based on biased, some non-refereed, references, and unnamed attribution to orthomed, as authoritiative in the lede isn't. "Nutrition" is very broad & many sided with fault lines and divergences all over, imputing orthomed as the AMA referenced "nutrition" is OR.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim, very few things in medicine are unambiguous "fact". Quite a few people say they practice medicine in the hope of eventually getting it right.

If I were looking for sources on the validity of the orthomolecular approach, I'd be looking first for consensus conferences, probably at NIH or another nation's equivalent, rather than a professional organization as large as the AMA. More specialized professional associations are apt to be better focused. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources dealing with the medical and scientific consensus on the validity of orthomolecular/megavitamin therapy are in the previous sentence of the lead, this sentence and source deals with the level of acceptance of such ideas in mainstream clinical medicine. Since you seem interested in dealing with these wider issues, I'd encourage you to comment in the RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither Jukes' or Jarvis' articles really support the "Less temperate critics..." sentence's "mega-nega"(tive) sound bites on orthomolecular medicine in general and especially in the lede. We still need a *matching* RS source for that "less temperate..." sentence, but I think that single POVish sound bites are poor summaries here instead of summaries that describe a calm, reasoned, notable group's average temper that reflects current science, current medical opinions, not POVish medical opinion from 15-30 years ago that has been shown to be biased, and on the deficient side of right, or deplores & ignores plausible scientific and medical research as "faddism" ad nauseum.--TheNautilus (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nautilus, I am not sure if I am understanding you correctly, but I must say that the current wording of the article,

"Less temperate critics have even classed orthomolecular medicine as food faddism or quackery."

is inappropriate since the "less temperate" is a editorial rather than a factual description of the critical articles (unless we have sources who call these critics, less temperate). We should simply state what these sources are and what they said, and leave it to the reader to judge whether the statements are temperate, or not. So I would suggest that the sentence we reworded as:

"Some review articles on orthomolecular medicine even classed it as food faddism or quackery."

Abecedare (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Less temperate..." was Shoemaker's choice, I am for *summarizing* that there *are* critics without tilting the table by using some (partisan) individual's hottest slag that is prejudicial & very misleading. Quotes would be unbalanced in the tight real estate of the lede. That would replace this particular sentence that is not a direct quote about orthomed, with something closer to this [81] version's 2nd paragraph.--TheNautilus (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've more discussion noted on the slagging of the Orthomed Lede using old, unreliable "RS" personal attack references.--TheNautilus (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also Aaronson's Cancer Medicine Chapter 6 is asserted as a reliable source on Orthomolecular medicine, the paragraphs' major points are not correct. It is shown[82] through source text comparison and fact checking to clearly be a combination of error and misrepresentation, however conventional such counterfactual opinons may be.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I added this Table to summarize some relative weight criteria, and to link discussions, to the different references that concern the Lede.--TheNautilus (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedias in Answers.com

Resolved

Is it okay to directly cite Answers.com except obviously for its Wikipedia mirror? I'm having a debate with another editor over it. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless the host of the content is suspect, it's utterly irrelevant. The actual source is whatever Answers.com is mirroring from. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia must contain references from original sources, not from numerous content aggregators all over internet. This is the basic rule of respect to authorship. Just as wikipedia is not a reliable source for wikipedia's own rules, answers.com is no way better. `'Míkka>t 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference is the Russian Encyclopedia, answers.com is simply the convenience link, which is allowed, as long as one does not have reason to belive that the the hosting site is violating copyright. For clarity I would suggest that the link be marked something like:

Rusnock, K. A. "Agitprop". Encyclopedia of Russian History. Gale Group, Inc. (hosted on answers.com)

Abecedare (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, citing to tertiary sources such as another encyclopedia is discouraged (but not forbidden). Other encyclopedias are great places to start your research on a topic... they are not great places to end your research. A good encyclopedia will contain citations to well reguarded secondary sources, from which the encyclopedia got its information. We should take a look at those sources, and cite from them, rather than simply being satified with the summary provided in the encyclopedia. Answers.com is essentially a quatiary source (if that is the right term)... summarizing the summaries. It is a useful tool, but not really the best of sources (even if we call it reliable, which is iffy). We strive to be better than that. Blueboar (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, I agree with your general sentiment that even better sources may be found, but in this particular case two factors make me think that the publication satisfies the requirements of being a reliable source for wikipedia:

• It is a specialized encyclopedia (though aimed at a general audience), which means that the editorial board consists of people knowledgeable about the particulars of the subject it covers. [83]
• The entry is a signed article by an academic

Also the fact that the article is hosted by answers.com, is similar to newspaper archives being hosted by Lexis-Nexis or journal articles being hosted by several indexing services. That does make the hosts, quatiary sources, or reduce the source's reliabily - unless, of course, one suspects that the host is not quoting the source correctly.

PS: I know that the Amazon link above lists the publishers as MacMillan, but I have verified that we are talking about the same publication. Abecedare (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds quite ridiculous: you do know the original source and you know it is written by an academic, yet your goal is NOT to provide the original reference, but a ref to some repository which makes money on mouse clicks. I start smelling a vested interest here. Not to say that answers.com fails to give credit to the original editor of the encyclopedia in question: James Millar `'Míkka>t 23:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my comment dated 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC) above ? Feel free to add the editor's name to the citation. Abecedare (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you understand my objection at all? The original book is known. Why you insist on convenience link? When we citing a book we citing the book not the amazon.com barnes and noble or whatever. We may provide a "convenience link" to the online excerpt if exists, but our primary obligation is to provide a reference to the book itself. `'Míkka>t 00:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess we are somehow talking past each other, because I sincerely didn't understand your objection. As you say, "We may provide a "convenience link" to the online excerpt if exists, but our primary obligation is to provide a reference to the book itself", which is exactly what is my recommendation too!

Question: do you have objections to the following being used as a reference ?

Rusnock, K. A. (2003), "Agitprop", in Millar, James (Ed.) (ed.), Encyclopedia of Russian History, Gale Group, Inc, ISBN 0028656938

Abecedare (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be perfect. This is exactly what I meant: a repository is not a reference; and what you meant: a convenience link, i.e., I understand in addition to true, author-respecting full reference. `'Míkka>t 01:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have resolved this (I would have added the editor name, ISBN and year to my earlier proposal above, if I knew them then) ! Abecedare (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism

The Black Book of Communism is a horribly biased anticommunist reference. But it is used in multiple articles. It received reception from people of the American and British media (and off-course from pro-Capitalist people). Organizations like The New York Times, National Review (a conservative reference) which generally praised the book.

But the book received severe criticism as being a one-sided, biased. In my opinion if The Black Book of Communism is used as source (no matter who praised the book, if they are biased or not, since it received scholarly review it is RS), the opposing views should also be given to maintain WP:NPOV. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This article indludes huge "Criticism" section which is bigger than "Support".Biophys (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A good bulk of that criticism is coming from socialists, communists, anarchists, and otherwise highly questionable sources, so I'd say take it with a grain of salt, especially in light of the positive reception from the mainstream media. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The articles which use The Black Book of Communism as source, should also include the views of the people who criticized the book. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's reliable enough I don't think every usage of it need be followed by a bunch of generic criticism of the book. It's published by Harvard University Press. If, however, somebody cites statement X in an article to the book, and there is notable criticism of that statement X as made by the book, then the criticism can certainly be mentioned for balance. - Merzbow (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The way to make sure that readers know about any criticisms of The Black Book of Communism is to include a wikilink to the article in our citation. Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really completely mainstream. The papers included in it were not representative of majority views at the time in the subfields in which they were printed, and scholarly reviews tended to reflect that. That being said, it is reliable enough; though if it is the single reference for a contentious point, I would ask for additional substantiation as it might raise WP:UNDUE issues. But that's not a reliability problem. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A site that establishes celebrity MySpace pages

Resolved

Many anonymous IP editors add information to articles relating to the TV shows The Real World and Road Rules, using the MySpace pages of the stars of those shows as citations. While MySpace in general my not be a reliable source because of the problem of people creating such pages to pose as those celebrities, my observation is that the presence of rare, personal photos on a given MS page may lend credibility to the notion that a given page is indeed the official one belonging to that person. User: Black Falcon agreed that this was one positive criterion. My question is, is this site reliable to establish if a given MS page is an official one? It lists the personal websites and MS pages of many past cast members, but I don't know how to gauge its reliability. Any thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the person writing that blog someone with connections to the show or other credibility to be a good source for this kind of stuff? In general a fan blog unconnected with those who produce the show would not be a good source, I feel, unless they are a noted authority on the subject - and by that I mean more than lots of online links to the site. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If the information on the MySpace page is not negative or controversial, then it is OK to include the information, as long as you identify its source in the text. "According to a MySpace page registered in Bloggins' name, his favorite food is tiramissu" is fine. "According to a MySpace page registered in Bloggins' name, he was sexually abused by his uncle at age 11" is definitely not! <eleland/talkedits> 11:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to say no to this... the page is a personal blog by an annonymous blogger (just who is "Mr. Real World"?). Since that blog is definitely not a reliable source, I don't think it can be used to establish that the My Space pages are in turn reliable. sorry. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.Nightscream (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

allegations against a government made by someone who has admitted to trying to discredit said government

In the Invasion of Dagestan article there's a section called "theory of Russian government involvement", and said section is mostly based on allegations made by a man named Boris Berezovsky. Berezovsky has basically admitted publicly that he's a liar and has ulterior motives. A direct quote from a The Guardian article: He also admitted that during the last six years he struggled much to "destroy the positive image of Putin" Also see here for many more discrediting claims, on top of the fact that he's a wanted criminal in two countries, and under investigation by a third.

His allegations are quite serious, and in my opinion his word is as good as worthless regarding anything about the Russian government.

(Also, my attempt to point out the types of things he has said in the article has been reverted, so the article just says "According to Boris Berezovsky..blah blah", meaning anyone who doesn't click on his name and read up about him might actually take his claims seriously.) Krawndawg (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Berezovsky is notable enough, and the opinion is clearly attributed to him. That is exactly as it should be. Using him as a reliable source in an absolute sense would be misguided, using him as a source for his own statements is fine. I also find your interpretation ("has basically admitted publicly that he's a liar") to be a bit far-fetched and not supported by the sources you gave us here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Google Scholar

Google has a section called "Google Scholar"[84]. While it seldom provides much detail text it does provide (IMHO) good references. Is there any official WP:RS position on this search engine? -- Low Sea (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Google Scholar is a great tool for finding RS, but not everything it finds is an RS. I know it lists at least one abstract for one of my informal talks at a university. Now I consider this an excellent RS of course ;-), but I also know it did not go through any formal peer review or even editorial process. In any case, you need to go to the original publication, you cannot reference a sound bite from a GS search result. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found some clearly fringe stuff there (pseudoarchaeology) as well as some gems. I worry that some people may be copying bits that they can see from GS and then using it as a reference - as it is rarely with a page number, this is another good idea to try to get people to add page numbers to references.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Patent application as sources

I'm uncomfortable with the indiscriminate use of patent applications as sources. IMHO they are a typical primary source and should only be cited as far as they are cited in secondary sources. And especially in the area of strange and wonderfull invention, they just don't prove anything, besides the fact that a patent is granted.

Nevertheless my attempts to remove them and the article parts only referenced by them, often meets fierce resistance.

So I would like to hear more opinionions on this issue.

A typical example article would be Oxyhydrogen, the non-mainstream second half.

--Pjacobi (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you got it right on the dot. Patent applications, by themselves, represent absolutely nothing more that what the person who filed it claims to have invented. Patent offices do not require working prototypes, they no longer require models, and they don't review the design to make sure it makes sense. They're happy to take your money, and holding a patent doesn't actually mean anything until it's tested in court. So except when a patent has actually been reviewed an evaluated by independent experts, which does happen sometimes, it's no better than what the inventor posts on his personal blog. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Film Credit Guidelines

What are the proper rules for citing film credits for a released film? I would think that it would be self-evident that the listing of the credit on the screen itself would be the first and overriding source. There is significant disagreement on this subject in and of itself. Not discussed but I believe understood would be those instances in which SAG dictates additions or deletions to a films credits, this would obviously override the wiki infobox and merit a specific mention in the entry. There is also some discussion of background on this subject at [85].

Should a films displayed screen credits be used as the dominant source? A standard should also require that changes to this come from a reliable source. SAG would be reliable, a NYT interview with the writer giving writing credits to another might also be, but IMDB which relies on submissions should not trump the displayed screen credits automatically.

I also second a suggestion,if the WIKI editors agree and will create it: Wikipedia:Film citation guidelines15:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Here's a basic fundamental question: Is citing a released films screen credits a primary source, which would be original research?15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a primary source, but no, this does not make using it automatically original research. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • So a released films list of the Director, Producer, Writer and Editor are what? A reliable source that takes precedence or not?15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it should not "take precedence"... it should be presented as equal to other reliable sources. If there is a discrepancy between the film credits and credits listed at other reliable sources, both should be mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Here's some additional background on using IMDB from the wiki above:

* Users are not compelled to submit any sourcing for their submissions (in most cases; adding a new title usually requires one) * Editors do not identify which user is submitting the data, making it impossible to evaluate the reliability of a user's submissions * The mechanism of editorial oversight and fact-checking is unclear

IMDb should be regarded as a tertiary source, and generally treated accordingly. It is unsourced, which makes it borderline acceptable with regard to WP:RS and WP:NOR

Would it be fair to state then that a released films published credits are a reliable and accepted source? That IMDB, in and of itself, does not take precedence and is a debatable tertiary source?16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Upon further reading of the wiki policy page on IMDB it looks like all my questions are really answered. In short it states:

The IMDb should only be used as a tertiary source for "hard data" on released films. However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source that meets WP:V (preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump the IMDb.

Resolved: A released films displayed credits are a reliable source for Infobox credits.16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yaoi references

I've been working on yaoi and have come across two sites that I'm not quite sure are RS. The article has had a list of futher reading for quite some time, and I've been incorporating that into specific references. The first, Akiba Angels, I don't know anything about, and the articles were put in there by the author. They are quite unique in terms of the articles we've got on yaoi, as they purely analyse the content, without trying to make the fandom out like crazy people, so it's probably not just a case of self-promotion. The second, Aestheticism.com, has a decent glossary, and has had a shout-out by an academic in a journal article which I'm assuming is peer reviewed. Also, I'm citing two honours theses - how well-regarded in general are these? Most of the rest are news sites or anime news sites and so should be fine. -Malkinann (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Akiba Angels is a doujinshi information site copywrited by CuriousFactory, a company that provides product localization, translation, PR service and market research regarding Japanese entertainment. Akiba Angels offers reviews, news, articles, interviews, and essays on doujinshi works and related topics. They do the required fact-checking and are accurate so the site is reliable.

I don't know Aestheticism.com too well, so someone else will have to help you there. Kazu-kun (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Routemaster buses in current service in London

Please can somone comment on the sources being posted in Talk:Routemaster#Restoration_Of_Section. Sources are being put up for the re-inclusion of data, namely the identity of the Routemaster buses that are currently in service in London, that was essentially first added by someone who 'wrote them down by seeing them out their window'. (aside from whether the 'current' nature of this info makes it relevant to wp at all) MickMacNee (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The vehicle list in question contains data consistent with those on other specialist websites and publications which are verified by fellow enthusiasts. Searches on specific vehicles also show the buses to be in service today. 82.46.143.181 (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the nature of those websites, and 'verification by enthusiasts' that is in question. One site you quote lists WP as an external link, causing a possible circular reference. MickMacNee (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Stalinist sources

Resolved

I don't know if this has been addressed here before, but given the issues of Soviet historiography, can sources such as the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the Soviet Agricultural Encyclopedia and other such Soviet encyclopedias published during the Stalinist period be considered reliable? Martintg (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Settled already. Biased but reliable source. See WT:Reliable sources/archive 16#Nazi and Soviet sources. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What a source says

Is it possible to ask here for help about what a source says if one editor says it says green and the other says it says yellow? (If you see what I mean). I have tried 3PO but they can't help and the Psychology Project is pretty moribund. Fainites ^barley 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we might help. What's the source? --Haemo (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! One minute and I'll go and get it. Fainites ^barley 11:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Its Michael Rutter, "Clinical Implications of Attachment Concepts: Retrospect and Prospect" (1995). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 36: 549-571.

Question - do the "4 main changes that have taken place over the years" listed on p551 refer in the article to changes in attachment theory or differences between attachment theory and maternal deprivation, or is it hopelessly ambivalent and therefore useless as a source. (I realise it might seem like a small point but its one that has been repeatedly put in a number of articles, to the exclusion of other information, so help in resolving this point would be much appreciated.) Fainites ^barley 17:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely Rutter is assuming that attachment theory is the continuation under another name and with conceptual development of maternal deprivation theory? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? You've lost me slightly there. Do you mean maternal deprivation is the original concept and then attachment theory is the theoretical development? Fainites ^barley 19:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about the dodgy grammar. I'm saying that in Rutter's view attachment theory is the logical development of the maternal deprivation thesis. As a parallel: "natural history" underwent changes and in that process it morphed into "biology". Itsmejudith (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. Sorry to sound anal, but the specific 4 elements he describes as "4 main changes" - are they changes to attachment theory between 1969 and 1995, or changes from maternal deprivation to attachment theory (bearing in mind that there is no mention of monotropy, or imprinting in 'maternal deprivation'). Fainites ^barley 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for missing your post. They are changes to what he believes to be a single theoretical approach originally called "maternal deprivation" later called "attachment theory". That is my reading of the material. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you would like another opinion (not that the one already given is not correct, but just to give a bit more consensus to any emerging view), I'd be happy to give it the once over if a copy of the paper could be sent to me: I used to subscribe to that journal, but stopped and donated my copies to an overseas institution when I retired, and I worked as a research advisor and consultant within Child Psychiatry and Psychology for many years, which involved critically reading sources like that (I can provide some back up to show this if required). My email address works if that is convenient.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! Fainites ^barley 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Herald (Zimbabwe)

This newspaper is owned by the Zimbabwe government, how much should it be used in the Zimbabwean presidential election, 2008 article? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not exclusively. When quoted, it should be attributed, and the first time it is attributed, "state-owned" should be prefixed. This is the general procedure that used to be followed in China articles, though it has broken down in recent months as co-ordinated editing from within the PRC has emerged on some articles. --Relata refero (disp.)

Agree with Relata. Given the current government there may or may not be legitimate we should try for uninvolved and neutral sources. Lawrence § t/e 21:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Rundata

Resolved

Before I even embark on trying to get some rune stone articles up for FA or GA, I should perhaps verify whether the Rundata database qualifies as a reliable source per WP:RS. Having observed the GA discussion on Talk:Sif, I noticed that page numbers appear to be required by at least one evaluator. Rundata is a freely downloadable database in both English and Swedish where some of the world's leading runologists at Uppsala University have added information souch as provenance, runestone style, dating, etc. It is not possible to refer to Rundata by adding page numbers, but I think that the runic inscription IDs (e.g. U 123, DK 123 or N 123) provide sufficient verifiability in themselves. Any opinions?--Berig (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be OK, especially if there is not likely to be any controversy. Page numbers are not required for web sources or where the source does not carry page numbers. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, --Berig (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

TalkOrigins Archive

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

TalkOrigins Archive should nowhere be considered less reliable than a self-published source, with the authority of individual authors determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus on article talkpages, per suggestions by Stephan Schultz at 12:28, 6 April 2008, Filll at 14:12, 7 April 2008 among others.

---

Over at Darwin's Black Box I got into a bit of a disagreement over the use of a review cited to the above website. As the name implies, the website hosts the archives of talk.origins, the usenet newsgroup that discussed issues related to evolution and abiogenesis.

I am a supporter of the use of newsgroups by and large, especially for those areas, such as speculative fiction and anti-Scientology protest, where they were significant sources of information and major props of the community at through the 1990s. Consensus is consistently against me on this at WT:RS, and particularly when it comes to negative or contentious materials about living persons.

The item I removed was a 1996 posting at talk.origins and preserved at the archive, written by a then-grad student in biochemistry at Harvard who now works at a start-up. I was reverted with the argument that the archive is itself not usenet, and that it has received multiple website awards and some nice writeups elsewhere. I'm bringing it here for overview. Note the entire talkorigins.com website does not consist of an archive of usenet postings; I am not claiming that all that it holds would fail RS.

As I see it, the question is simple: are usenet postings by non-authorities, even if archived elsewhere, considered reliable? --Relata refero (disp.) 11:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero is misrepresenting this. The source is not "a 1996 posting at talk.origins", but a review published on TalkOrigins Archive, in which the author mentions that he originally posted some of the material on talk.origins. The author in question was at the time a Harvard scientist who had published in Nature (journal). Oh and the correct name of the book is "Darwin's Black Box" not "Darwin's Black Book". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm misrepresenting it? I never misrepresent. Right at the top it says "Last Update: December 11, 1996." Its the same article with responses to Behe's response added. It has received no additional revew, nor does it have an editorial board standing behind it. I clearly laid out the author's background above. That he was published should not come as a surprise, most grad students are at some point.

The point remains: this is a usenet post. Are we saying its acceptable now? Because I have a few more I'd like to add. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say WP:SPS applies. That is, a Usenet article is acceptable under the same conditions as a blog post or a self-published book: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The talk.origins archive is not really an archive of talk.origins, but rather a collection of material, some of which has been produced from the newsgroup. There is at least some editorial oversight, so I'd be willing to accept at least some of the material there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. I wouldn't agree to removing parts of the FAQ, for example. I too think WP:SPS applies here; I note that in the past WP:SPS has traditionally not applied to usenet postings because of the possibility of spoofing, but I don't think it is rational to extend that too far. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has taken place repeatedly here. The result has always been that this is a reliable source.--Filll (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So you say. Link it, and I'll review it, and point out how either I am wrong now or how the earlier participants are wrong then. Or have it again. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Relata refero has not established how much of this review was directly published as a usenet post. He is merely surmising.
   1. Even if the entire review was previously published on usenet, that does not taint its reliability if it is published elsewhere, and sourced to that secondary publication. The question is therefore is TalkOrigins Archive, not usenet, a WP:RS?
2. Relata refero has not established that Keith Robison was "a then-grad student in biochemistry at Harvard". Given that two years previously he'd been the lead-author of this article in the prestigious Nature (journal), he must have been an exceptionally precocious grad-student.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear God, all this for one out of what are thousands of negative reviews of a creationist book!

Right, one-by-one:

1. Even if the entire review was a usenet post, if it is "sourced to that secondary publication". Yes, except the secondary publication is partly a usenet archive! You might know this, its in the name.
2. Keith walked in the April '97 commencement at Harvard. This I know personally. Whether he got his PhD that year or earlier, I admit I don't know, I assumed. I can check right now, but I don't know if the information will be publicly linkable. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Keith Robison" of the "Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Harvard University" published in Nature (journal) in 1996, and a "K Robison" shows up as co-author with the co-authors of that paper in a number of other papers in the mid 1990s. It is therefore highly unlikely that this Keith Robison was a simple grad student at the time. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Per "except the secondary publication is partly a usenet archive", I refer you to Stephan Schulz's comment above: "The talk.origins archive is not really an archive of talk.origins, but rather a collection of material, some of which has been produced from the newsgroup. There is at least some editorial oversight, so I'd be willing to accept at least some of the material there." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, See also my response to Stephen, agreeing with him. You see, some of it is produced and has oversight and some of TalkOrigins archive is an archive of talk.origins. As I agree, nobody things we should remove the FAQ portion, which is mostly what is linked throughout WP. What we are trying to determine is what makes something that is essentially a usenet post written by a grad student into a source reliable enough for negative contentious information about living persons. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are we required to accept your personal assertions of anything ? Do you have a reliable source showing Keith walking in the April 1997 commencement ceremony?--Filll (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No you aren't, which is why I said I was checking, right?

And you can tone down the rhetoric, you know. Not everyone who has a momentary disagreement with you is a dotty POV-pusher. This is the kind of thing that turns well-disposed people into people who chime in with "Endorsed" at AN/I when blocks for incivility come up. (Not that I would do that.)

Since you don't take my personal recollection as a reliable source, which is deeply personally distressing to me: does this open for everyone? If it does, scroll to the bibliography and note the date of Robison's thesis in bioinformatics. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is such an unreliable source, why do academics typically use TalkOrigins as a source? Why is this very review quoted by academics? For example, look at this article in RNCSE [86].--Filll (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also cited in this article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology: [87]. Hmm...--Filll (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure Reports of the National Center for Science Education count, and the JTB uses it how? --Relata refero (disp.) 12:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise the JTB link was Thornhill-Ussery. I'm amused that you use that example, as that, IIRC is the only article in a peer-reviewed journal to take irreducible complexity seriously (if only to refute it) and was thus justifiably grumbled about for using unreliable sources... --Relata refero (disp.) 13:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even being discussed? This topic has been vetted at least a dozen tmes over nearly every single article involving evolution/creationism/ID. And every single time, without fail, the result has been that it is a reliable source. Why does this editor want to continue his disruption? Baegis (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Can we please have someone who is not a veteran of this particular set of battles weigh in, please? I have never participated in that area, and if I did there's no doubt that I come down on the anti-fringe side. All I ask is that the simple questions raised above are answered. If that is disruption, I'm afraid you have a surprisingly low bar. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The interesting argument here is the claim that a review, published in a respected source by a graduate with expertise in the subject, is unsuitable as reviews by "non-authorities" are deemed by Relata to be unacceptable. That seems a very shaky argument, and note well that this graduate with a much better publication record than Behe has revised the original review and not found it wanting, while others with expertise in both science and creationism have accepted it as a suitable review to be included in TOA, a source which demands much higher standards of science writing than, say, a newspaper reviewing a creationist book aimed at the general public. .. dave souza, talk 21:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A very valid point, but could you respond to the quote from the TOA FAQ about its own "review" process below? Note also the fact that this reviewer is several hundred times more reliable than the person he is reviewing isn't really relevant....

--Relata refero (disp.) 13:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A "usenet post"?

Relata refero repeatedly, and to my mind fallaciously, refers to the Robison review as "a usenet post". As to the specifics of this accusation, can Relata refero demonstrate that the review in its entirety was posted on usenet? If not, then it is not "a usenet post", but merely material that is in part based upon material previously submitted to usenet by the author (of both the original posts and the review). I see no reason under WP:RS why this (purely historical footnote) should be problematical. Per Relata refero's other caveats, it would seem to be highly unlikely that this material has been "spoofed" and it is in fact part of the FAQ (which Relata refero has explicitly assented to), specifically the FAQ on Behe.

As far as Robison being a grad student at the time, I present his publication record at that time as evidence that he is qualified to review Behe:

• Cloning and sequencing of thiol-specific antioxidant from mammalian brain: alkyl hydroperoxide... -- HZ Chae, K Robison, LB Poole, G Church, G Storz, … - Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. US A, 1994
• Large scale bacterial gene discovery by similarity search -- K Robison, W Gilbert, GM Church - Nature Genetics, 1994 - nature.com
• Discovery of Amphibian Tc1-like Transposon Families -- WL Lam, P Seo, K Robison, S Virk, W Gilbert - Journal of Molecular Biology, 1996
• Novel Gq alpha isoform is a candidate transducer of rhodopsin signaling in a Drosophila testes -- C Alvarez, K Robison, W Gilbert - Proc Natl Acad Sci US A, 1996

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So you accept he was a grad student at the time of the posting. Several grad students have publications. We do not necessarily believe that such grad students are authorities in their field yet.

Here is the original posting. I think we can see for ourselves that it is practically identical, particularly the section quoted in the article, with a couple of interpolations that are from later postings in which he replied to Behe's criticisms. So I don't think that that dog hunts.

I agree about the unlikeliness of spoofing, and said it did not apply here.

What remains is a usenet posting, substantially unaltered, hosted on a web archive of such postings that also hosts material subject to editorial control, (being used, I may add, not to as a source for useful scientific information about flaws, but as a source for a relatively petty and unencyclopaedic one-liner about a living person, of the sort that almost certainly wouldn't be considered necessary or appropriate in an academic forum, where the criticism would be more direct and less flippant.) I repeat, I'd like some eyes on whether that's considered appropriate now. As I said, I'd be happy if it was, as I have been arguing for certain reputable, moderated usenet groups as a source for some time.--Relata refero (disp.) 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nobody has accepted that Robison was a grad student, although I think it quite likely from the information presented. As you point out, "we do not necessarily believe that such grad students are authorities", but then that is not what is required by WP:SPS. What is required is that they are experts. There can be little doubt that someone with 4 publications in high-class scientific journals is an expert. Also, the fact that something was posted to Usenet has no bearing whatsoever on its status as a reliable source. I can post a couple of papers tonight - does that magically make them unreliable? Of course something only available via Usenet may have problems, but that is not the case here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the attached pdf and the date of his thesis.

Different fields have different standards for publication. There are undergraduates in computer science who have more than four publications. Which is not relevant to my main point.

This particular posting is available only on usenet and, in a minimally modified form, on a usenet archive. Explain to me how that is the same as me posting a peer-reviewed article on usenet tonight. Relata refero (disp.) 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the attached pdf and the date of his thesis.

Why? Doctoral degrees do not confer expert status or knowledge, although they hopefully demonstrate it.

It may well be possible that in computer science there are undergrads with four publications. In my experience, this is exceedingly rare however. And if these four publications are real research papers in high-class journals, I'd gladly grant expert status to the student in question. Robison was the lead author of a paper in Nature, not of some low-key workshop paper.

"This particular posting" is available from talkorigins.org, and, since it has been modified after its original posting, is not a simple archived Usenet post. For one, it is verifiably attributable to the author. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I find this entire episode bewildering. We can of course mount a very large defense of this review. The review is cited repeatedly in assorted academic sources, and by notable experts in the field. We can extinguish these incredibly silly attempts at disruption quite handily; that is very clear. For example:

• It is basically irrelevant if the reviewer was a postdoc, or a graduate student, or faculty or on the research staff when he wrote the review. This review was cited over and over by other notable and reputable sources, so it cannot be of so little value or so easily dismissed.
• It is exceedingly clear that TalkOrigins is a reliable source; it has been cited in academic journals repeatedly and is used in academic coursework.
• Relata refero has yet to produce clear and convincing evidence from policy that (1) we are violating BLP by citing this review and (2) that this review itself constitutes some BLP violation or attack on Behe personally.
• His attempts to besmirch and dismiss the RNCSE and Journal of Theoretical Biology border on the comical.
• His assorted sniping at other editors in connection with this campaign of his is completely puzzling; what is it to him whether we cite one out of thousands of negative reviews of this long discredited work of Behe or not? --Filll (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please, let us by all means examine the occasions when it was cited, and how it was cited, and what parts of it were cited. Note I have done so with some examples above and found it wanting.
• The discussion need not extend to all of talk.origins archive, merely the section that is the archive of talk.origins.
• The BLP problem is irrelevant to this board, it is only the reason I brought it up. In due course, if this is ruled as unnecessary, I will point out how BLP is involved. I have in fact already done so elsewhere, but weary of repeating myself.
• The RNSCE is not an academic forum, but the newsletter of an advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education, which I have no desire to besmirch, as I pay $30 annually for membership. (I'm certain of this, as I'm doing my taxes right now.)
• The JTB article is an exception to the rule, as I mention above. I notice this point is avoided.
• What sniping? I was bitten by article owners. It isn't the first time. I am aware that civility is at a premium in this area, and I think that all concerned would be wise to start paying more attention to it. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to continue down this path if you want to find out what biting is.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

!!?! --Relata refero (disp.) 14:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at Talk Origins past history

Let's examine the use of Talk Origins Archive (TOA), to better understand this matter.

It is used as an EL and a ref (3x) on the ID article, which by the way, is a featured article.

It is used as an EL and otherwise talked about on the Creationism Article. It is even featured as an important organization in that same article.

It is used as a ref (2x) on the Evolution article, which is a featured article.

It is used as a ref (2x) on the Evolution as theory and fact article.

It is used as an EL and a ref (2x) on the Introduction to Evolution article, which is also an FA.

It is used as an EL on the Theistic evolution article.

It is used as an EL and ref (4x) on the Flood Geology article.

It is a ref or cited work (10x) for the Creation-evolution controversy article.

It is a used as an EL and a ref (7x) on the Creation Science article.

Now onto BLP's. It is used as a ref (4x) on the Kent Hovind article. Kent Hovind is a noted YEC.

It is used as a ref (4x) on the Walt Brown article. He is also a noted YEC.

It is used as a ref (5x) on the Duane Gish article. Also a noted YEC. The use of TOA is discussed here with the conclusion being that, on the whole, it is a vital resource.

It is used as a ref (2x) and an EL for the Ken Ham article. Ham is the founder of Answers in Genesis, a YEC apologist group.

It is used as a ref (3x) on the Henry M. Morris article. While no longer living, Morris was the founder of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) and generally acknowledged as the father of creation science.

So, as you can plainly see, TOA has been used many, many times over as both a reference and an external link on a wide variety of articles relating to evolution, creationism, and ID. It has been used for both Featured Articles and BLP's, with no problems. This is an open and shut case here, folks. Baegis (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It has been used on Wikipedia. So has MySpace. Please make arguments as to how it is reliable. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's used on 3 featured articles! 3! Each of those articles passed a strenious review in order to qualify for their status. Should we just not use any sources that do not support your personal views, Relata? It's reliability is reinforced by it's use on those articles. My God, I thought you had been around here for a bit and actually understood how WP operates. Baegis (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly been around long enough to know how FAC operates. If you're interested, see my comments on the weak sourcing that is let by at FAC that focused strenuously on MoS issues at an ongoing featured article removal candidate, Golden Plates. In fact, I was whining about this very same point earlier today at User talk:Risker.

I note also that I make the point above that any objections cannot apply to the whole website. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please also be open to the possibility that when some people are concerned about a source, they are concerned about a source regardless of my POV on the underlying issue. Above I have made the most open declaration of POV on any subject I ever have, and it stands in somewhat direct opposition to your assumption .... --Relata refero (disp.) 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

TOA has numerous rewards and accolades. Looking at our article on TOA (which I helped write) TalkOrigins Archive " In August 2002 Scientific American recognized Talkorigins.org for its "detailed discussions (some of which may be too sophisticated for casual readers) and bibliographies relating to virtually any objection to evolution that creationists might raise."" and we have other awards and recognition listed as well. The Archive is edited and reviewed by scientists with expertise in the relevant areas. It is easily a reliable source. Enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've linked that page in my first post a little earlier. I merely point out, repeatedly, something that has not yet been responded to: What parts of the archive are edited? Who are the reviewers?

What does Talk:archive itself say on the subject? While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves. While anyone can decide to ignore our materials, the Archive has been recognized as a valuable online resource by many well-known groups, magazines, and individuals. Further, a number of college courses have chosen to use materials from the Archive in their coursework. See: Awards, Honors, and Favorable Notices for The Talk.Origins Archive.

Nowhere do they make the claim that there is any formal review other than the cycles of commentary available on usenet; in fact they specifically deny there is any such review. Why should we not consider this a self-published source?

Note: this does not mean that it cannot be used extensively in our best articles if the individual cited is himself or herself considered an expert. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well let's see. Either a PhD candidate from Harvard, or a PhD at Harvard, either way someone who is a Harvard employee. Someone who has published extensively in the best journals. Someone who writes a review that is cited repeatedly in peer-reviewed journals. And the question is, even if this review is viewed as a WP:SPS, can we use it as a WP:RS? I think the answer is pretty obvious, except for someone who is engaged in WP:DE and WP:TE.--Filll (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the "cited repeatedly in peer-reviewed journals", which is not correct as far as I can see, I don't think there's much incorrect in what you say. This is pretty much exactly how usenet posts conclusively connected to a RWI are to be used: as a self-published source, usable based on a determination of the eminence or authority of the author. Please read WP:V and WP:RS for how self-published sources are subject to certain restrictions in their use, one of which was what set this unnecessatily overblown dramafest off in the first place.

(As a participant, under a previous account, in the framing of WP:DE, I'm glad you find it useful, though I think you need to brush up on its applicability.) --Relata refero (disp.) 14:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement that "materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review" in no way detracts from the usage in the article. Reviews of popular books are not normally subjected to formal peer-review. Darwin's Black Box#Reception in the scientific community explicitly states that this is "A review on the pro-evolution website talk.origins", and as such gives fair representation of the views of that section of the scientific community at the time of publication of the book. Accepting points made above, the author was then a graduate, eminently well qualified to discuss the subject. The review has subsequently been published in TalkOrigins Archive, which has widespread recognition as a reliable source. The review is not represented as the ultimate truth on the matter or as the work of a famous scientist, but as a noteworthy review which has since been published by a respected source at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html. As far as I'm concerned, it's a reliable source for the usage in question. Note also that it's a book review, not "negative or contentious materials about living persons". The statements from the review included in the article have been well supported at every level up to the relevant federal court case, and it appears tendentious in the extreme to claim that WP:BLP prohibits reference to this book review. . . 16:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree in that the review of a popular science book can be self-published by a notable authority. I still don't see why a grad student who subsequently left academia is a notable authority, but that is not worth an argument.

If we agree that this is a self-published work from a source that can be considered an authority based on editorial judgment, we can largely declare this resolved; that is largely the position I have advocated for, in any case.

About whether this is an issue about living persons, please note that in my opinion the "quote" from the review says Behe is ignorant, and that Behe is meddling beyond his understanding. This is true. It is also a statement about Behe, rather than his arguments, and is certainly contentious - Behe himself contends it. The question of whether I am mistaken is something that can be settled peacefully on the relevant talkpage, but I'd prefer that you stopped calling me tendentious now. You haven't the slightest justification for that. I've made two mainspace edits in this subject, and have participated in discussion about it only for the past twenty-four hours in my five years on wikipedia, much of which has been spent trying to keep fringe theories and political advocacy off the project.

Note to all disinterested editors: Don't try touching an evolution/creationism article without a giant sign across your talkpage insisting that you aren't a creationist. The most charitable explanation is that they don't want well-meaning outsiders blundering around there. Keep out, people, if you don't want this sort of sustained attack. How we expect to attract experts is beyond me. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Way to get that last personal attack as you resign in defeat. That is truly a professional way to leave this issue. Good riddance, though. I doubt we will miss you on any of those articles. Baegis (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Point out the personal attack I made and I'll redact it instantly, OK? This is truly extraordinary. Relata refero (disp.) 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How about "Note to all disinterested editors: Don't try touching an evolution/creationism article without a giant sign across your talkpage insisting that you aren't a creationist. The most charitable explanation is that they don't want well-meaning outsiders blundering around there. Keep out, people, if you don't want this sort of sustained attack. How we expect to attract experts is beyond me". Not only are you implying that the editors of these articles are some sort of obsessive group of individuals who refuse to let others edit these articles (they aren't) but that we also attack other editors until they run out of the room! And then you go off and blame us, the ones who have led the recent charge to get the problem of editing by experts fixed, as the reason that no experts will edit? My God, you have some brass ones! Baegis (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, which part of it is an attack precisely? I was waiting to refactor it. You perhaps you might want to take this to my talkpage. Though how you intend to argue that the extraordinary level of drama, accusations of bias, tendentiousness, misrepresentation and disruption, complaints spread across several noticeboards and talkpages, accusations of lack of professionalism - whatever that means on an amateur project! - predictions that I am yet to "find out what biting is", that my behavior "is violating all precepts of the new politically correct requirements which have been placed on Wikipedia", that I have made "vague threats and allusions", I have demonstrated "an abusive set of behaviors and disruption", that an edit summary of "OMG DRAMAZ" requires "administrative sanctions", that "over-react much?" is a "snide, sarcastic personal attack" that requires -you guessed it - "administrative sanctions" and a final "good riddance" after only two mainspace edits and in twenty-four hours is not sufficient evidence for my good-faith and remarkably polite conclusion that you would prefer not to have new editors blundering around, I can't imagine. What else do you expect a reasonable human being to think?

I, and pretty much everyone else, have made the point fairly often that an unwelcoming atmosphere of this sort turns away new editors, or slightly experienced ones looking to make fresh edits in areas where they might have some expertise. It runs directly contrary to what we are supposed to be as a project. Whatever "charge" you think you're leading will not solve the problem of minimal expertise all over this project if it doesn't involve changing this behaviour.

And believe me, if I had big brass balls I would have taken this evidence of a systemic problem to WP:DRAMA or WP:WQA or something similar. Instead, because all of you have effectively made me question what the fuck I'm doing here giving myself ulcers instead of preparing to teach the people who actually pay for my internet, I'd say big brass balls is exactly what I lack.

I'm tagging this entire sorry heap of pointlessness as "resolved", which it was the moment that Stephan and I posted somewhere towards the top of the first sub-section. If you want to continue this, take it to my talkpage. Its inappropriate anywhere, but particularly on this noticeboard. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

reliability check por favor

An editor has used http://www.metalstorm.ee for sourcing, asking whether it's reliable or not. It's not my cuppa, and I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, can somebody please vet? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you give us a bit more information... exactly what are they trying to source with the site? Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The genre of an album; "Caught in a Mosh" from the album Among the Living. I've included the genre (which the site lists under "style") for now, but with a comment that I'm having WP:RSN evaluate the source. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Anybody? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Book, Private Guns, Public Health by David Hemenway.

In this diff[88] I have been question whether the book Hemenway, David (2006). Private Guns, Public Health.[89]Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press, pgs 197-207. ISBN 0-472-03162-7. Per the edit summary: "source unreliable. please stop.. ". Does this book meet reliable sourcing policy standards for a cite as to the tense "has" versus "had" in the Gun politics in the United States? Third opinions welcome on this difference of opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Published by a university press, the book most certainly meets the common sourcing standards. The problem seems to arise from the use of the book, rather than a problem with the source itself. Claims regarding current gun politics, such as what you are citing, should probably be placed under the section "Early 21st century gun politics". Besides the topical divisions, it's also most likely inappropriate to use one source to alter the cited claims of another. Vassyana (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Monthly Review reliable source on facts or opinions?

• Note I beefed up the Monthly Review article recently myself including 3rd party info and refs and removed POV wording, to make it clear it is an independent (not organizationally tied) Marxist socialist publication with notable contributors.
• User:Zeq wrote: My expsriance froma personal angle: CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts. Is this generally a distinction one can draw? i.e. OK to cite more political publications like these if just on opinions?
• Would this be considered an "extremist" publication? Ie more so than Frontpage.org or Antiwar.com or Political Research Assoc?

Carol Moore 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Nothing about this publication says "extremist". It takes a strong political stance and if it is cited great care should be taken to ensure balance. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Marxist views are extreme, and this is no exception. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you substantiate that? Passe perhaps, but Marxism considered "extreme" in this day and age? Try to tell a political economist, a conflict sociologist or a literary critic that Marxism is "extreme." Marxist isn't just some synonym for being a "pinko" you know, Marxist thought has made a pretty substantial impact across the social sciences and the humanities.PelleSmith (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to use a Monthly Review quote in an article where Jayjg doesn't want me to use it, claiming this publication is "extremist". While there certainly are extremist pubs this one has published over 60 odd years a bunch of academics and high profile writers. FYI. Carol Moore 02:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think its up to Jayjg to do more than just resort to "Marxism is defacto extremist," because that's not necessarily true. Like all such statements this one needs to be substantiated. From what I can see this publication is far from "extreme."PelleSmith (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I might want to use a Monthly Review quote in an article we both edit, but Jayjg says no good, claiming this publication is "extremist". While there certainly are extremist Marxist publications, this one has published over 60 odd years a bunch of academics and high profile writers and goes out of its way to be independent. FYI. Carol Moore 02:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

It has quite high academic standards, and an impressive legacy of influential authors who have written there over the years. People like Andre Gunder Frank, Immanuel Wallerstein, Harry Braverman, etc. have made significant impacts on their fields.BernardL (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Monthly Review is an academic journal. The fact that its contributors employ Marxian analytical methods, many of them quite notable thinkers on the left within their field of specialty, is not relevant to its high academic standards. Those who call it "extremist" simply reveal their own political bias, and quite frankly, ignorance on the influence of Marxist thought within the mainstream in this day and age. In many fields its like saying someone who accepts and applies "Einstien's"theories, an extremist. Historical materialism, in its non-crude form, is quite accepted among the mainstream. Nothing extreme about that. Its political views are well within the mainstream of the anti-capitalist left, and come in various schools of thought. In my view those who call this publication "extremists" are in fact the real extremistGiovanni33 (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Einstein's theories weren't political (or politically motivated). That's a particularly weak analogy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Monthly Review may be small-m marxist, but that doesn't mean that it is "extremist" in terms of academic work. Just another way in which dastardly pinkos continue to close the American mind. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, how would you characterize Marxism? Centrist? Right-wing? Left-wing? Extreme right? Extreme left? I'm voting for extreme left. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and familiarize yourself with Marxism. Maybe then you'll understand that it is not only some hyperbolic vestige of the extreme political left but also a highly influential orientation in the social sciences and humanities. Marx's theories were not all simply "political" either in the fashion that you are utilizing the term, and this is exactly the problem with your claims. Bring something substantive to the table here to back the idea that Marxism is de facto extremist. It would be much more appreciated than these empty statements.PelleSmith (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Book written for students

Can I use Criminology: The Core as RS. The book is written for students, so I am confused if it can be considered RS or not per WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If the fact that a book is written "for students" makes it an unreliable source then our system of higher education is in serious trouble.  :).PelleSmith (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not understand what you are saying. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, I was trying to be clever. The fact that a book was written for students is not a problem at all, but if it were a problem we'd be saying that students are usually given unreliable sources in their classes (get it?) The fact that it is published by a respectable publishing house and written by an authority in the field makes it reliable. The fact that it is a text book also means its unlikely to include anything too controversial (I don't know the book so I can't say it doesn't but its less likely in any event.) Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The book is written by Larry J. Siegel who is a professor of criminology in University of Massachusetts Lowell and has written several books in the field of criminology. My only confusion is that since this book is basically student oriented, it can be considered RS or not. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Textbooks written by academics for students are usually excellent sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will then use it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Post-secondary textbooks are not only acceptable, they are often useful for providing a broad overview of a subject. This is quite nice when making short summary overviews (like wiki articles) and helps in determining the balance of NPOV (by providing a "lay of the land"). Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There may be no fully general solution. I believe books from reputable publishers are often thoroughly fact-checked; I've both authored and fact-checked several such books. Unfortunately, I finally took a Wikibreak from the computer networking project, after getting totally frustrated, every few weeks, of correcting editors that were citing the same erroneous information from one popular textbook.

I think the last straw was when I cited a peer-reviewed article of which I was a coauthor, and told I was wrong because the book said so. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

checking in worldCat, the book is in over 700 libraries. It is apparently widely used. I agree that it can be used for general statements , but specific points that are controverted may need more professional statements. It is the nature of a 1st level textbook to oversimplify. (And it is unfortunately quite usual to write them without indicating to what extent issues may be disputed). DGG (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"The book is written by Larry J. Siegel who is a professor of criminology in University of Massachusetts Lowell" If true, then this book should be reliable in my opinion. There can be exceptions to the "professor" rule but I don't see any here.Bless sins (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

David Rohl article - subject using mailing list as a reference

We have an interesting situation on the David Rohl article, where David has added an edit using a mailing list in which he particpates are a reference. It seems to be the only source for what is a crucial statement by the archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen. I've no axe to grind - they're both wrong :-) - I'm just interested in the issue itself. Is there any leeway here?Doug Weller (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yuk. No. Best leave out. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

that entire article needs much better sourcing, both for the views supporting him and the views opposing. The article as written is essentially OR, trying to settle itself the disputed issues. It's not even based on primary sources, for it doesnt cite them either. DGG (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Neobyzantine website

Byzantine Empire has as an external link Byzantine Glory — the mosaic of Byzantine History and Culture which seems to be a movement to more or less restore an expanded Byzantine empire (peacefully it says) "from Adriatic sea to Korea, and from Sinai desert to the North Sea.. With millions of churches all over.. " Before I remoeve it and maybe get involved in an edit war, is there any way in which this meets Wikipedia criteria? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I was bold and removed it. As a parallel, FA Islam doesn't link to movements that want to restore the caliphate. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a movement that wants to restore the Byzantine Empire? Party like it's 999... - Merzbow (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Press Only Showing

This edit summary was used in the Doctor Who article Press-Only showing fails WP:V, still needs WP:RS [90].

Since when has that been the situation in Film,TV,Books articles because wouldn't that exclude the use of pre-release reviews of such material which I have seen used in various articles .Garda40 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's in reference to the addition of the paragraph about the three former companions reprising their roles on the current series? If so, I don't see a source at all used to support that claim. Perhaps the claim isn't that it was press only, but that the claim was completely unsupported by a reliable source at all? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the source may be at the beginning "SFX" but that's not really my concern here ( I'm not trying to add the information ) ."SFX" magazine and other magazines of a similar type are used for many citations in this and similar articles and I'm fairly certain that claim is what it says "Press Only".

The reason I am concerned is that in the past BLP has been used to remove information about a possible actor appearing in the programme rather than the fact that the source may have been unreliable and this just seems to be a case again of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut .Garda40 (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If a particular source meets the reliable source standards in general, then it would meet those same standards for a "Press only viewing". Splitting hairs to say a reliable source isn't reliable in a particular situation is generally not something that is Wikipedia does at an encyclopedia level, but I have seen editors on a particular article agree to not use a reliable source for various reasons before. If no argument has been reached about not using a particular source on an article (or in a particular situation), then what could be done is to attribute the source explicitly in the text, so "According to SFX, at a press only viewing..." That way it is not Wikipedia saying it, but SFX. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Movie Credits in the InfoBox

Unresolved

It seems there is ample evidence and support for using a Films credits as a Reliable source for the credits on the Infobox. Does it make any difference if we can link directly to the official version of the film itself to use the films credits for verifiability?
Can a Primary source officially and certifiably accessible on the Internet be used for this or must we always use a secondary source?75.57.178.110 (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There really should be explicit guidelines regarding cinema - it does seem to be a frequent topic. I'm really having difficulty with overcoming resistance to the basic concept that simple statements of fact; Director, Editor, etc. as listed in a movies credits are allowed to even consider using the film itself as a Reliable Source. To me, it appears "unique" that this would be prohibited. This is what I am being told:

• Now, I think it is important to point out that your personal viewing of the credits constitutes primary sourcing, and is therefore not usable here in Wikipedia. ... Until something citable comes up ...
• The crux of my argument is that you need a single reliable, verifiable, notable citation that clearly identifies the director of the film ... Without it, you cannot include it, as it is synthesis.
• Yes, but you cannot be a source of information. Dude, find a source that lists the director...
• No citations, no inclusion. This isn't my rule; its Wikipedia's.

- User:Arcayne

I think you get the picture. It's nothing about content - It's a question regarding the admissibility of a films credits as source with regards to an encyclopedic record of it. Is this a Prohibited Act? 75.57.186.159 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The basic film credits, like the plot, can be sourced from the film itself as it is the primary source. There is not prohibition against using the primary source every, only in sole reliance on and any use that involves interpretation. There is on interpretation in reading the credits on the screen. Primary sources can not, however, establish notability which is a different ball of wax.Collectonian (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not citing yourself... you are citing the film credits. Film credits are printed material that anyone can read and verify... just like text in a book. The only difference is that the print appears on film and not on paper. In other words, film credits are quite reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I think the anon user is forum-shopping here without providing the actual background. In point of fact, article in question is Fitna , and the observed name the anon is referring to was the identification of the director (etc.) as "Scarlet Pimpernel". Later, a citation was found that clearly identified (and named) the nom de guerre as being code name given to the a production company that made the film to protect it from Dutch Muslim reprisal. The citation specifically names "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions". The abbreviation in the film was likely done in the same vein that in films, credits will often use 'ILM' for Industrial Light and Magic, or that catering was done by 'FeedMe' (leaving off the 'catering' and 'inc' part).

Again, my apologies that you were not provided the full background of the question before tendering an opinion. The anon hasn't been very successful in forcing the others in the discussion to see his point of view. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. In that case, the information about the code name would go into the production section, with the proper citation(s) explaining why. It doesn't negate the credits of the film, but certainly is a notable topic for explaining in the prose why its listed that way. Collectonian (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no citation stating that the Director, Writer or Editor are anyone other than a person named Scarlet Pimpernel. That a production company is named Scarlet Pimpernel Productions is incidental. The "Others" in the discussion are in universal agreement. Only Arcayne insists that the Films Credits are inadmissible. The question was simple are movie credits a Reliable Source? No one was asked for a relative opinion on the content and no deception was made. Arcayne's comments are nonsense and obstructionist, he is Trolling with off-topic content remarks in a simple discussion about the RS utility of Movie Credits.

Am I correct in my understanding, that a Films Credit's are a Reliable Source? 75.57.186.159 (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity, as I am stunned and amazed that the Troll has so easily derailed still another simple discussion, I will repeat the exact question I asked in my first post: "It's a question regarding the admissibility of a films credits as source with regards to an encyclopedic record of it. Is this a Prohibited Act? "75.57.186.159 (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer stays the same. The film credits are a perfectly acceptable source for film articles, and should be the preferred source for listing in the infobox. If, and only if, there is a reliable source backing up the Scarlet Pimpernel = Scarlet Pimpernel Productions should that information be added to the PROSE but not the infobox. Collectonian (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concise and reasonable guidance.75.57.186.159 (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a moment, hoss - that doesn't seem correct. Forget the obvious personality disagreements presented. We wouldn't lit ILM by its shortened form even if it appeared in the credits as such, and we certainly wouldn't list Skippy's ChuckWagon without noting its a catering service. Please indicate any instance where the shortened form of a title appears anywhere in an FA film article. Yes, we discuss the happenstance behind the assignation of the title, but we don't ignore it, especially when we have citable proof as to the proper name. We are an encyclopedia, not a visual guide for a play-by-play of the film from soup to nuts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop - it is a settled issue here and at the article with a clear overwhelming consensus. Secondly do not make things up - you have no "citable proof" naming the Director, Writer or Editor as anyone other than the pseudonym. That's just a fact. Stop now, you're wasting the good peoples time. Or cite. 75.58.40.232 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, anon - you haven;t the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Maybe you've forgotten where the discussion took place, but we aren't here to discuss what you do or don't know. The citation is in the Fitna discussion. It is identified as a production company, and you have since been reported for your rather unfriendly behavior. I think you're done here. Take your little vendettas elsewhere, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And because of the rather preposterous and bad faith claim that the production company reference doesn't exist, allow me to provide the citation with translation (as performed and verified within the article discussion):

"Katz [lawyer of Wilders] meldde overigens dat niet Wilders zelf, maar de stichting Vrienden van de PVV de opdrachtgever is van de film. Die heeft de opdracht gegund aan ‘Scarlet Pimpernel Production', de bedachte naam voor de productiemaatschappij die niet met de echte naam naar buiten wil." (Lit. quote of Volkskrant 7-04-2008)

Translation:

"Wilders lawyer Katz reported that not Wlders himself, but the foundation 'Friends of the PVV' has commissioned the film. The foundation has given the assignment to 'Scarlet Pimpernel Productions', de name which was made up for the production company, that does not want to be mentioned by its real name."

I think having the right info is helpful in disagreements. It was important to cite as, later on in this article that this anonymous production company is the cause of the incorrect and inflammatory imagery. As this is an encyclopedia, its probably important to simply note that its a production company, despite the pretty short form they use in the credits. We as viewers are not citable. Someone talking about the credits in a reliable, citable format is. Hopefully, we are done here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been clearly and concisely stated, in no uncertain terms, with no ambiguity. The Films Credits are a reliable source. Your assertion, stated above, "We as viewers are not citable." Is not a correct interpretation, it is the film itself that is effectively cited. We do not make up names for Directors, Writers and Editors based upon incidental names for Production company's. In point of fact, production company's often take the name of the principals involved - not vis-versa. To create names from thin air is neither correct nor citable. 75.58.40.232 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We as viewers are not "citable" but the film's movie credits are the source, not the viewer, and as it is the primary source, it is the main one that is used. Again, as noted above, the infobox should use the name officially used in the credits, which is also the name that will appear on official registration documents, et al. In the prose, it can be stated that, "according to Patrice Katz, "Scarlet Pimpernel" is a doing business as name for "Friends of the PVV", which did not want its real name attached to the film." The use of another name for a production company is quite common, particularly among Japanese anime productions which often create Production companies named after the series that is made up of multiple companies. We list them by that production company name because it is the name they chose to do business as. We don't ignore their choice in name. Collectonian (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This, bordering on absurd, argument is actually playing out only over the term "Productions." The film credits say "Scarlet Pimpernel" and Arcayne, as per his other source claims the full name is "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions." While I'm not sure exactly what the big deal is I would like to point out that we do not in fact know what the exact legal doing business as name is ... that is whether or not it has the term "Productions" in it. In the end I think this is a relatively pointless discussion, since we can all agree that Scarlet Pimpernel (Productions) is not some individual with that legal name. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On that we are agreed. No difference either way, really, though the source Arcayne listed actually says SP (SPP) is another name for Friends of the PVV, which would be different. The whole thing is a confusing mess, really. Collectonian (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of that we are quite likely all agreed. It is quite a mess. However, I am not sure I understand what the problem is with preferring to list the term in the infobox (which is supposed to contain the most concise info for the movie, a la at a glance) from a Primary source to that of a Secondary source (the one calling it Productions). For the same reason we cannot list an observable phenomena ()the laughter of children during the end credits of the film Children of Men. Observable phenomena cannot replace citation.

That said, I am willing to strike the alternative of listing it as "Scarlet Pimpernel (Productions)", which would seem to seem to bury the dead horse some folk insist on beating into mush. Will that work as a compromise? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Compromise? "which would seem to seem to bury the dead horse some folk insist on beating into mush"? We have an accepted principle on Wikipedia that a films credits are acceptable as a reliable source. Wikipedia also has a preferred standard that the Infobox correctly reflect the films credits. And we do that no matter what the pseudonym is, be it a standard stage name Ice T, Alan Smithee[91][92], Walter Plinge, Georgina Spelvin or whomever.

Further we have no citation to correct the credits with - no where is there any statement that anyone other than the pseudonym has taken the credit. That a production company bears the same name is incidental. Clarity is required. 75.58.40.232 (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, could I trouble you to learn how to indent your posts? Don't get me wrong, i am pleased as punch you've set aside that silly ego sig of putting a spade at the top of your sig, and also that you've taken to signing your posts more often (even though your IP address has changed virtually every day). Indenting your posts allows you to indicate when you are responding to another's post. Take a look at the edit screen for this page - everyone else does it, so give it a whirl yourself.

As for the other matter, I believe you haven't really read my post or the accompanying posts to the policy links I generously supplied you. Might I trouble you to re-read my post and craft a response based upon that? Comments like "that a production company bears the same name is incidental" do not do you service. Please read the actual policies as they are, and not as you wish they were. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a simple question, "Are a Movies Credits a Reliable Source?". It received a simple, clear answer: 'A Movies Credits are the preferred source for the info box'. Yet Arcayne has dictated that this be marked as "UnResolved"?? I should add that the User Arcayne has a history of failing to accept any answer but the one he demands to hear, this is from the same topic, different subject: "Re-added them myself, the discussion is over, no-one else agrees with you Arcayne." I don't know how much clearer anyone could make it, but a Resolved Tag would be appreciated. 75.58.39.148 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am quite sure you would appreciate it, anon. Unfortunately, the bs personality conflict you keep tossing into the discussion tends to muddy the waters. How about you restrain your posting and let an actual established editor weigh in on the actual points of the discussion? I'd like to get a few folk's feedback, if that's quite all right with you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record... I agree with listing "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions" (cited to the credits) in the info box and discussing the tie to "Friends of the PVV" (cited to the other source) in the text. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree listings in the Infobox are allowed to be sourced from the Film and cited to the credits. Just for clarification do you support the listing of Director, Writer and Editor as Scarlet Pimpernel, as listed in the credits and of which no citation exists crediting anyone else, or are you suggesting that the appendage "Productions" be added to the Credits in the InfoBox where they do not occur in the credits and where no source supports the usage? (I never, and no one else has, opposed the very proper and cited mention of SPP. It was a Red Herring.)75.57.196.81 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in this case my first choice would be to simply omit listing the Director, Writer and Editor completely. But if that is not possible, as a second choice I could see listing "Scarlet Pimpernel" (including the quotes - to indicate that this is an obvious pseudonym - I might even include a statement to that effect in a foot note or as part of the citation). The point is to make it clear to any readers that the film was made anonimously, and does not actually list the people involved. And, of course, if a reliable source, disclosing the individual(s) involved, is located... that should be discussed and cited in the text. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a source that notes Scarlet Pimpernel as a production company. For informational sake, we want people to know it isn't an individual, but an alias. I would even propose making it "Scarlet Pimpernel" Productions, which would accomplish this task. However, if there is solid citation for us to ignore this, maybe a follow-up providing the policy/guideline that nixes the idea would be good to have. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So there is no basis on which to add "Production" to the credit? When listing the credits in the Infobox one must follow either the Films Credits or a sourced reliable citation?

It has been taken by Arcayne to WP:OR notice board, has been discussed in two different Wiki article talk pages, in three sections here, marked as Resolved and archived four times in the articles Talk page and fully entered into the article only to be reverted by Arcayne at least Ten times.

I'm marking this as: Resolved: A Films Credits are a Reliable Source and are the preferred citation for the Movies InfoBox. There is no reason to drag this on any further - it has community consensus - Blueboar did not state to change the names, no one but you has.

As this has been marked UnResolved without comment and no reason has been given I will mark it as Resolved again shortly.75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you (finally) using discussion to suggest a ouse of action. As I consider discussion to still be ongoing (note the unanswered question above), I am letting you know that I would oppose marking an unfinished discussion as resolved. Sometimes, being patient is going to be a far more effective editing tool for you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, this has near universal consensus, and has been the supported usage of, at a minimum:

• Arnoutf (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• MantisEars (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Huon (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Face 14:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Avb 11:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Fullstop (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Collectonian (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Myself

It has been taken by Arcayne to WP:OR notice board, has been discussed in two different Wiki article talk pages, in three sections here, marked as Resolved and archived four times in the articles Talk page and fully entered into the article only to be reverted by Arcayne at least Ten times.

The sole voice opposing this is Arcayne. It is Resolved and enjoys community consensus. There is nothing left to discuss, your own comments even go no further than just a desire to "discuss" - but you don't even pretend to offer reason or support for this. It was never a contentious issue, you are and have been, the sole resistance. Consensus does not mean unanimity and you do not possess the Wiki veto.75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I don't see all those folk's post here. I am trying to retain AGF, but that seems a tad suspicious, anon. I have supported my view with policy and guidelines. Your pov is to seek an interpretation of CIMDB that exists nowhere else. You have specifically misrepresented the argument.

This is a dead issue - you have failed to enlist a single voice in support of your effort to overturn community consensus, it has been discussed in the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the Fitna Article, five[93][94][95] [96]different sections here still on this page, taken before WP:OR, on numerous user talk pages, it has been marked as resolved and archived four times in Fitna:Talk, edited into the Infobox and Reverted by you on Ten Separate Occasions and now you've opened still another front in the campaign, The Wiki Manual of Style![97]

It is Resolved. It is the Community's Consensus. Even you must agree that there is not now, and never has been, any support for your effort.

Please await the end of discussion. Be patient. Building consensus is like building Rome - it isn't done in a day. If you disagree, sit back and wait a while. If there is - as you say, no consensus, then there wont be one in a few days from now. There is no hurry. Relax. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd. This is a dead issue - you have failed to enlist a single voice in support of your effort to overturn community consensus, it has been discussed in the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the Fitna Article, five[98][99][100][101] [102]different sections on WP:RS, taken before WP:OR, on numerous user talk pages, it has been marked as resolved and archived four times in Fitna:Talk, edited into the Infobox by numerous editors and Reverted by you on Ten Separate Occasions and now you've opened still another front in the campaign, The Wiki Manual of Style!WP:MOS[103]]

• • • It's been more than two weeks. You're engaging in a campaign, and not a good faith effort to reach and respect consensus. 75.58.39.201 (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Movie Credits in the InfoBox - arbitrary break

The argument is as follows: do observational details outweigh citation? The argument posed by the anonymous editor is that the nom de guerre 'Scarlet Pimpernel' desperately needs to be in the infobox all by itself, since he saw it in the credits of the film, Fitna. Currently, the article the credit as 'Scarlet Productions.' The anon seeks to have the word 'Production' removed fromt he infobox.

He rejects any compromise ("Scarlet Pimpernel" Productions being the most reasonable) that notes the existence of the citation that identifies the alias as a production company. For lack of ambiguity's sake, it seem important - not to mention encyclopedic - to note that 'Scarlet Pimpernel' in the infobox is not an individual, or a real name - we have reliable citation that specifically identifies that it is not, but rather a pseudonym to protect the actual production company, which goes by another name. New thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ernst and Canter

In April 2006, Ernst and Canter authored a review of systematic reviews and published in the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine. This would usually be considered a reliable source that meets MEDRS. However, in August of 2006, an article was published in Chiropractic and Osteopathy (doi:10.1186/1746-1340-14-14), that refutes the conclusions by Ernst and Canter.

The conclusions of the second article were "The conclusions by Ernst and Canter were definitely not based on an acceptable quality review of systematic reviews and should be interpreted very critically by the scientific community, clinicians, patients, and health policy makers."

Would the original article still be considered a reliable source? DigitalC (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would have to be presented as a "a review by Chiropractic & Osteopathy, the official journal of the Chiropractic & Osteopathic College of Australasia (COCA) stated ..." Since the whole review is available open access at the above doi, people can judge the extent to which is may show bias. I don;t think it would invalidate the original source, given the likely POV. It could be however used as a comment on it. DGG (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Conference proceedings RS?

Are conference proceedings RS? Are they peer-reviewed? I'm wondering because I have seen some people use powerpoint slides from a conference/workshop talk as a ref in FAs. My university has hosted a few conferences etc where some PhD students have given some talks on things that did not get published in journals until a while later and were pretty informal in nature and and not really much more polished than the weekly departmental seminar. For instance this paper was the transcript of a talk and was used as a ref. There are a pile of spelling errors and some very bad grammar mistakes, including a grammar error in the title. I can't see this ever passing a journal review or a book publisher, so I wonder whether something like this can be a RS (or even notable anaylsis/POV). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on mostly who did it. If it is a professor I'd accept it with caution. PhD student? Probably not. Also, it goes without saying that proceedings would have had to be published somehow. You can't attend a conference and then quote it (without any publsihed material on it). References need to be verifiable.Bless sins (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the source is a link to his slides, as I have included. I don't know why something can be accepted simply if a prof said it. If there was no review process from a reference, he could have just said some nonsense. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's still doing his masters. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, it depends on the conference. In my field, conference papers for most conferences are definitely formally reviewed, then discussed by the program committee, and, if accepted, are published by a reputable scientific publisher (Springer, AAAI, ...). Publications at Conference on Automated Deduction, IJCAI/ECAI or LICS are certainly RS. However, you would cite the paper in the proceedings, not the slides. There are also less reputable conferences, either organized by fringe groups or by commercial entities, either for CV building or for tax-deductible vacations ("come to Hawaii and present your paper...it's only US$XXX conference fee, and we publish it on a CD!"). And there are less formal gatherings like Workshops, which range from "reputable conference in all but name" to "some guys meeting over beer and pizza. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Conference proceedings and some speaker's notes or slides are two completely different things. Proceedings are usually a collection of papers (not just notes or slides) containing the talks given. If the proceedings are reviewed (most reputable conferences do this) and published by a reliable publisher such as Springer Verlag, Oxford University Press or any others that are referenced by the Institute for Scientific Information, then they definitely are WP:RS, as any other academic paper would be.

If, however, they are not reviewed and published, then they are not WP:RS.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 11.04.2008 10:02

To add to the previous comments: The reliability depends upon (1) the field of study and (2) the particular conference. For instance, (painting with a broad brush) conferences in pure sciences are seldom regarded very highly and the paper/abstract is often reviewed only for topicality and to keep out blatant nonsense (comparable to wikipedia's speedy delete criterion :) ). On the other hand, many conferences in engineering are more selective and the submissions receive a more thorough peer review; in fact in computer science a few conferences are considered as or even more prestigious than journals (see [104] or [105] or this site for a good rule of thumb). Another good way to judge the notability of conferences is to check if the proceedings are archived by many libraries and/or academic databases. Abecedare (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the most important first thing to establish is whether they are published or unpublished conference proceedings. If they are published, especially with a major publisher, then there may well be a note about the peer-reviewing process. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Already extensively discussed at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive 17#Should academic conference papers be considered reliable sources?. The discussion there brings up other variables that must be considered, including whether the conference is sponsored (by a tobacco company? a political pressure group?); also that online conference papers are usually not the peer-reviewed versions; also that they usually explicitly fail REDFLAG. There are some broad guidelines: Computer science, the hard physical sciences usually more reliable than economics working papers/conference summaries, which are usually much more reliable than humanities conference papers. Math papers are apparently only copy-edited. (!) --Relata refero (disp.) 13:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty urgent help needed on Genuki and two others - Please!

I have used Genuki http://www.genuki.org.uk as a reference for an article currently at GAC, but its reliability has been questioned. Can anyone help me with some guidance? Is there a list of reliable sources - and is this one of them?

The Wikipedia page on Genuki says: GENUKI is a genealogy web portal, run as a charitable trust. Its aim is "to serve as a "virtual reference library" of genealogical information that is of particular relevance to the UK & Ireland". The name derives from "GENealogy of the UK and Ireland". It hosts a large collection of pages with genealogical information covering England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Also, I have used http://www.raybeckham.co.uk/village_map.html as a source of village information. One editor has said they feel it is a comercial site, but you can see from the page that the web editor gives away his pics for charitable donations. The guy who runs the site is a local historian, so I valued his input - but I need to know if that makes it reliable.

Lastly, the reliabity of this site http://www.templarmechanics.com/main.asp has been called into question too. How can I tell if a site is reliable or not?

Thanks--seahamlass 09:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I recommended that you take your questions to RSN, I guess at least I should provide my perspective on the sources:

• Genuki: Can you specify what exactly you are trying to source from the geneological database ? The site has many types of information and links and they may have varying reliability.
• RayBeckham: This is, as far as I can see, a site run by the village photographer/videographer. A personal web-site may be considered a reliable source under two circumstances (1) it is used as a source for a wikipedia article on the subject, (2) the author is a acknowledged expert on the subject, for example he has written books or articles that were published by respected publishers (even then we have to be careful!). I don't think either of these circumstances apply in this case, and therefore the website would not be considered a reliable source for wikipedia. Can't you find a "official" source for the village map ?
• Templar Mechanics: IMO this is a clear case of a unreliable website. Firstly, we know nothing about the author of the website content; there is no hint of editorial control; and the subject is a fringe topic, which means that as per redflag, we need impeccable sourcing. The website definitely cannot be used as a source for "facts", but if it is notable enough in the Templar/Pentagrams/ ... circles it may be ok to use it as a source of what some people think - although, even then, we would prefer a secondary source quoting the website.

Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources at Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination‎

Could someone take a quick look at the sources used to backup the straw polls over on Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination‎? I've been going back and forth with John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) on this and I would appreciate a little outside input as to what constitutes a WP:RS for the purposes of reporting the results of political actions. Burzmali (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

One should not be sourcing straw poll results to Ron Paul's website. Ron Paul's site has made claims (like delegate count, etc) which are at odds with what reliable sources state, so I don't think they are acceptable. Free Market News Network... maybe. --Haemo (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Individual distinct sources for what will be large amounts of text

User:Dank55 suggested I post this here, after having done so at WT:CITE. So, here it is

In my sandbox, I'm working on Western Washington Vikings, the first of hopefully a lot of DII sports articles. There are histories on the university's official athletic site for all fourteen current (and one former) varsity sport. Together, they comprise well over one hundred pages of information, which surely is enough to write at least a serviceable draft.

Anyway, can I put a cite in the end of each section (I think I'm probably going to do one for each sport), or do I need to throw in a million <ref name=samesource/> tags? Or do I need to find other sources simply for the sake of having them? I have a few others; not many. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If everything in a paragraph or section is cited to the same source, there is no need to cite every sentence. Once is enough. However, I would strongly suggest that you look for other sources to supplement the one you have... especially since that source is directly connected to the article topic (and thus a Self Published Source) (See: WP:SPS). Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You can put a named source at the end of each paragraph unless another source is used within the paragraph, then you'll need to put in front of the sentences before the part sourced from reference 3, and then at the end. Per section would not be acceptable if you intend to eventually go for GA or FA. ALso, I also agree with Blueboar's suggestion on looking for other sources that are unconnected as sourcing an entire article from one source is far too heavy a reliance on one source and would call to question the topic's notability at all. If it has received no significant coverage outside of itself, including its history, it will not meet WP:N.Collectonian (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It meets the notability requirements, beyond question. The reason I don't have a whole lot of other sources is because I simply haven't sought them, given the exhaustiveness of the histories on WWU's website. So, are you telling me I need to find other sources just for the sake of having them? That's...okay, I suppose. They're out there, I have no doubt. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Free Life Commentary

Free Life Commentary[106] is an internet-only self-published "journal" which appears to only carry the "papers" of one man, Sean Gabb, the leader of a fringe UK-based thinktank called the Libertarian Alliance. Gabb describes himself as an academic, although he doesn't obviously have a position at any UK or overseas university. Gibb has appeared infrequently in the media as a spokesperson for Libertarianism, although I can't find any work by him in the serious mainstream media (all of this is from brief research done today, I had never even heard of him until a couple of hours ago). FLC is in effect little more than a blog; there is also a newsletter-style publication produced by the Libertarian Alliance called Free Life Magazine with which is not to be confused, although I stuggle to see how even that comes anywhere near being an RS except in the most unusual of contexts. His own autobiographical contributions toward his wiki entry (Sean Gabb, see e.g. here) include such illuminatory and modest gems as:

[Gabb is] "...a controversial figure within the British and indeed the general libertarian movement. He is an extreme cultural reactionary..."

"Many conservatives believe that his [Gabb's, speaking in the third-person] cultural tastes are a cover for an extreme ideological radicalism."

and:

"What makes Gabb somewhat more than a fringe eccentric is that he is a very clear and prolific writer..."

Material by Gibb from FLC (two separate blogs) is currently being used in Elgin Marbles to support the position that 1) there is no continuity between ancient and modern Greece; 2) as a general racist diatribe against Greeks ("I had come to despise the modern Greeks—a shifty, disreputable people, like a beggar in the street holding up their often self-inflicted sores for pity. Their constant whining about the Elgin Marbles...") (and it goes on...). There has been some civil and sensible discussion on talk between User:Xenovatis, who contends that these are reliable sources per WP:RS, that they are both relevant to the topic, and that there is no evidence that these are not mainstream viewpoints (see WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT,WP:FRINGE, etc.) and thus they should be included (of course the inverse of that applies- there's no positive evidence that there are mainstream viewpoints (of course they are not, that barely needs to be said)). We agreed that it would be sensible to come here for an opinion on the relibility and use of the sources in question, and all comments are appreciated. Links to the material in context on Elgin Marbles available here. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to remark that there were previous efforts by others to get Seannie's self published and self-promoting article (Sean Gabb based entirely on FLC articles), removed which were rebuffed on the rationale that FLC is WP:RS and that he is not fringe. The same goes for another publication I consider equally problematic, The Occidental Quarterly and author James Russell who also has a WP page.Xenovatis (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Blogs written by Sean Gabb are clearly reliable sources in a discussion of Sean Gabb's views. That does not make them reliable sources across the board (see WP:SELFPUB for an explanation of how the use of sources can change according to context).

Can you point to the discussions or AfD's that you are referring to in each case if possible, sounds like potentially useful discussion. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I POSTED THIS ON THE ELGIN MARBLES TALK PAGE REGARDING THIS SUBJECT:

The things that make Gabb's comments relevant or not is whether they are based on fact or are just his opinion. The comments about Modern day Greeks being no more related to the builders of the Acropolis than the current British being related to the builders of Stonehenge, suggests that claims based on national heritage of individual groups of people are invalid- ie the Greeks do not have a valid claim to the marbles as it was not their ancestors that built them. Whether this is true or not, I do not know- that is just how I interpret that statement- and as such, if it is true, I think is relevant. In contrast- Gabb's personal views of the current day Greeks is only a personal opinion of them- which he is entitled to. But they remain that- an opinion of just one person about the Greeks and, as such, are irrelevant to the topic. I think there are far more people saying that those comments should not be here than those saying it should (only one person explicitly defending their place, with four, maybe 5 saying that they shouldn't be here) D666D (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two questions here, relevance and reliability. Like you, I originally thought that the Stonehenge comment was relevant and hence retained it, but that was before I did my research properly and ascertained that "Free Life Commentary" is not in any way a serious academic journal. It is a blog. There are millions of bloggers in the world. If I were to update my blog this afternoon to include some stupid rant about the Elgin Marbles, I would not expect it to appear as a supposedly reliable source tomorrow on Wikipedia. We have standards, those standards are important, and this doesn't meet them. The whole of the Sean Gabb material should automatically go unless better sources can be found- in which case we should indeed start discussing relevance and weighting per WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE etc. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is a blog-style publication, then yes, good bye (I hope it is!)D666D (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what anyone wants or doesn't want. There are objective rules for what is a reliable source and this doesn't meet them. If the Stonehenge comment or something similar can be found in a reliable source then it should be put back in, if consensus so approves, since it actually does seem to pertain to the issue of the marbles. Gabb's racist opinion of Greeks is however irrelevant to the issue of the Elgin Marbles and should be excised completely (or perhaps moved to Sean Gabb regardless. Yes, it is a blog in everything but name. Badgerpatrol (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE:Both D666D and Badgerpatrol were involved in this dispute long before it was placed in this page. The point of placing it here was to get some 3rd party perspective not rehash the same arguments. I don't see the point of the above and I would hope some uninvoles users would care to offer their opinion instead.Xenovatis (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that wholeheartedly. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As, I think, the maybe fifth person calling for its removal perhaps I should add something. Gabb has a minor talent for being provocative (obnoxious would be a less kind way of putting it, when you have fringe political views I guess you need to generate all the attention you can get), but the point being made here - that there is little or no cultural continuity between ancient and modern Greece, that Greeks have added little to the dialogue of humanity in the last 2000 years and that the marbles belong to humanity and not to any particular nation state - is not uniquely Gabb's. Indeed these points were, broadly, made in this Guardian article [107] last year. If you don't like Gabb's esprit then quote from someone else, but it is an argument (not opinion) that ought to be represented.Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a far better source that makes the same point. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Then that source should be used but the argument maust be made. Preferably in a separate subsection, moral claims or some such. Once that is done I will remove objections to deleting Gabb.Xenovatis (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion: are all Chinese sources to be branded unreliable?

This matter occurred in the course of discussion at Talk:Amdo. The discussion concerned two sources:

• 史海钩沉：羌人是青海最早的土著居民 (The Qiang were the earliest indigenous inhabitants of Qinghai), Xinhua Net, 2006-03-23

• Li, Shifa. (2004) 青海史话 (History of Qinghai). China Wenlian Press. ISBN: 7-5059-2905-4

Both of these are Chinese language sources. The first is a history article about the Qiang people published in the Qinghai portal of the website of the Xinhua News Agency, China's official news agency.

The second is an academic book written by a historian.

In the course of discussion, another user asserted that, quote: "Both of these sources are published in China. Since only things that conform with PRC policy are allowed in China, it's meaningless." This seems to be arguing that all sources published in China are "meaningless" - but I think he meant to say they are unreliable due to China's media policy?

I don't see how this stands. That sources published in a certain country might lean towards a certain point of view make them potentially biased, not unreliable. WP:NPOV would mean that any alternative views should also be presented. So, for example, knowing that US sources tend to be pro-American does not mean we exclude all American sources. This is especialy so, as here, where the topic is about history and geography, not modern politics.

Even if you argue that a government mouthpiece is inherenly unreliable (which I do not think it is) -- there seems to be no reason to assume, prima facie, that an academic work is inherently unreliable simply because of the country of its publication?

Your opinions would be appreciated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement that they are "meaningless" is obviously untrue: they may be biased; they may not have a WP:NPOV, they may be censured; they may not be true, or they may be unreliable; but they are certainly not "meaningless". The blanket condemnation of all particular sources should only happen as a result of careful study and critical thinking about them. This statement does not appear to have arisen out of any process of critical enquiry as far as one can see, and, although one could ask the editor who made the assertion for any reasoned sources that allow one to come to that conclusion, I think one can simplify the matter by recognising it as being at great risk of being itself WP:BIASed and not displaying a WP:NPOV. Instead, let each source be individually assessed using the normal criteria one would use for Wikipedia, and evaluated in terms of reliability based on the specific evidence that emerges by the same kind of criteria.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Ruling out everything published in China is patently absurd. Every source, about everything, published everywhere, needs to be assessed individually on its own merits. Badgerpatrol (talk)

• Press freedom indices should be a factor in evaluating articles that impinge on political issues and history is politicized. From that perspective I can understand reservations on the use of Xinhua, although see below too.
• Are there any specific laws that would entail prosecution if the authors published an opinion other than what they do publish? If so this would obviously disqualify them. For example under Article 301 of the Turkish penal code reporters can be sued and jailed for suggesting that the Turkish state had commited acts of genocide, are there similar laws on the relevant issue in China? Why is this particular issue contentious?
• For the academic works what is the world ranking of the university to which the author is attached? Are there EL sources on this subject from equal or better institutions? If so why aren't these used instead? If there aren't then FL sources may be used.
• Since the material has been challenged the original chinese language text and an english translation should be provided as per WP:VUE but otherwise the source can still be used.
• In any event you can always report on the fact that "Xinhua said this and that" and let it speak for itself. By qualifying who said what you are reporting a fact.Xenovatis (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that not all Chinese sources are unreliable all the time. BXenovatis asks why is this particular issue contentious. I note that the Qiang people are thought to be 'related' to Tibetans. Someone with more knowledge of this subject would need to comment, but I would think there could easily be a political dimension to this that needs considering.--Slp1 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And indeed the questioning of the sources occur on Amdo, "a traditional province of Tibet" according to WP. I would sincerely question the appropriateness of these references, given the situation. --Slp1 (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand... if phrased as an opinion, to reflect the Chinese POV, they could well be quite appropriate and reliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree: if appropriate phrasing is used, any political bias present in any direction in any sources can be taken into account without compromising the NPOV of the article. However, care must be taken to evaluate the source so as not to attribute bias unfairly.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions, and I agree with the general consensus in principle. Normally, if it is a statement about recent history, I would not use a Chinese source as fact. However, the statement in question says "Amdo was traditionally inhabited by the Qiang people." In context, this statement is about the situation before the 3rd century AD. The following sentence says "From the 3rd century AD, the area was controlled by the Tuyuhun Kingdom", a statement that is not challenged -- nor should it be, as it is a historical fact with no significant objections.

Now, the way in which the objecting user has framed the issue, I think, is that the issue becomes political because the first statement says that the primary inhabitants of the area were not Tibetan at the time. However, I don't see how this is controversial, because as the content of the article reveals, the Tibetans did not assimilate the indigenous Qiangs for another three centuries.

So my question as to sources is: does it matter whether the issue is controversial? There seems to me no reliable sources that object to the content of that statement.

However, from this discussion I think I understand better why these sources might be seen as unreliable (note: I don't think NPOV comes into it since no contrary view points have been documented) -- so I might see if I can dig up any English-language sources on the matter. Thanks --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The objecting editor was certainly engaging in excessive hyperbole. Since there's a dispute, you may as well check other, independent sources to verify, but unless there are conflicting statements from other sources, it does seem a little bit... silly for a fairly uncontroversial point. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

tommy2.net

Just covering my ass here. This doesn't look like it stands a chance of meeting WP:RS, so I've been reverting editors that have been using it as a source for the album title of Vanessa Hudgens's latest album. Opinions welcome.Kww (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably say borderline on this one. While they've obviously got some legitimacy based on their interviews, the site looks awful lean and thin for one that's been around so long. Might just be a high-end fan site, but its hard to tell. You can probably flip a coin on this one in general. For non-controversial stuff it's probably fine, but should be replaced for a better source if one turns up. Lawrence § t/e 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Alvin and the chipmunks

Resolved

Hey, I keep removing a sequel section on Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) because the only reference we have is is a blog. Is this blog an acceptable source? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this fits one of the exceptions to the "No blogs" rule... it isn't a "personal blog". MTV has editorial oversight, so it is similar to the blogs hosted by reliable news outlets. I would say that if there is doubt as to the accuracy of the information, attribute it as the opinion of the author. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Thanks. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tenacious D - Reliability check

I am working on finishing off the Tenacious D article in order to get it promoted to FA, and have a couple of queries relating to reliability.

• Is EveryHit.com reliable for chart information?
• Is Box Office Mojo reliable for box office results information (particularly here)?
• Is moviehole.net reliable? I have an interview that alone has some particularly useful info here Also, the same interview has been mirrored in a variety of sites (here, here, here and here). Are any of these reliable?
• Is LiveDaily reliable? This in particular.

I know thats a lot, but I'm trying to be thorough. Thanks, Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't answer for the rest, but yes, Box Office Mojo is considered a reliable source, and is one of the preferred ones for getting box office information for film articles. Collectonian (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You can usully find a clue by searching around in the website. For example: "everyHit.com is simply an online database of my family's record collection." Click around in each site looking for information about ownership, fact-checking, editorial oversight. If you can't find it, the burden is on you at FAC to demonstrate what makes the site reliable and why it's being used. For example, where do you find anything establishing reliability for moviehole.net? I can't find anything, so we shouldn't use them. Etecetera ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help so far. I've struck out the stuff that is done. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Paper That Uses Non-RS?

Is the specific paper "Of Otaku and Fansubs: A Critical Look at Anime Online in Light of Current Issues in Copyright Law",[108] by Jordan Hatcher on the Social Science Research Network considered a reliable source for making a claim IF the source he cites for that claim completely fails WP:RS? Specifically, he claims that Geneon Entertainment only licensed the anime series Fushigi Yūgi because of its popularity in fansubs, however the source he cites for this is a fansub distribution site and a non-RS anime site that does not specifically make such a claim, but only says that distributors "should" look at fansub downloading when deciding to license a series. This would seem to invalidate the paper as a reliable source and I'm not sure it should be used to add that claim to the Fushigi Yūgi article. Collectonian (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

May I add that Sequential Tart, one of the sites the paper uses as a source, describes itself as a women's comic industry web magazine, which has run since 1998. -Malkinann (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's been published in a verifiable publication then it's reliable. What the author chooses to source is not relevant to verfiability. --neonwhite user page talk 05:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, so then I guess the question is is Social Science Research Network considered a reliable source? Collectonian (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the actual journal it's published in (SSRN seems to be a journal-searching service), it says the article's been peer-reviewed. -Malkinann (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A follow up question, and semi-related, is the "Sequential Tart" website linked above considered a reliable source? Collectonian (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Both sources meet the relevant policy's criteria, so they are reliable sources. Still, if you think the referenced statement is controversial, all you have to do is attributing it, so to make it clear that it is that source's take on the issue, and not a general fact. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bostom and Prometheus books

Is either Andrew Bostom or Premotheus books a reliable source? Although currently I'm discussing the reliability of

Bostom, Andrew, ed. (2005). The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. Prometeus Books.

I would like to reach a consensus on the sources in general.

Prometheus books has published many books that are critical of/biased against Islam. Examples include:

• Why I Am Not A Muslim by Ibn Warraq
  • The book is described as a "sledgehammer to the task of demolishing Islam," and says "Islam is flatly incompatible with the establishment and maintenance of the equal individual rights."[109] For those who read the book will find that it says that the Qur'an is a fabrication, a fraud.
• Women and the Koran by Anwar Hekmat
  • The book says this about Islam: [110]
    • "Anwar Hekmat tells us of the brutality inflicted on women in the Islam religion",
    • "Mohammed is also depicted with insatiable sexual appetites that knew little boundaries",
    • "Hekmat argues...the Muslim religion created by Mohammed is a barbaric tradition",
    • "Much of the Islamic religion, claims Hekmat, is clever propaganda simply created to allow Mohammed to do as he pleased."

Bostom himself has a similar record:

• An Apology for Koranic Antisemitism?
  • "...Koran 3:112/2:61, and their virulently antisemitic contents."
  • "As a central anti-Jewish motif, the Koran decrees an eternal curse upon the Jews..."
• Sufi Jihad?
  • Calls Wahhabism "evil".
• Islam Without Camouflage
  • "...Islamic doctrines that threaten all of humanity—including Muslims themselves."
  • Bostom gives a quote: "THE ESSENCE OF HIS [i.e. Muhammad's ] DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE." Bostom calls this one of the "quintessential truths regarding Islam".

I leave the reader to judge whether the above sources are reliable or not.Bless sins (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No. The publication is not academic like University Presses (that practice blind peer-reviewing) nor does Bosom have any degree in Islamic studies. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Collections are not peer-reviewed; they are at best checked for accuracy (of reproduction; besides, of course, permissions). rudra (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bostom is the editor. The book is a collection of articles and translations. WP:RS applies to these sources. rudra (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The book has also been reviewed. rudra (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, a review by itself isn't much.

Some of the articles have been previously printed elsewhere, notably the one by C. E. Dufourcq - which isn't representative of his work, as far as I can tell, but still. I don't think any of the citations are from those articles but from the translations that Bostom considers significant. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Part 3 of the book. I don't think the credentials of the translators need be questioned. The issue would be the "Muslim Theologians and Jurists" so translated: why are they "primary" and not secondary, since they themselves are traditionally cast as interpreters of "the law" rather than originators? Or does every translation have to be further interpreted by an English language functionary in order to satisfy some notion of "secondary source"? rudra (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Augustine merely "interpreted" Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned, but I strongly doubt he could be considered anything but a primary source on original sin. I don't see the difference to this case.

More to the point, why are we looking at Bostom's choices of hadith? If those hadith have not been considered significant by any real modern authority, we shouldn't be quoting them at all. That's why every discussion of a twelfth century source damn well needs someone telling us which the important bits are, because picking the important bits is precisely what a bunch of academics quarrel about, and us doing their job is pretty much the definition of original research. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between Christian theology and Islamic law, not to mention the traditional (and I dare say justifiable) pride in the precision of the Arabic in fiqh texts by reputable scholars, and the systemic horror of bida. And this is the first I'm hearing of hadith. Where did that come from? rudra (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, too many near-identical arguments simultaneously.

The world of difference between Christian theology and Islamic law, or for that matter American jurisprudence, does not concern us in determining what we consider an acceptable form of research. We set up our rules of research to ensure that those who wish to skew articles towards the unreliable and the original cannot do so; in order to do that, we cannot permit them to quote-mine or misinterpret sources that are the correct subject of the article. We do not, for example, have a structure in place on-WP that can separate a fuqaha with greater authority from one with lesser; if someone wishes to propose such a system in the future, it would be helpful, but till then we must filter them through the systems we already have of reliability. Similarly, the question of whether Augustine or Grotius or Kant was more "reliable" on the subject of the rules of jus ad bellum is nonsensical; we use our structures of reliability and modern secondary sourcing to makes sense of what is central in what they say and what is not. The same is actually true of Supreme Court rulings. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like wikilawyering to me. Al-Ghazzali as "primary", especially when the book concerned was the very essence of a "secondary" effort (a compendium of Shafi'i law), is simply absurd. There is simply no question that Al-Ghazzali is himself a reliable source on Shafi'i jurisprudence. The rest is just handwaving to wish away what has suddenly (i.e. in modern times) been found indigestible. When Al-Ghazzali is found to say something, ah, palatable, naturally the wikilawyering will go full tilt the other way, fighting tooth and nail to cite him. rudra (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Come to me and complain when that happens. An eleventh-century scholar can be called "secondary" when we want every idiot amateur adding his opinions on everything to this encyclopaedia, not before. What is handwaving is "essence of secondary". Bollocks. That's like claiming Bagehot is a secondary source on the British constitution. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The BC is unwritten, by convention (which, of course, has been the cause of much histrionics). The jizya procedure according to the Shafi'i school has been written down multiple times, I'm sure, and scholars in training are no doubt obliged to bone up. I grant that it would be interesting if someone has shown that the procedure itself was subject to serious dispute within the Shafi'i school. It's possible; I don't know, but I see no reason to assume that. But if it wasn't disputed, then Al-Ghazzali is as good a source as any other leading light of that school. It's pretty cut and dried. rudra (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we need to know is that the procedure was not subject to dispute. Whichever source says that will serve as the required secondary source. The default position is not that we can assume it was not; nor can we assume it was. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While I would phrase things differently, I agree in substance. Documents that are several hundred years old are not secondary sources in the modern sense used in Wikipedia. Their interpretation needs expert knowledge, which is why we have history departments and anthropology departments and even religious studies departments at universities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bostom has no credentials in Islamic studies, he is a medical doctor by profession. Prometheus books is a well known publisher, but it's not academic, scholarly, nor does it have any sort of pedigree in the field of Islamic studies. Additionally, its books on Islam are often received negatively by the experts, such as Fred Donner's or Asma Asfaruddin's scathing attacks on Ibn Warraq's works for example. ITAQALLAH 12:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I had this issue with another person who was presented as Dr John Shea and an expert on anthropology when infact he was a medical doctor with a partisan agenda a mile wide. Since it is published by a notable publishing house I am afraid it is admissible under WP:RS and WP:Verifiable but it should be made clear that: (1) this person is a medical doctor and not an expert or a scholar on Islam (2) he is an Islamophobe, given the amount of crap he seems to have produced obtaining a reference to that effect should not be too problematic (3) any criticism of his drivel by normal people should also be included with references. I am pretty sure the issue must have come up before with the racist work of this Bat Yor person who doesn't even have a history degree. PS: Obviously any references to this kind of stuff should be in the form "Bostom, a medical doctor and noted Islamophobe says this and that". It must never be presented as unqualified fact since that would be severly misleading.Xenovatis (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"I am afraid it is admissible under WP:RS and WP:Verifiable" Great, now we should modify the Islam article to include the claims that it is a "barbaric tradition", and "propaganda". But you may want to ask yourself one thing before this: how many people will take wikipedia seriously if it did such a thing?Bless sins (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You on the other hand may want to pay a visit to the links I pointed you to, namely WP:SOURCES, a policy, and actually read them.Xenovatis (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read those links many times. In particular I fail to see how Bostom of Prometheus books satisfies the following:

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers...Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications."

Bostom has no qualifications in Islam that have been recognized by an institution (actually he has not qualifications period). Prometheus books can't be considered "mainstream" (let alone "academic") mostly because of the type of authors it attracts. And it certainly isn't "respected".

My above post was simply to point at the horrendous consequences that would result if either of the two sources are considered "admissible under WP:RS and WP:Verifiable."Bless sins (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What "horrendous consequences" (and "horrendous" to whom)? Proper attribution, as Xenovatis points out, is the answer to that "problem". rudra (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. There is no lack of academic sources and certainly no lack of much more reliable books or papers. If any of this information is non-controversial, one would expect it should be produced in other secondary source. But let's take Bosom out of the picture and avoid using primary sources directly. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For a mainstream academic topic like Islam, many hundreds of scholarly books and many thousands of peer-reviewed articles in recognized journals are available. While it make sense to use high-level introductory books for an overview, there is no reason to go to borderline sources on anything remotely controversial. This is not a fringe topic where we must be thankful for any scrap of material. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Benton, Tennessee

A user named "toddyvol" is continuously making edits to Benton, Tennessee, claiming it's a "speed trap" without providing a reliable source. Several users have reverted his edits, but we're all maxing out our 3-reverts.

This user cited the "Speed Trap Exchange," which is not a reliable source, and pretty names every city in the southeast a "speed trap." Bms4880 (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Toddyvol that he/she is in violation of WP:3rr and can be blocked if he/she continues to edit war over this. I agree that the information needs to be sourced. Do you have a link to (or can you discribe) the "Speed Trap Exchange" so we can see why you think it is not reliable? Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS for Oscars

I've only just discovered this noticboard exists, and I already have a question for it.

I need to source some unsourced assertions about the Academy Award nominations for a film. The assertions look correct, I just need to check and source them. Is there anywhere that is:

• online,
• free to access,
• fairly detailed, and
• considered WP:RS? AndyJones (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For your information, this noticeboard is generally used to ask other editors whether a particular source is reliable or not, per "Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable" in the heading, and not to ask people to help find sources :-) But anyway, how about this? [111] --Slp1 (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But that's a good one. Thanks for your help. AndyJones (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Gokturk Source

I was pointed here due to a dispute on the Gokturk page. The flag is unsourced, and a certain user keeps reverting my edits to remove the unsourced flag. The only site given is this one: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2003/11/07/yazar/dundar.html I cannot read Turkish, so I was wondering if someone who can read it could verify that this is a credible source. Rcduggan (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I can not read turkish either, but from the format it seems to be a personal website/blog ... as such it would not be reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dsmurat has posted a second source: http://www.cankaya.gov.tr/eng_html/gunes.htm

However, it is just a picture of a few flags, which do not prove the flag was actually used. Therefore it still does not belong. Rcduggan (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of "Dean Swift"

An editor has recently questioned to reliability of a 1910 work called Dean Swift written by Sophie Smith. Her work was published by Metheun, a company that produced textbooks, histories, religious works, and a large "literature" collection. The work has an extensive Bibliography of five printed pages, which uses 94 sources, including a contemporary history (Lecky's Leaders of Irish Public Opinions) which another scholar, A. Goodwin states:"nor does it [his paper] challenge the accepted accounts of Lecky" (Goodwin, A.. "Woods Halfpence". The English Historical Review LI (1936): pp. 647-674.) Goodwin's work was the starting point for analyzing Swift's Drapier's Letters in the historic context for many later scholars and his work is very mainstream. She also uses many primary sources used by Goodwin and by later scholars, such as Ferguson and Ehrenpreis. Although she states that she "cannot vouch for [the primary source's] authenticity", no one can. However, part of history is accepting primary accounts until there is proof against it, and then rationalizing the account itself. Hence why historians try to use primary accounts from both sides. Regardless, this was a wide spread and popular work. It had 4 reprints and is included in many academic facilities according to "worldcat". Please respond so we can settle this matter. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems, then, to have been a serious biography from a leading publisher. The most striking thing about it is that it is very out of date. If there is more recent scholarship that contradicts its findings then that must be an important consideration. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For future reference - Its inclusion was from it being the only biography that looks through Swift's history as Dean, as opposed to Ferguson (Swift as Irish), or Ehrenpreis (Swift as a political writer). It is limitedly used on The Drapier's Letters 5 times out of over 100 citations. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it used for anything controversial? Are you sure that there is no more recent work (could be a scholarly article rather than a book) that covers the same ground? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have argued that Sophie Smith's work is not the most reliable source because modern literary critical methods and historiographical methods have changed since 1910. What would be considered legitimate primary source material and the methods of interpreting that material have changed substantially in the last 100 years. The standard biography of Swift is Ehrenpreis, something that this editor has admitted. This issue has received a lot of discussion, albeit in a fragmented way, at Talk:The Drapier's Letters#Questions on sources). Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the statements sourced to this work that I feel could be challenged and deserve sourcing to a more reputable source:

• The Drapier's Letters are the most important of Swift's "Irish tracts", and are a politically important part of Swift's writings along with Gulliver's Travels (1726), A Tale of a Tub (1704), and A Modest Proposal (1729). Above all, the Drapier's Letters are a primary reason why Swift is seen as a hero to many Irish people, for he was one of the earliest writers to defy England's control over the Irish nation.
• Jonathan Swift, then Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin, was already known for his concern for the Irish people and for writing several political pamphlets. One of these, Proposal for the Universal use of Irish Manufacture (1720), had so inflamed the English authorities that the printer, John Harding, was prosecuted, although the pamphlet had done little more than recommend that the Irish use the materials they produce rather than export them to England
• Although Swift knew that the Duchess of Kendal was responsible for selling the patent to Wood, he rarely mentions this fact in the Letters. Instead, his first three letters emphasize how Wood was the mastermind behind the patent. Although the Drapier constantly asserts his loyalty to the King, his words did not prevent claims of treason from being leveled against him in response to the third and fourth letters.
• Some residents of Dublin placed banners and signs in the city to recognize Swift's deeds as the Drapier, and images from the letters, such as the Drapier comparing his campaign to David fighting Goliath, became themes in popular literature. Awadewit (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Those comments are all in regard to the research Smith performed in finding out Swift's parish's reaction to his actions and deeds. She is the only one that I have found that have done more than just allude to the actions of the people in regard to Swift, but actually quotes and documents primary sources that are reacting to the people's involvement. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If Smith is the only writer to mention this material, that raises even further questions of its validity. If no modern literary critic or historian repeats this information or endorses Smith's claims, that makes me even more skeptical of them. Awadewit (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia suggests that the original writer of the idea, and not those who follow up and agree with it, are the ones that deserve priority to being sourced. This is also the understanding that I have from most of the academic circles that I am part of. Furthermore, academic work is supposed to be original, and unless someone is writing to say that these claims are wrong, then people would not bring them up, except anecdotally. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You must also know that if an idea is accepted within academic circles, it is frequently repeated and made reference to. That is how one establishes that it is an "important" or "significant" idea within a body of scholarship. Awadewit (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia prefers the original. 2. That is not necessarily true, since there are more teachers on a subject than writers on the specific point in the academic community. 3. Rarely, rarely, do academics ever duplicate information unless its necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what academic field you are a part of, but in literary studies and history, academics repeat a great deal of information. Most books contain large sections of "this is what is important that has been said before" - a brief survey of the scholarly literature on the topic - as well as references to the works that the author is responding to. Anyone working in these fields would know this. Unfortunately, the only way to prove this is to read large numbers of books. However, if the editors trying to help us resolve this dispute want to take the time to read through a large cache of notes that would demonstrate this, they can look at User:Simmaren/Sandbox/Jane Austen/Collaboration Work Page. This page of notes is the result of reading the major works of literary criticism on Jane Austen. It will amply demonstrate how important ideas are frequently repeated and how authors refer back to works that are significant. Awadewit (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You can say that all you want, however, you are patently false. There are rules against copyright infringement, and duplicating research is not only illegal, its extremely academically dishonest. Academics only publish works when they have a new view point or something worth contributing. They do not regurgitate old information. Your stubborn refusal to seek and listen to advice from the community on the issue is unwarranted. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am obviously referring to properly sourced scholarship, scholarship which acknowledges its sources. All scholarship builds on previous works and acknowledges that (hence the extensive bibliographies, footnotes, and quotations). To act as if every iota of a every new work of published scholarship is original research is absurd. Anyone who has ever read a series of works produced in an academic field will know that this is a ridiculous assertion. I have even provided notes that disprove your claim from the scholarship on Jane Austen. I have continued this discussion in good faith at the article talk page and at this noticeboard to find a consensus. However, your obvious strawmen arguments, bizarre claims regarding academic scholarship, and refusal to address the legitimate points raised here and on the article talk page by myself and others, force me to conclude that this is a hopeless discussion. Awadewit (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are ignoring how actual academia works. 1. You cannot just regurgitate information, unless you are writing an Education Doctoral dissertation (that is the only acceptable academic work that can just be a reciting of previous information) 2. All academic works require original thought. Anything else is not a reflection of real academia. 3. The only one refusing to do anything is you, and you refuse to accept the consensus in favor of the work. Your constant continuance on the issue is troubling. This is the last response you will have from me. It seems that you do not understand what Wikipedia is, and that you would rather argue over things that aren't an issue. Good bye. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I might have to do a little hunting to find specific sources, but at least the first 3 of them are critical commonplaces, and will be in every later discussion of his oeuvre. If any of these are challenged as wrong , the sources can be added. But this seems asserts at least some notability, so this seems a simple case of using the first convenient source. It should be supplemented or replaced ideally, but I don';t see it as worth much fighting. DGG (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to object to the assumption that just because something is old it is automatically unreliable, especially when it comes to History. Some old sources are still considered the seminal work on a given topic. Others may have had specific points corrected by modern scholarship, but are still highly reguarded.

That said, in this particular case, while it may not be the seminal source on Swift... it certainly should be considered a reliable source. Where Smith's scholarship has been corrected or questioned by more modern sources, I would certainly point this out in the article... and if Smith's scholarship is now considered incorrect by the majority of historians I would not hesitate to say drop Smith entirely, but it does not sound like this is the case. Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is now being considered for FAC and this is why questions over its sources have arisen. The problem is, unfortunately, not limited to this source. I know that some older works are seminal, but that is not the case here, as Ottava Rima acknowledges on the talk page at Talk:The Drapier's Letters. I'm not sure why this work should be considered reliable since it has been supplanted in the field - for Swift scholars, this work is no longer important. Ottava Rima has not made the argument that Swift scholars find this work reliable and use it. WP:V and WP:RS emphasize that a work must be considered reliable within its context - that must be considered here as well. If Swift scholars don't use this work, why should we? Aren't we supposed to be following the experts? I would like to point out that the Norton Writings of Jonathan Swift, published in 1973, makes no mention of this work in its "Bibliography", but does mention two nineteenth-century biographies (this was before the publication of Ehrenpreis). If the work were regarded as reliable, it would have been listed here. Awadewit (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the only one with a problem over the source is you, and your failure to recognize proper community procedure over such leaves much to be desired. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not responded to my argument or evidence provided above. Awadewit (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Melody Amber

Directed here from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts [112]; confirming reliability first may be a good idea even though there was already consensus on the article's talk page.

Text of my alert:

Harassment and vandalism on Melody Amber. User is of the conviction that every mention of my name should be eliminated from the internet and does not care about guidelines. I could use some help, not sure where to go with this. Spillover from nl:Wikipedia where user and user:JacobH have been stalking me for over six months, risk of further escalation if more troops are called in. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For your information: NL.wiki arbcom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder for self promotion. We have determined the unimportance of his work. GijsvdL (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_this_3RR.3F and various places as in Special:Contributions/Guido_den_Broeder. Aleichem (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this is a total and complete lie by GijsvdL, and part of the harassment that had even spread off-wiki. But, also once more, completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Anybody may visit NL.wiki IRC to verify. You're now blocked at NL.wiki for the same behaviour. GijsvdL (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, keep on lying. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks, according to log - GijsvdL (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's being dealt with. Some of this mob are indeed admins ('moderators'). Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oscar, the moderator who blocked you, is your mentor. He also used to be member of the WMF Board of Trustees, he is not just someone who happened to become moderator. GijsvdL (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear that he is no longer a board member. But no, he is not my mentor. His claim that he is does not make it so, there are laws that even Wikipedia has to follow. To those interested: I was blocked two weeks for archiving. This Oscar guy insists that I am only allowed to archive on the last day of the month. He then continued to vandalize my user space. I'm sure that I need say no more. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Copyright questions. Apart from the unpleasant feeling of some WP:FORUMSHOP going on, WP:RSN is probably the right place to discuss this. The "copyright question" would be a red herring at best I suppose.

At WP:VPP#Copyright questions Guido makes this remarkable reasoning:

Amber tournament has a WP article → Amber tournament is notable → the sources on the tournament are notable → the sources on the tournament are reliable.

Guido, note, this is the inversion of how it works at en.wikipedia:

There are multiple reliable sources on a topic → the topic has "notability" (per WP:N) if some other requirements are met too (e.g. sources are "non-trivial" etc.) → apart from some exceptional circumstances this usually means that a Wikipedia article using such reliable sources can be written.

Note that there is no implication for "other" sources on the same topic to become at once "reliable" by the fact that an article is written on the topic.

Re. Guido's contention "these are the official publications on behalf of the organization". Possibly. Use the article's talk page to find consensus on such contention, I mean on both contentions that this is a fact and outdoes the "self-published" characteristic of the sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My statement was not questioned by anyone, so WP:AGF applies. You could, however, contact the organizer, if you wish to be sure. Or you could check the books themselves. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I questioned it, as a result of this being brought to WP:RSN (and WP:VPP). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of a source furthermore follows from the reliability of the publisher and the author. Also, if you google, you will find that these books can be found mentioned, and they have been discussed in many chess magazines. And nobody is denying that. User merely wishes to see my name disappear. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Show the references, you may be able to convince some people. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't show them, since they are on paper. I can only list them, which would take quite a while. Not going to, therefore; if anyone doubts it it's up to them to make the first effort. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's up to you, but if you want to list some of the sources here then we might agree with you that they are reliable. Just give the author, title, publisher and date of publication. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the google references, I quote user Thoth at nl:Wikipedia: "(ik... snap niet dat ik al die google hits heb kunnen missen" (I... don't understand how I missed all those google hits). [113] Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm user Thoth on the Dutch Wikipedia and I do not support this user in his quest for selfpromotion, nor do I appreciate being selectively quoted by this user. In my opinion, he will do anything to see his name on a Wikipedia. He tried and is stil trying on the Dutch Wikipedia and he tried it on the German Wikipedia. I think this user is one of the worst kind Wikipedia has. Jorrit-H (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Another one-purpose account, one of the mob. Expect two or three more.

I do not have an account on ge:Wikipedia, never visited it even.

On nl:Wikipedia, I have contributed to hundreds of articles. About five of them contain one or more references to my work as a leading scientist in my field. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources noticeboard. Someone lists a source, editors comment. Please confine your posts on this page to the purpose. Don't forget that you also have dispute resolution methods open to you. A request for comment might be appropriate at this stage. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

One purpose account? no, this account was made for making an article on request. btw, you started to use me as a refrence so don't whine when I have something to say about it, you named me so you got me here. and if we check out de:Benutzer:Rubi64 it aint you right? :P don't make me laugh anymore than you already did... Jorrit-H (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting an IP check. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor changes to WP:RS

I've made a couple minor changes to WP:RS. In short - I added a couple notes to WP:RS#Scholarship. Basically: a single, small study is not considered the final word in science, and in complex fields like medicine, small studies have a decent chance of later being shown wrong. And, oh yeah. Not everything that claims to be a peer-reviewed journal is reliable, because some fringe theorists decided to publish their own journals, reviewed by peers who are fanatically devoted to the fringe theory. Secondly, I revised the extremist sources section, basing it a bit more closely off of WP:V, and adding a little bit on fringe sources based on WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, and checking WP:FRINGE to confirm my interpretation of what that meant re: sourcing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly a good thing to move the guideline closer to what the policies say (especially WP:V). This guideline has a tendancy to attract instruction creap, and often ends up in direct contradition with Policy. We have to clear it out from time to time. When doing so, we must be careful not to inadvertantly end up conflicting with one policy in an attempt to clear up a conflict with another. In this case, I don't think you did so... Just wanted to go on record with the caution. Blueboar (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a note to WP:RS#Scholarship on the publishers of academic or purported academic journals, a criterion I feel could be more widely used in the assessment of RS. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

the language needed some adjustment, & I & others have been adjusting it to sound less contentious. DGG (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Raleigh, North Carolina population

Before someone points to this and tells me case closed, I'd like to know if this 2008 estimate from the Raleigh government website is considered reliable. The website links to the Population Estimate Methodology which states "The City’s population estimate is based on factual information available regarding population growth since the decennial Census in April 2000...housing units and group quarters counts." The estimate is not from the Chamber of Commerce. I've seen CoC stats cited in other city articles and I know they have commercial reasons for inflating the population. It's from a goverment website and the methodology used to obtain the population estimate is the same as the United States Census 2006 estimates that are cited in various city articles. The reason I think using the 2008 estimate (374,320) is important comes from the fact Raleigh is the 15th fastest growing U.S. city and we should keep up with current and government-sourced information for readers. Look at the change in population from 2000 to 2008. IMHO, common sense tells me if a government website and other sources think this 2008 estimate is legitimate, then so should we. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Census figure first, then the new estimate attributed clearly to the source. Only the census figure in the infobox (for consistency across articles). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

James Randi

Is James Randi's An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural a suitable source for a description of a meditation technique? It was originally published by St. Martin's Press, a, large and well-established publisher, and co-written with Arthur C. Clarke the science fiction writer. Randi has won several awards, induding a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant". He has published many books. I believe he's considered a living authority on paranormal and spiritual phenomenon. This is inspired by a dispute at Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat#Randi. (I searched for this in the noticeboard archives and I don't think it's been asked before.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the central issue here is whether the article Teachings of Prem Rawat is part of the biography of the living person, Prem Rawat, and therefore requires the exceptionally good sources stipulated by biographies of living persons. User:Will Beback does not believe so. Rumiton (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A) I think that this book may qualify as an exceptionally good source. B) I don't think that "Teachings of Prem Rawat" is a BLP, and certainly not in this context. That article is mostly material merged from "Techniques of Knowledge"[114], which is a meditation system dating back to 1780. The material from Randi is not about Prem Rawat and doesn't mention his name. It's solely about the meditation technique. C) The BLP aspect isn't really relevant on this noticeboard. Let's resolve the reliability issue first and if there are still disputes then we can visit other noticeboards as need be. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Randi may be an known stage magician and skeptic, but that is not the issue at hand. Will omits the fact that the few paragraphs in that book that want to be used as a source in a BLP, contains numerous factual inaccuracies, such as wrong dates, wrong information about aspects that are well documented by scholarly sources, etc, and that the proposal is to omit mentioning these and cherry pick one short sentence from these paragraphs. Well, we cannot do that: either the source is accurate or it is not (as it compares to the many scholarly sources available on the subject) So, again, the issue at hand is the quality of a source and not a blanket statement about if a source is reliable or not. There are other considerations as well: We ought to use the best sources available to us: Per Wikipedia:NPOV#A_vital_component:_good_research: (my highlight) Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available.' Try the library for 'reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little ground work can save a lot of time justifying a point later. An entry on that book that is so peppered with factual errors, is not the best "reputable authoritative source". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(btw the book was not co-written by A C Clark. He just wrote a foreword) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this, this is a fairly borderline-notable subject - it peaked in the 70s, so finding articles is going to start to become a problem, since proponents of a view have a habit of keeping track of sources they like, but the skeptical views tend to be forgotten as there's noone who has an interest in recording them. Hence, I think that Randi's views are fine to include as criticism, if properly attributed to him. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Randi is a reputable source on yogic techniques. In the Teachings of Prem Rawat article, he was quoted in the Reception section, so one could have some sympathy for his presence there, but I feel it's still not enough. One of the methods he comments on, in a very dismissive and sneering way, is Khecarī mudrā, a centuries-old method used in the Indian subcontinent. Needless to say, Randi's comment does not appear in the Khecarī mudrā article, nor is it ever likely to, even if that article were brought to FA status.

To transpose this sort of issue to another field, Richard Wagner is reported by the New York Times to have written that Hegel's work is "rubbish". The New York Times is a reputable source. However, this does not mean that we should now all flock to the article on Hegel and insert a sentence like "The notable composer Richard Wagner thought that Hegel's work only appeared profound, but was in fact empty nonsense and rubbish". Wagner's views of Hegel simply do not have encyclopedic relevance, even though they are published and many people would agree with him. The same goes for Randi's views of yogic methods. Jayen466 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That argument has nothing to do with whether Randi is a Reliable Source. You asked whether we thought Randi was a reliable source for this. I think he is. Is he one you want to include on this page? That's for consensus over there, but I don't think that policy gives you an automatic win on this argument. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayen that this material covers an old meditative technique, and is not about a living person. I'd also add that Randi is apparently used as a source for hundreds of WP articles, including BLPs.[115] He is also cited by numerous scholars, [116], and this particualr book is also cited.[117] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The book may be cited, but if you look at where and by whom it is cited, none of these citations appear to be in anything remotely approaching this field: [118]. Wagner's letters, I am sure, are cited too; that does not make him a noted authority on Hegel. Jayen466 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Randi is a reliable, although opinionated, source, for claims of the paranormal or transcendent. Because he's approaching things from the "debunking" side, it may generally be appropriate to qualify his remarks as "according to noted skeptic James Randi...", however, his opinion is worth mentioning. <eleland/talkedits> 21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Eleland, though where Randi's critiques align closely with the scientific rationalization of the subject, they may not need attribution within the text (as opposed to when he, for example, calls people names.) Remember too, WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree also. Attribution is necessary, but his work can be used. - Merzbow (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ihro.in

Since past few days, User:Singh6 has been adding references from ihro.in to a number of articles.

Does http://www.ihro.in classifies as a reliable source? The website supposedly belongs to "International Human Rights Organisation", but surprsingly the activities of this "International Human Rights Organisation" are limited to the Punjab insurgency. This seems to be more of a Khalistani propaganda site. The "Discussion board" of this "international" organization is situated on Yahoo groups.

While there were undoubtedly human rights violations during the Punjab insurgency, this site greatly exaggerates them. Surprisingly, inspite of being a "Human Rights Organisation", it does not talk about atroicities committed by religious militants during the Punjab insurgeny. It only criticises the Indian government, while glorifying the fanatic religous militants.

There are many neutral sources on the Khalistan crisis and this site doesn't seem to be one of them.

According to whois information, the domain is registered by an individual Tanveer Singh, not some international NGO.--202.54.176.51 (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it doesn't seem to be an independent human rights body. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Politico.com

In the article George Soros a new source that I hadn't heard of the Politico or politico.com is being used as a source for the supposed fact that Soros is funding a political attack campaign against John McCain, e.g. "Brock described that the plan intends to raise $40 million to run political attack advertisements."

Since the tone doesn't seem like a neutral reportage of facts, and since I'd never heard of it, I'd think it's not a reliable source. Rather than get into an edit war about it, I thought all you reliable source experts might be able to chip in.

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to be a reliable source, although there may be issues of NPOV inherent in the manner in which it is cited. Since it's a fairly new media outlet and may not have built up a reputation for accuracy, I would generally prefer to cite it as "According to the tabloid politico.com... whatever". <eleland/talkedits> 21:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

school newspapers

Are school newspapers for colleges considered reliable? (for example, [119]); I don't need them to prove the notability of the subject, but they are a good source for information and opinions on the subject, as the subject is college-oriented. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that particular link is an op-ed in a student newspaper. Op-eds are usually on the bleeding edge of reliable sources, as are student papers. Combine the two, and I'm not confident at all. If it's a goofy subject like "Zombie apocalypse" we might as well include the opinion, but in a mainstream article I would be quite leery of it. <eleland/talkedits> 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I read the link as a letter to the editor, in which case it would have to be "not reliable." (Maybe a letter to the NY Times from a notable person would be reliable). In general, I would think that a well established student run college newspaper, at a well established college or university addressing general news topics would still be borderline, but if they were addressing a university topic it would be reliable (i.e. more or less agree with Eleland here). Smallbones (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, bad example for the op-ed, but in terms of general use of school newspapers, it's ok? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

They're on the edge of reliability. If it's a novel and controversial claim, or if it's outside the general area of the newspaper's competence (ie, campus affairs,) I would wish to attribute it in the text as the report of a student newspaper. Without knowing more about the specific dispute, it's difficult to give a more helpful opinion. <eleland/talkedits> 01:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Some collegiate newpapers are well known for their journalism... others are not. I think this has to be a case by case determination. Blueboar (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

UrbanBridgez.com

UrbanBridgez.com (abbreviated UBG on their site) is being used as a source here (suspiciously added by a new editor named AriesUBG). Spam issues aside, the reliability of this source seems dubious at best. This seems to be a fairly widespread problem with music articles—sources that, on the surface, appear professional but on closer inspection raise serious doubts to their reliability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Movie Credits: does Wikipedia trust our observations?

Kind of a provocative title, I know, but this subject seems to keep coming up, and I am wondering if it isn't something that we can stem the tide of confusion with by tweaking the policy.
Currently, when writing film summaries (or, I would imagine, book summaries as well) we write from an observational point of view. 'This and this happened', and so on. Sometimes, like in Jackie Chan films, out-takes from stunts play during the credits, and as such, are often included in the articles. As well, in Children of Men, a film about the possible extinction of the human race from infertility, while the credits roll, the sounds of children laughing and shouting are heard throughout. In Fitna, the credits include the alias, 'Scarlet Pimpernel' as the director/editor/etc of the film. In the case of CoM, we don't have a RS citation wherein someone says, 'hey, didja hear dem kids chuckling about?' while in Fitna, we have a very reliable source that states unequivocally that the 'Scarlet Pimpernel' thing is an alias for a production company.
My question is this: when we are faced with unsourced info that is observational (and therefore primary info), do we follow WP:PSTS? If we have a source that clarifies that an observed phenomena (be it laughter of children in CoM or a simple ambiguous usage of the nom de plume Scarlet Pimpernel in Fitna), does it take precedence in how we bring that to the article? Thoughts, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that in movie and TV shows plots a bit of leeway is given as it relates to descriptive aspects of the primary source (i.e. the movie or TV show itself), but caution should be exercise not to indulge beyond making descriptive claims and into analysis or other OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, how would you apply that reasoning to the examples above? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed above... but I will repeat... film credits are text... no different than the text of a book. The fact that this text happens to appear on film and not on paper is irrelevant. When reading film credits we do not use an "observational point of view" the way we would with the rest of the film. Film credits are something we can read and cite... just as we read and cite information that appears in a printed book or on a website. Now... that text is a primary source for that information... so all the cautions discussed at PSTS would apply. We should stick to relating the basic facts listed in the source, and not use it to support analytical or conclusionary statements. For those we need reliable secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Which I believe were presented for the third example, Fitna. The citation notes that the 'Scarlet Pimpernel Productions is an alias for a (Dutch) production company. As the infobox should contain the most concise info, we should note that production company. It is furthermore noted in the body of the article. How would you deal with the CoM example, Blueboar? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I think that the article should list "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions" (cited to the credits) in the info box, and discuss the disclosure that this is really an alias for a dutch production company (cited to your source) in the main text.

As for CoM... I don't think your comparison is quite apt. The fact that one hears the laughter of children while the credits roll in CoM is an observational statement. It is possible for different people to make different observations. Technically, stating this observation is a form of Original Research (however it is an exception to our NOR polcicy). The fact that the credits of Fitna list "Scarlet Pimpernel" does not depend upon observation. It is not Original Research. It is verifiable Fact. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)