Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Jeremy Brett

Are entries and sources from Terry Manners reliable? Manners's biography of this topic is considered unreliable and biased. --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The wikipedia article does seem to overly rely on the opinion in the book. If can find no significant mention of it in reliable sources to ascertain it's reliability. To me it doesn't seem a suitable. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which statements to remove, but must I remove Manners's bio as a source? Would this imply: I must remove whatever is cited by Manners? --George Ho (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

when is youtube a good source?

I have a dispute with another editor about the extent that web-published video can constitute strict publication. I'm too tired to type one more sentence of summary or bickering, so I thought perhaps I could start a thread discussion the topic in the abstract. What conditions do you believe need to be in place to consider a networked video (e.g. YouTube) to be a good, reliable, verifiable source of information? Squish7 (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats not very specific. I'm no expert but I think never, that doesn't mean you cant use it at all but usually no. It depends on who originally published it and under what license. Weekly Republican Address has 140 youtube videos for example. If the original source is good enough to use but the copyrights are in question it is best to provide only a reference in text without a link:

<ref>person(s), "the title of the production", who published it, the date it was published.</ref>

In stead of, for example:

<ref>Mr G., "Under Pressure", Do Try This at Home, Season 2, Episode 1, 2014</ref>

You could look at other articles how sources are used. Here is a search for "youtube.com".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=youtube.com&fulltext=1

84.106.26.81 (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• The IP address above is completely incorrect. It's actually very simple about when you can use Youtube. If the video is hosted on the channel of an official news organizations, like the official Fox News or CNN Youtube channel, then the video are both reliable and don't violate copyright. Silverseren^C 04:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think he was asking for cases where it is obvious. I thought the question was where the line is. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have not clicked on all of them at the Republican article but so far a couple are perfect examples of when YouTube can be used. Example: this is a primary source (so use it with care) but it should be OK. The YouTube channel is verified as being official with the link to it from here (lower right). There are some concerns overall (not enough secondary sources, refs are not formatted correctly) but those are a whole other issue. More info can be seen at an essay I started: Wikipedia:Video links.Cptnono Follow-up:Didn't realize we were looking at it as an "abstract". There are too many variables to give an answer here which is why YouTube videos should be judged on a case by case basis.(talk) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is only acceptable when it is the YouTube channel of something that otherwise conforms to WP:RS, like Fox News, and then under the requirements for other broadcast media. It's never acceptable if it's a self-published source (see WP:SPS) unless it's about itself: say, Pat Condell's YouTube Commentaries become popular enough to be relevant to Wikipedia, etc. For example, I could make ten YouTube videos on why space aliens are real and how they put on suits of skin to become our leaders and usher in the New World Order; those videos could then be used to artificially lend more WP:WEIGHT to an extremely fringe cause. From that example, it should be clear why such sources are never acceptable. JohnChrysostom (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you really have to pick Faux News as your example? To be a reliable source, there must be a reputation for fact checking, not just a large audience. There are in fact some reliable publishers with redistribution via YouTube channels, but Jon Stewart has made a living for years out of spotting the errors on Faux. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

COLOURlovers and made-up colors

The website COLOURlovers allows its users to make up colors and color names. I've just removed one such from an article, as a spamlink; but thought I should come here to establish some consensus before proceding further. Thoughts? Comments? Seems to me like WP:UNDUE and an excuse to add spamlinks, but I am not always right in my analyses. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you mean this, I'd suggest your removal was justified on at least three fronts:

1. the content has a promotional tone and certainly does seem spammish;
2. the content isn't noteworthy unless reported by independent sources;
3. we can't suggest that "sunny orange" is vermilion just because COLOURlovers, an unreliable source, says it is.

According to our article, COLOURlovers is a social networking and blogging site and shouldn't be used to source anything except, in limited circumstances, articles discussing itself. Rivertorch (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If Pantone (Color of the Year) is able to nominate a color of the year, then I don't see why the users of Colour Lovers shouldn't be able to nominate THEIR own color of the year and have it be identified in Wikipedia like the Pantone color of the year is. Isn't that what Web 2.0 is all about--the users providing the content rather than having content fed to them? Keraunos (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what Web 2.0 has to do with the matter of reliable sources, which is what this noticeboard addresses. The relevant guideline would appear to deprecate COLOURlovers. I suppose that Pantone is a reliable source because they've been widely accepted as one of the leading entities in the field of color management for decades. If you think there's a problem regarding the use of Pantone-related content, however, by all means bring it up on the talk page of the relevant article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that Pantone is recognized around the world as a reputable and hugely notable entity and the Colour lovers website is some nothing silly site with no recognition by reliable sources as having any notability. DreamGuy (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that COLOURlovers an unreliable source and back when I used to be a active editor I used to remove it when I encountered it. At one point I tried to put together a guideline on sources for color coordinates Wikipedia:WikiProject Color/Sources for Color Coordinates. Note that a bunch of stuff that probably should have been on the talk page ended up directly in the article page itself. The other issue is that there is a bias towards RGB coordinates and one to one mappings of RGB in many of the sources used even though that really doesn't make sense. Most color terms are vague and represent collections of similar colors. On the other hand their have been concerns with using sources such as Pantone since they are copy-righted. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color/Archive 4#Proposed Wikipedia policy/guideline on color/colour articles and swatches. PaleAqua (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As a result of this section I investigated the site and our article about it and decided to put the Wikipedia article up for deletion. So far only one other person has commented. Anybody else want to give their input? DreamGuy (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Encyclopedia Britannica a reliable source?

As I am having problems with two users, Athenean and Alexikoua, who keep repeatedly deleting every citation i make from Encyclopedia Britannica, I want to ask if Encyclopedia Britannica can be accepted as a source in Wikipedia or not. I have seen that scores of articles use at a source, so we have to establish if this source should be allowed in Wikipedia. (Edvin (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC))

See for example Talk:Albania#Encyclopedia Britannica is regarded as a trusted source by Wikipedia community. There are several articles involved in a consensus building exercise including Albania, History of Albania, London Conference of 1912-1913 in which many sorts of sources are being offered up for examination including, primary sources--contemporary news paper accounts, secondary sources and tertiary sources. In this case EB stands for http://www.britannica.com rather than Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? As is made clear at the top of this page, we need more information. What is it being used as a source for? I'd also suggest you read WP:PSTS - the Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source, and we quite explicitly state that "Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others". There is no yes-or-no answer to your question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

EB is, at best, a tertiary source per many past discussions here. In addition, the online version solicits revisions from readers, which has also been established at RS/N. And since "RS" has nothing to do with "truth", EB is pretty much ruled out as a source - you probably should look at the sources the EB cites instead. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Appending: The OP seems to also be posting related complaints at AN/I concurrently. Collect (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added Cheers article from EB as "Further reading" source rather than reference. If you want, you can still add EB articles into "Further reading" section; don't forget, be bold! Cheers, George Ho (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"EB is pretty much ruled out as a source" What?! That's the craziest thing I've read on Wikipedia all day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Since when was EB ruled out as a source? I've never ever heard that, especially when we cross-post public domain content from old versions of it. Silverseren^C 07:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple discussions on RSN and elsewhere - if a fact needs a cite, the EB is where you look to find a cite, but as a tertiary source it is deficient for most WP purposes. And since the online EB solicits revisions, it is even less an RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC) By the way, the 1911 edition was used to "populate" Wikipedia at the start, and is now generally regarded as having been a mistake. It was only "public domain" at the start because of the odd US copyright laws of the time, and most uses on WP are being removed over time. See Wikipedia:1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica, and the fact that there is a specific template for such articles Collect (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean discussions like this, where you're the only person saying it is an unreliable source? I think you're really the only one or one of very few here that thinks Britannica isn't a reliable source. As Andy pointed out above, it does depend on what you're using it for, but that's true for any source. As a whole, the Britannica is reliable, it's just not as good as a secondary source, since it is a conglomeration of secondary sources, but tertiary sources are still perfectly reliable, especially for general, big picture information. Silverseren^C 13:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I fear you have missed a number of discussions on this - including opinionf from Jimbo, Gwen Gale and a number of others about it as a source. [1] Meaning, once editors begin to dig at all into a topic, encyclopedias are out, gone, toast, the end. Stay away from 'em, other than as a means to find out what to look for and where, but even that can be way dodgy, owing to the wanton systemic bias of most any tertiary reference. [2] etc. also show remarkable unanimity that non-specialized encyclopedias are tertiary sources at best. [3] ditto. Sorry - I am far from the only person with this view. [4] shows a view on a GA page. [5] ditto. [6] ditto. [7] ditto. [8] and another. [9] and another. But you could only find s single discussion? I find literally hundreds of them. Cheers - EB was, and remains, "tertiary". And it is specialized tertiary sources which are usable. Not "general ones. Collect (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's nice that Jimbo and Gwen Gale have opinions, but personal opinions aren't policy. Our policy states that reliable sources are those who have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Clearly, Encyclopedia Britanica has such a reputation. I mean, are you honestly trying to say that EB isn't a reputable encyclopedia? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And well over two dozen other editors and admins ... and so far "tertiary sources" remain "tertiary sources." And remember "reputable" != "reliable source" per WP:RS so that cavil fails. The fact is that Wikipedia requires stronger sourcing than tertiary encyclopedia articles are. And that should end the issue utterly. Collect (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends on who wrote the EB article. If it is written by an acknowledged expert, then it becomes an article by a secondary source and is then better than a secondary source written by a layman.

Collect, I think you are making a mistake in assuming that all secondary sources are of the same type of quality. For example I have recently been involved in a discussion over the year in which a man was allegedly knighted by Queen Elizabeth I. We have found a secondary source that uses primary sources that does not list the man as one who received a knighthood in that year (but the source may not have surveyed all the primary sources). However, it seems that for this fact many modern day secondary sources rely on Victorian secondary sources, which rely on an 18th century source that cites a 17th century source. We have not yet found a secondary source that cites a primary source. But clearly when (or if) such a secondary source is found, it will be "better" than all the sources that cite older secondary sources. A secondary source that does not cite primary sources, but relies on other secondary sources is no better or worse than a general encyclopaedia as a source, and many many books support facts with citations to other previously published secondary sources. An good example of this is the propagation in may English language books published from the 1960s until the late 1990s of the incorrect figure of 130,000 killed in the bombing raids on Dresden in February 1945. German historians had provided the correct figures back in the 1970s, but these were ignored in many books and articles in favour of David Irving incorrect figures published in his book The Destruction of Dresden. It took a decade after he was discredited in court before the correct figures became generally accepted (and were stated as a fact without hedging in the Wikipedia article).

BTW where is the alleged fact that Wikipedia requires stronger sourcing than tertiary encyclopaedia articles to be found in the verifiability or WP:PSTS policies? -- PBS (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends. Nothing wrong with citing tertiary sources in general, but if there are better sources, they should be preferred. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Another pointless argument about abstract 'reliability'. As far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, there is no such thing. Since the OP has declined to tell us what the Encyclopaedia is being cited for, I suggest that we close this 'debate', and all do something more useful instead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is, it isn't an RS issue at all, it's a copyright issue. Brittanica is very much an RS. The 1911 edition was used appropriately to populate our early articles about botany, for example. But if we absorb lots of content from a tertiary source that we're basically in competition with, that can cause problems. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it a problem? -- PBS (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised we're even questioning EB's use as a source. If EB is ruled out, then we ought to erase millions of other far more dubious sources which are gaily quoted on Wikipedia but have no verifiable standing - e.g. random websites, newspapers and magazines which may just be one person's uninformed (and possibly biased) opinion. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has certial rules about "tertiary sources." It has nothing whatsoever to do with "truth" but to do with the desired nature of Wikipedia's sourcing. And opinions are citable only as opinions in any case, and most "random websites" are utterly unacceptable, so that sort of argument holds no water. And if something can be found in a tertiary source, it should reasonably be findale in an acceptable secondary source, just as we also rule out most primary sources on the basis that important information should be findale in a secondary source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The basic policy about tertiary sources is 'Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other.'

So yes one should avoid using them for particular facts but they can be used to help with the summary and overall structure and with assessing weight. And primary sources can very often be more reliable than secondary sources, just we must not trawl through primary sources for new things but only use stuff which has been mentioned in secondary sources. Basically primary sources give no notability but may be more accurate and have some weight. Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

While there is nothing in WP:PSTS against using tertiary sources, there are strong restrictions on the way that primary sources can be used, and unpublished primary sources may not be used. -- PBS (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not always clear cut whether something is a secondary or tertiary source. For example is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as secondary or tertiary source? -- PBS (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You can use tertiary sources for particular facts as well. I think the current policy formulations are often somewhat misunderstood. Imho it is a mistake or misunderstanding to take taking that policy all too literally. The notion that tertiary are per se "inferior" is rather misleading. First of of all there is often no clear cut distinction between secondary and tertiary and more importantly the quality (and domain) of a source is much more important than a formal distinction between secondary and tertiary. Meaning a high quality tertiary source (say an academic special subject encyclopedia or a standard textbook) is often better and more reliable source than some mediocre secondary source. Another thing to keep in mind, is how WP articles are actually written. The (ideal) situation, that a domain expert with an overview of all relevant secondary (and primary) sources compiles them into an article, is simply not a workable scenario for the bulk of our articles/content. Instead many WP articles are written by non experts with only a limited or even no overview of the relevant secondary sources. Such authors usually compile the knowledge of (academic) textbooks and (academic) encyclopedias into WP, which are usually at least partially tertiary sources. From that perspective you might even argue that the bulk of our reliable sources is tertiary to begin with.

As far as the original problem (editors deleting any EB references (or any tertiary reference) is concerned, I'd even consider that vandalism, that is, people removing EB references without replacing it by another (superior, secondary) source. Now there can be individual cases where you can consider an EB reference as insufficient or inappropriate, but that needs to be judged on case by case basis. Also the very recent (user based) content additions of the EB need to be viewed with a greater scrutiny. But then again I find it hard to image a scenario where no reference is better than an EB reference.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me the whole 'philosophy' behind the RS guidelines is to maximise the accuracy of relaying information. A good secondary sources should rely on primary sources, so are one step away from the facts. Tertiary sources rely on secondary sources and therefore are two steps away, so you get an escalation of the chinese whisper effect. That doesn't make tertiary sources unreliable, just less reliable than a secondary source by its very nature; also a good tertiary source like EB is better than a poor secondary source like the Daily Mail (where we've actually had instances of them making up stories (I don't recall similar discussions about EB). So in general, if something is good enough for EB it probably should be good enough for Wikipedia, but the aim should always be to seek out sources that put us closest to the facts. Betty Logan (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well yes there is potential "whisper effect". However high quality (scholarly) tertiary sources are usually written by experts that looked at all or most relevant primary and secondary sources, which means (ideally) there's no whisper effect at all in such a scneario. Also instead of seeing it from the whisper effect perspective, you can also see it as an error removing filter perspective, meaning good tertiary sources add an additional level of expert scrutiny and are without possible errors and mistakes still contained in original primary and secondary sources. As far as "closest" to the facts is concerned, you could argue that's an argument for primary rather than for secondary sources. But the problem there is, that the perceptions of facts might differ and that for an encyclopedia the simple stating of facts is not enough either (knowledge versus information). Encyclopedia needs to contextualize, connect and explain facts and also consider different perceptions, incomplete information/"missing facts and such. That's exactly where the secondary and tertiary sources come in.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"Editors can post questions here about whether particular sources are reliable, in context, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. "

I agree with User:AndyTheGrump. There is no "abstract 'reliability' without exact context. Since the OP has declined to tell us what the Encyclopaedia is being cited for, I suggest that we close this 'debate', ..." without any conclusion due to lack of the context and the fact there is no abstract general reliability.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I added the context as in insert at the top of this section. -- PBS (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I can't see the context you added. Does it contain any of below information requested for this page:

• The article in which it is being used. For example article name
• The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. For example

  text

  . Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
• Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.

I am not following this discussion so if there is a context with above mentioned information please talkback me on my talkpage. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding Huffington Post and relability

A question came up at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrive (film). The question is in regard to the use of a blog on Huffington Post, and whether this is considered a reliable source. What is the general consensus for HP with regards to being used as a reliable source? Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any consensus, but a blog is only reliable for citing the opinions of its author. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was thinking that as well, but it's good to have an involved party chime in. Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

For this issue (asserting reliable coverage for purposes of WP:GNG), HuffPo is unquestionably reliable. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

HuffPo allows all sorts of people to post blogs there with little or no oversight as long as they are willing to put up free content HuffPo can put ads all over. Being mentioned on a blog page on the site somewhere is nothing like our normal standards for GNG. It's like trying to say if something appears on blogspot.com it must be notable. So I would have to disagree quite strongly with your assertion. DreamGuy (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ummm, nothing on the Author's HuffPo Bio seems to qualify her as a professional film critic, so why does this piece qualify as either a reliable or notability-enhancing source? This is the problem with HuffPo, although some of its content appears expertly-authored, and thus reliable, a good deal of it isn't. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Hrafn here. Unless the reviewer has a demonstrated reputation as a film critic, the review does little to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Taking a view of HuffPo as whole, I would suggest that their editorial oversight is, at best, very uneven -- I have heard of quite a bit of pseudoscientific nonsense being published by it (perhaps because their authors were friends of Arianna Huffington). I would therefore suggest that it might be appropriate to treat it as effectively equivalent of a WP:SPS published by its author: where that author is an otherwise-published expert on the topic it should be considered reliable, where the author is not (as appears to be the case in this example), it should not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Where the HuffPo blog is erratic both in what it covers and when it is written by the author proposed as the source, it is clear that it is a "blog" and not a source which has any notability or reliability per WP policy at all, and is not, in this case, even usable for "opinion." We have no reason here to assign any notability to the author as expert in the field at all. Collect (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't believe the Huffington Post is a "blog" in the sense of being a self-published source, I'm under the impression they have an editorial staff, etc. They may advertise themselves as being a blog, but they're basically a published media source. I would agree that some of what shows up there is erratic, and I'd put it more at the level of the Daily Mail or TMZ than the staff blogs of the Washington Post, but it's still a "published" source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Content on Huffington Post varies widely. Much of it is just pure blog content with no oversight. It may be that after AOL bought them ought they turned it into something more like Examiner.com where basically anyone off the street can get a blog on it than the online publication it used to be. DreamGuy (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep in mind that the context of why this question is being asked has more to do with notability of the movie, not the reliability of HP. I would say that in this context, HP is an acceptable source in making a determination of this film's notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why? You have offered no argument or substantiation to back up your bare assertion. HuffPo does not appear to have consistent editorial oversight, the author in question has no subject-expertise. What basis in WP:RS then do you have for declaring this piece a reliable source (and thus relevant to WP:N's "significant coverage in reliable sources...")? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• I try to focus on the big picture of what policies actually mean. The issue here is whether the the world at large has given this topic significant attention. HP is an award-winning and hugely popular site. See Huffington_Post#Awards Yes, one can quibble over whether the HP is a reliable source or a questionable one or whatever. None of that really matters for the purposes of this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• The "big picture" is that the internet is chock full of questionable sources (many of them "hugely popular", at least for a time) covering every manner of non-notable topic. This is why WP:N specifically requires reliable sources (and why questionable sources are routinely dismissed in AfDs). This has the additional "big picture" advantage of ensuring that we actually have a bare minimum of reliable sources with which to write an article, before committing Wikipedia to keeping the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but your post assumes facts not in evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• The only 'facts' (as opposed to interpretation) that I stated above was that there are many popular websites of questionable reliability, and that much of their coverage is on topics which (due to their lack of coverage in more reliable sources), Wikipedia does not find a suitable topic for an article. I would have thought that this would be patently obvious to any, even casual, observer of the internet, but I can give you numerous examples if you think the point requires substantiation -- particularly in the area of bizarre conspiracy theories (an ever-popular, if ever changing, field). If you want substantiation of dismissal of WP:QSs at AfD, I'm fairly sure I can dig up some of those as well. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, please provide a link to a discussion where consensus was reached that only unquestionably reliable sources are to be used to determine notability and that's the reason why this specific wording of WP:N was chosen. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Diamond Calk Horsehoe Company/ Otto Swanstrom

The article is reliable. To confirm its accuracy or to expand on its content please contact me at:

Harry W. Deckard

The Law Office of Harry W. Deckard 808 West 10th St. Suite 100 Austin, TX 78701

(512) 589-2698

War Diaries

Hi several articles in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign have War Diaries for references. There have all been made available in there original uncorrected form by the Australian War Memorial site. These are obviously primary documents, filled in by several persons over a length of time. But are they considered reliable? I would suggest not, but was looking for some other opinions. Here is a link to one of the diaries used [10] Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we say Fog of war? I'd consider them reliable for individual experiences, but not for most factual information. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I included small numbers of references to a Royal Australian Air Force operations record book (which is the RAAF equivalent of a war diary) and a personal file in the National Archives of Australia in the No. 79 Squadron RAAF and John Treloar (museum administrator) articles with no complaints at all during their FACs. Hawkeye7 also referenced several war diaries in the FA Battle of Sio and (from memory) several articles which have passed A class reviews, so there's no generic problem with using these primary sources in articles. My personal approach is to only use them to add extra details to topics which are explicitly covered in secondary sources and where there's a clear-cut need for this information, and I think that's the approach most other editors take. The official war diaries held by the AWM are one the bedrocks of Australian military history and have been heavily used by virtually all serious Australian military historians, so they can be presumed to be a broadly accurate records of the unit's experiences. They are primary sources though, so they need to be used in moderation and with great care. You might be interested in John Treloar (museum administrator)#World War I for an indication of the kind of effort which went into ensuring that the war diaries were of a good standard. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK if they have been accepted at FAC, will accept that. Jim Sweeney (talk)

That sounds more pompous then I meant. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

They are obviously primary sources. However, they will have been written at the time, as the commanding officer saw the situation: he may not have been able to see the wider picture. Subsequent writing by historians who have been able to compare them with other sources and one war diary with that of the next unit should provide a more balanced synthesis. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are limitations on using smaller units, like regimental diaries to describe the operations of divisions. But description of some complicated operations particularly in the reports often written by commanding officers which are appended to the diaries of divisions and sometimes brigades, can be helpful. Normally the diaries are written by adjutants or intelligence officers so the writing is quite high quality.--Rskp (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking a read of WP:HISTRS and paying particular attention to the section on demonstrative versus illustrative writing. In particularly, I'd suggest only using war diaries when cited by scholarly accounts; and, only then to the extent that they're cited (ie: the section or action cited). I would strongly advise not using them for analysis or context. I would strongly advise using them only where cited in the broader historiography, and only then for material unlikely to be included in a scholarly monograph as lacking interest for the scholarly community, but of interest to the encyclopaedic reader. (ie: movement dates, march orders, times of contact and withdrawal, timing of bombardments, reliefs and changes in staff not of academic interest, etc.). Be cautious, don't interpret them, rely on other's interpretations, only use them for illustration. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Google+

Has Google+ been discussed as a reliable source here? I tried to search the archives, but due to the name the results were less than useful, even for "Google Plus" in quotes. Yworo (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a social network. It would be the same as Twitter or Facebook. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I wanted to make sure there wasn't something about Google+ specifically that I was unaware of. Yworo (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I hate to tell you but G+ is being presented as a reliable source. I have just learned at Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites that it can be used, and if "localized consensus approves the inclusion of text" then that apparently is all that is needed. Otr500 (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

External links policy is not the same thing as reliable source policy. We do link to some things that we should never use as sources. DreamGuy (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In that regard it appears that G+ can not be used as a citation or reliable source. Otr500 (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Penumbra (band)

The page of the band 'Penumbra' on wikipedia, says that the band is active from 1996 till present. But I did some reasearch on some different information sources, and I came to the conclusion that the band has split-up in 2009, cause the only sourses that say Penumbra is still active, are wikipedia and sites based on wikipedia. Metalarchive says they've split-up, and their last.fm biography stops at 2009. Their Myspace has a comment about them being split-up. So I think it's pretty clear Penumbra isn't active anymore. I edited the wikipedia page saying "1996 - present" to "1996-2009". I would appreciate it when this edit gets confirmed, except if anyone thinks the band is still active, I don't know them personnaly, so I'm not 100% sure, but I'm like 90% sure they've split-up in 2009.

www.fansshare.com news articles for Maisie Williams

Hi, this board seems kinda swarmed, but I hope somebody can have a look at this. Basically I am looking for sources to expand Maisie Williams. Now www.fansshare.com has an interesting set of articles on her. The question is are they reliable? So far I have determined the following:

• The site doesn't seem to have an "about" page describing how it works and who is behind it
• The sites name and slogan ("by fans, for fans") seems to indicate content is user submitted and this is clearly the case for images and comments to news articles.
• However, if you visit the job page they seem to have a professional team of editors: "We work out of Los Angeles and require a writer who can commit to office hours on a 8am until 6pm basis, Monday to Friday. You will be working with a team of 10 who are located in-house and externally across the world."
• No name or pseudonym is given as author of the news articles.

What do you think? Yoenit (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That site raises BLP alarm bells to me, I wouldn't touch it. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The name alone rules it out, I would think.DreamGuy (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

ffmpeg.org

Hi, can anyone tell me if ffmpeg Hall of Shame direct link (not working) archived version can be considered a reliable source to document a copyright violation? In other words, if the "Hall of Shame" lists program X as being in violation of ffmpeg's copyright can we consider that a "reliable source" and include those claims in the article about program X? My POV is that it is a self-published source, a primary source, with a clear conflict of interest, and therefore not a Reliable source. It would also be a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as we are reporting unsourced accusations and as a consequence cause Wikipedia:Libel problems. Feedback welcome. --SF007 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say no. It's a cheap-shot attack page. Unless they took the alleged offending parties to court and won or settled out of court, which would be in the news, it's just their assertion, and even if they claim to provide "proof", could not be considered a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree completely with Yworo on this. DreamGuy (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources in Ensoulment

Look at me, dragging obviously unreliable sources here again because of POV-pushing users who refuse to get the point.

In Ensoulment, we have a recently added section on ensoulment (= the point at which a human gets a soul) in Judaism. The section is already poor, because it was written by an agenda-pushing user without regard for the weight given to various points of view in reliable sources, but I've already committed to dealing with that when I can find time so this isn't about that. What we have is the repeatedly added claim that a text supports ensoulment at conception, cited to these lovely, lovely sources:

• "Does the Soul Survive? A Jewish Journey to Belief in Afterlife," a document by a paranormal theorist hosted on a "shamanic healing" website, which mentions the text in a footnote as support for its claims about reincarnation (incidentally, it doesn't support the text this user is citing it for, but when has that ever mattered...)
• "Divine Seeding," a PhD dissertation from an evangelical Christian seminary, which attempts to use the text as support for its theories about the virgin birth of Jesus
• An 1899 translation (the first such) of the primary religious text

I've argued that when you have to resort to Christian student papers, loopy fringe material, and analysis of primary documents to write about Judaism, what you are writing does not belong on Wikipedia. PhD dissertations have been judged reliable in the past, but all reliability discussions are contextual and the fact that this user apparently can't produce anything by scholars who study Judaism (or, y'know, actual published academics regardless) that discusses this text doesn't say much for the worth of this paragraph he has repeatedly inserted. (And this is completely apart from the weight issue.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The straightforward statement "The Chronicles of Jerahmeel picture the soul as entering into the sperm even before conception" seems to be quite adequately sourced in the words of the book itself and in what a published Ph.D. dissertation says. Esoglou (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Two problems with the Chronicles of Jerahmeel: it's a primary source, and we don't know how noteworthy it is. We require reliable mainstream scholarly secondary sources for both interpretation and to establish noteworthiness so we know how much weight to assign. A dissertation from an evangelical Christian seminary falls far short of the mark here. Evangelical Christian seminaries do not exactly have a reputation for top-notch scholarship. Ph.D. dissertations are sometimes reliable for factual data they may contain, but rarely for conclusions. If the statement about ensoulment in the Chronicles is truly noteworthy, it will have been discussed in far more reliable sources. If the dissertation is all you have, then that indicates that the statement is of little importance in modern Judaism. As far as historical Judaism is concerned, top-notch academic sources are required. In either case, "Does the Soul Survive?" is clearly not reliable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Jerahmeel, "one of the most important and comprehensive anthologies of Hebrew prose" (The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies), is clearly notable. It is not cited as a primary source for when animation actually takes place: it is instead quoted as "picturing" the soul as entering the sperm, as it explicitly does without any need of an "interpretation". That this Jewish work does picture the soul as entering the sperm is not a "conclusion" reached by the Ph.D. dissertation: it is instead a factual datum that it mentions. Esoglou (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No. "An important and comprehensive anthologies of Hebrew prose" does not mean that it is an authority on Jewish thought on reproduction. As for your "picturing" argument, that seems like a poor defense of OR to me. The noteworthiness of the Chronicles' statement on ensoulment still needs to be backed up with solid scholarly sources. The noteworthiness of the book as a whole is not the question here, but of the statement itself and its relevance to modern Jewish beliefs on ensoulment. Furthermore, the concept of sperm did not even exist until the invention of the microscope, and the concept of fertilization as we understand it was not worked out until the 20th century. Interpreting a pre-modern text in terms of modern biology is OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought whatever was taught nowadays should be given as the major point of view and the others mentioned as other ideas. I've come across that story in the Chronicles of Jerahmeel before and I viewed it then as just a pretty story and still do, it could be mentioned but should have very low weight. The idea of sperm is not a stopper, the idea of the seed has been around for a very long time and that's all sperm means. Basically the weight needs to be got right but I see no problems with anything as a reliable source. Dmcq (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The space given to Aristotle, Stoicism, Epicureanism, etc., makes it clear that article is not about modern views. The concept of "sperm" or "seed" has existed for millennia - you must be thinking of the concept of "sperm cell" or "spermatozoon" - and "sperm", from Greek sperma, meaning "seed", is used by the Chronicles of Jerahmeel in its sense of "semen", Latin for "seed", the only sense that the word had then. People did not have to wait until the 20th century to have a concept of "conception" ("fertilization" is used neither in the Chronicles of Jerahmeel nor in the account of it in the Wikipedia article). Again Wikipedia is only saying, as stated in the Ph.D. dissertation, that the idea of the soul entering the semen (let us use this less ambiguous term, both here and in the article) even before it is placed in the woman's womb is found in this Jewish writing. Other views of a human soul as entering with the first breath after birth are also mentioned in the article. Wikipedia is not made to say that the soul does enter the semen before conception. It is not even made to say that this was a general Jewish belief. Esoglou (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcq that it should be mentioned though with low weight. Esoglou (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear from the Christianity section that modern views should be made prominent and others noted as historical or apocryphal. The lead doesn't say it is historical. Dmcq (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If y'all want to get into a discussion of due weight, I'd be happy to do that as well, but right now let's deal with the fact that none of these sources are even reliable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are they not reliable sources for the article? Dmcq (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Because a website promoting reincarnation and a seminary student paper about the virgin birth of Jesus do not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by WP:RS that would allow us to cite them when writing about Jewish beliefs. As for the primary source, it's long understood that we can't just cite religious texts - there needs to be reliable secondary-source analysis, that's why we have Template:Religious text primary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese has removed the mention of the Chronicles of Jerahmeel, alleging an agreement on this noticeboard that the cited sources are rubbish. Has it really been agreed here that the half-line mention in the Judaism section of the Ensoulment article of what that book says is devoid of reliable sources? Esoglou (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for mentioning it at all unless it has been mentioned in serious academic sources. The secondary sources used are clearly unreliable, and the use of the primary source borders is basically OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that the section "Judaism" offers several different Jewish views on the timing of ensoulment. From an outsider point of view every possible timing of ensoulment is more or less mentioned. The Chronicles add one more timing to the collection, the timing of ensoulment in the sperm before conception. The Chronicles of Jerahmeel is, as I understood, an accepted primary religious source. Primary sources should be used with great care, for religious primary sources maybe with even more care, I don't know. The sentence in question: "The Chronicles of Jerahmeel picture God as making the soul enter the semen even before conception." correctly reflects what the primary source says and it is correctly attributed to the source. I think that there is no original research or synth in the representation. The next question is whether the view from the Chronicles is worth mentioning or undue. As the whole section lists up different timings of ensoulment and this accepted primary source merely adds another one, I would say that it is not undue to make a tiny mentioning. I believe that my opinion is backed up, because this timing has also been mentioned in a dissertation. A dissertation may not be a good source to state something as fact, but in this case the dissertation is only used to show that the timing of the chronicles has been noted and discussed in a scientific paper. So I think that it is no problem to mention the timing from the chronicle and that only the dissertation should be used as proof for "noteworthiness" of the timing, the other secondary sources are not neccesary. Generally, I agree with Dmcq. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"How the section currently looks" is not a very good barometer because the current section is poorly written with the aim of promoting the view that Jews believed in early ensoulment, in contrast to the weight given to different views in reliable sources, as I elaborate on the talk page. I'm meaning to get around to overhauling it in a NPOV fashion but time is a constraint. With this in mind - keeping in mind, I mean, that the gist of the section, once written properly with reference to reliable sources, will not be "Jews' beliefs about when ensoulment happened were all over the place, but they liked the idea of ensoulment at conception, just like us Catholics" but "Jews did not develop a unified theory of ensoulment and what we know about Jewish philosophers' thoughts on it generally comes from other contexts and from when something does not have a soul; the earliest pseudo-consensus was for 'formation' at 40 days, but the prevailing view is ensoulment at birth" - it's even more evident that this section is Esoglou trying to shoehorn in something that more closely suits his beliefs, regardless of WP:RS. As Dominus Vobisdu has pointed out, student work from an evangelical Christian seminary does not meet the academic standards we consider when talking about RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely the phrase can only be judged in its actual context, not in line with some non-existent hypothetical context pictured by Roscelese. Roscelese's hypothetical context is not the only one that could be presented. Even today there are Jews who say: "According to the Divine Plan, G-d infuses each microscopic drop of semen with a soul. This soul is a living vitality of its own, the source of life, and cherished by G-d, who has commanded us not to waste it. ... Each drop of semen is more than a "potential" life - it is already a living soul. For this reason, the willful sin of spilling semen in vain is considered like the spilling of blood - like taking the life of a person." And there are Jews who say: "It is forbidden to discharge semen in vain ... It is stated in the Talmud that the offender incurs the punishment of 'death by heaven' as these actions are considered the equivalent of murder." So this idea, which existed among Jews in the time of the Chronicles of Jerahmeel, also exists among Jews today. And so this is an alternative hypothetical context that would show up even more clearly than now the unreasonableness of Roscelese's deletion of the mention, even just as something in the past, of the existence among Jews of an idea of ensouled semen.

I agree with POVbrigand and Dmcq, who have rightly said that in the actual existing context, the context in which all of us except Roscelese are judging it, the statement, "The Chronicles of Jerahmeel picture God as making the soul enter the semen even before conception", is reliably sourced. Esoglou (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm having OR issues here too. I do not get any sense of how the Jerahmeel statement represents anyone's view other than its author. Even our article on the work doesn't give a sense of that. We need some secondary source for how much this viewpoint was accepted. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

And yet, it is demonstrably a historical Jewish view (one moreover that exists even among today's Jews), like the historical Jewish view of ensoulment at birth and the historical Jewish view of ensoulment when the child first answers "Amen", for neither of which is information given on how widely or narrowly it was held. These views may have been minor ones, but they were Jewish views. Esoglou (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

And the Secret Gospel of Mark may or may not be a historical Christian view (the jury is still out on "historical"). But it's inarguable that it's unimportant in the history of the mainstream of Christian theology, because there's is next to no ancient reference to it. We need to know whether these things were minor or not; if nobody discusses them, then it's safe to assume that they are minor. In Judaism, the rabbis discuss the heck out of everything, so if ensoulment is even an issue for them, the Talmud should discuss all the options. Mangoe (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it doesn't seem to be a real issue because there isn't this idea of original sin. They discuss things ad nauseum when it might matter in actual life, not angels on the tip of a pin sort of stuff. Dmcq (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Although the intention was just to present the view of the Chronicles of Jerahmeel, discussion above has gone instead to whether that view was shared by anyone else. For that reason I have now added information on ideas in other Jewish sources. Esoglou (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ica Stones query about historical material sourced to Skepdic where original source is dubious and in any case challenging its inclusion

I originally brought this up at FTN, partially because I wasn't sure if this was mainly fringe, RS or NPOV, but in the course of the discussion, or at least my thoughts on the matter, I decided it is really an issue about sources and how they are used, so I'm copying it here and will put a note at FTN asking people to move here

The issue is a sentence that says "In the past, a number of engraved stones were uncovered in the context of archaeological excavations, and some engraved stones may have been brought from Peru to Spain in the 16th century." It's sourced to Skepdic.

On the talk page, I've written:

Let's make one thing clear, when we speak of the 'Ica Stones' we are not just referring to any old engraved stones, but to stones "decorated with etched depictions of advanced technology and medical procedures, depictions of other planets and unknown continents, as well as numerous depictions of humans and dinosaurs co-existing." My concern is that by making a statement that engraved stones were taken to Spain without any evidence that these qualify as 'Ica Stones' we are misleading our readers. I'm also saying that we have problems with the sources for this claim. As another editor wrote recently at RSN, "Sources are not inherently reliable or unreliable simply because they are one type or another. What makes a source unreliable is how we use them."

I've tried to trace where the sources got this from to see if that provided any evidence that any stones that can legitimately be called 'Ica Stones' were found and taken to Spain. I found [11] which says "One student of prehistory, JR Jochmans, claims that a Jesuit missionary, Father Simon who accompanied Pizarro along the Peruvian coast in 1525,". But Jochmans is not what we think of as a typical 'student of prehistory' but someone who among other things claims to have 'ghost co-authored' the book "Secrets of the Lost Races" by Rene Noorbergen and other strange stuff. [12] I can't find anything about this Father Simon. Other sources (eg [13]) use the claim (ie Father or Padre Simon found some engraved stones, Spanish explorers took them to Spain in 1562) but no one has any sources for this.

We have no reliable sources justifying our origins section. The fact that real engraved stones may exist/existed in the 16th century is not sufficent reason to suggest that they are the 'origins' of the Ica Stones or bear any relationship to them.

I've had a response, focussing on my statement that "when we speak of the 'Ica Stones' we are not just referring to any old engraved stones, but to stones "decorated with etched depictions of advanced technology and medical procedures, depictions of other planets and unknown continents, as well as numerous depictions of humans and dinosaurs co-existing." - the argument is that Ica Stones should refer to any stones "found in or near Ica." and that the sheer volume of stones speaks for them being old. I'm not sure if this is an RS or NPOV question, but it's certainly a fringe one and I strongly disagree that the phrase Ica Stones refers to anything else than these stones decorated with dinosaurs, etc. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is all very odd. There are only two respectable sources here, Carrolland Coppens. The point at issue is simply this: were there any engraved stones known from before 1966, when Javier Cabrera Darquea started his theorising? and if so, should the article mention them?

Coppens says "Cabrera’s private museum includes a collection of stones belonging to his father – Bolivia Cabrera, a Spanish aristocrat – gathered from the fields of the family plantation in the late 1930s." Later on he relates "The Soldis’ interest began in 1961 when, according to Herman Buse, the Ica River flooded and “uncovered in the Ocucaje region a large number of engraved stones which ever since have been an object of commerce for the huaqueros who found them” ". Similarly we have "Santiago Agurto Calvo, then rector of the Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria, who bought many and, in 1966, began excavating pre-Inca tombs around Ocucaje. In an article that year, he described the designs as “Unidentifiable things, insects, fish, birds, cats, fabulous creatures and human beings [..] in elaborate and fantastic compositions.” "

Coppens goes on to say "discoveries of engraved stones in the Ica region go back to Spanish records of the mid-15th century". As to what the older stones showed, he says "While some investigators claim that they were refused permission to see the Calco collection in the Museum of Ica stash, Neil Steede was granted access. He concluded that these “definitely genuine” stones show a finer workmanship and have less deep cuts than Cabrera’s stones. This is a clear indication of a more highly skilled manufacturer than Cabrera’s artisan. Furthermore, they are restricted to depicting conventional humans and existing animals, not extinct animals; nor do they include any examples of the more exotic motifs of the Cabrera stones."

Coppens sums up "It is quite possible for the engraved stones, if authentic, to have a simple anthropological origin." and "It seems increasingly likely that the Ica stones have been fabricated, but it is difficult to believe that they are all – estimates run to 50,000 pieces – made by one poor, uneducated farmer. No independent study has been made, if only to separate any possibly authentic artifacts from the fakes."

Carroll adopts a similar tone, ending with "Are the stones authentic? If by authentic one means that they were engraved by pre-Columbians, then the answer has to be an unqualified 'not all of them.' Some engraved stones are said to have been brought back to Spain in the 16th century. It is possible that some of the stones are truly examples of pre-Columbian art."

All I'm saying is that the article should admit the existence of old stones and appraise them in the same way as the sources. I am at a loss to understand Dougweller's motivation in trying to exclude such content. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

references

I thought you'd decided on my motivation, your edit summary talks about suppression of information. I don't think you've addressed my concerns. One is whether by 'Ica Stones' is meant 'any engraved stones from Ica', or the actual subject of the various fringe publications on what they call 'Ica Stones', ie stones engraved with dinosaurs, high tech, etc. I'm arguing that a badly sourced comment on some engraved stones which may have been sent to Spain is irrelevant and misleading to our readers. I'm also arguing that we have no reliable source for the statement - no mainstream historian, no historical texts we can somehow check, nothing but Carroll and Coppen repeating what a fringe writer said a long time ago. Do you really believe there could possibly be such '15th century' records? Before Columbus? Maybe that's just carelessness on the part of Philip Coppens (who by the way is not Philip Coppens but a fringe writer, eg [14]. He's simply not an acceptable source for an historical claim like that.

I also note that an editor has replaced the passage without discussion on the talk page. Not only that, he replaced other material I removed which concerned a statement that there were collections of these stones at two museums although my edit summary said "This is from the author's personal website, not a reliable source (not just because it's a personal site but also because he isn't a reliable source for this". The reason for replacing the material was "there's nothing unreliable about the report. When I went to the regional museum of Ica, they were there. I'm not sure about the others, but if what it said about that one is true, the others probably are too." which is clearly irrelevant to our policy on sources. Then he removed the descriptions which are key to the article, saying they were obviously fakes. That's a bit confusing - what I gather from that is that he agrees that the dinosaur etc engraved stones are fakes, which I agree with, but then what's the point of the article?

So I am asking you to find use of the phrase 'Ica Stones' in a context that is solely about engraved stones that have been authenticated by mainstream archaeologists and do not have dinosaurs, etc., to back up your claim that 'Ica Stones' as a phrase is not specific to such fringe claims. I'm also asking you to explain what makes Carroll or Coppens a reliable source for the claim about 16th or 15th century stones being found and sent to Spain. What I think is necessary to make a claim that similar stones were found in by Spanish explorers is a clearly reliable source from an archaeologist or historian about such stones describing them as having dinosaurs, heart transplants, star maps, etc. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Dougweller says "I am asking you to find use of the phrase 'Ica Stones' in a context that is solely about engraved stones that have been authenticated by mainstream archaeologists ...". I am asking Dougweller not to indulge in such silly rhetoric. As he must well know, I am not aware of any proper published study of Ica Stones at all by mainstream archaeologists, and if I knew of such I would certainly cite it. As for "I'm also asking you to explain what makes Carroll or Coppens a reliable source ...", they are certainly imperfect sources, but the best we seem to have. If they're not good enough, Dougweller should be listing this article at wp:afd and have done with it. But if we're accepting Carroll and Coppens, which I think reasonable in the context, Dougweller has no justification in his attempt to cherrypick their testimony as he clearly is trying to do.
• One can often see discussions of collections of artistic or historically significant objects where fakes may occur amongst the genuine things. Normally the approach is to try and concentrate on the genuine ones, and ignore the fakes. This is I think the first time I've seen someone say "let's ignore the genuine and concentrate solely on the fakes". If I were to go to Ica, find an andesite stone and scratch a picture of a dinosaur on it, apparently according to Dougweller this will be an "Ica Stone", but if I find one in an ancient tomb, it won't. Weird!
• Dougweller asks rhetorically, above, "what's the point of the article?". My answer to that question is that it should be a description of inscribed andesite stones found at or near Ica, with as good as possible an analysis of their probable origin and significance. It would really be illuminating if Dougweller could give us his answer to the question, particularly as he raised it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As I note above, I've moved it here. And I repeat, the phrase 'Ica Stones' is clearly specific to a large set of stones inscribed with dinosaurs, high tech, etc. It is not used by archaeologists to describe 'inscribed andesite stones near Ica'. My question was about another editor removing descriptions of stones on the grounds they were fake, but the point of the article is that it is about a set of stones that fringe sources claim are inscribed with images showing dinosaurs and men together, heart operations, etc, and that mainstream sources say are hoaxes. Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So if a stone isn't "inscribed with dinosaurs, high tech, etc." it isn't an "Ica Stone" at all? and they aren't Ica Stones if there are "fringe sources" which don't "claim (they) prove either a YEC perspective or something similar"? I think we need a little attention to our basic logic. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't claim to understand the last part of your statement/question, but yes, I'm arguing that the reason we have an article called 'Ica Stones' is that there are a body of stones engraved with dinosaurs, high tech stuff, etc with that name. Ah, perhaps the reason I can't understand what you've written is something went wrong with what I wrote and some words got deleted. I've rewritten it leaving out the YEC bit as I can't recall exactly what I wrote (although I do know that one of the fringe writers takes a YEC position on this). And there are no reliable sources saying that such stones were taken to Spain. And even though we can verify that a source, Coppens, claims that there are text saying they were taken to Spain in the 15th century, we also shouldn't use that just because we can verify he said it (in case anyone misses the point, I'm sure Coppens meant 16th century but that's not what he wrote). Dougweller (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to force you into a ridiculous position, but you seem to have gone there quite voluntarily. You're saying that a stone is only an "Ica Stone" if it has "dinosaurs, high tech stuff, etc" on it. Otherwise we are to deny or ignore its existence. Cabrera's collection has thousands of stones. Only a few have dinosaurs or high tech stuff on them, so we are not to take any notice of the rest. We are to assume that the reader has no interest in the possible anthropological or historical significance of the many stones which are probably ancient. We are, according to you, to be focussed solely on the "set of stones that fringe sources claim" support the strange theories held by a tiny minority. What you are asking for amounts to gross POV-pushing. It lacks common sense or a sense of proportion and is insulting to the intelligence of our readers. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, so all you have to do to show I'm pov-pushing is find some archaeological sources that use the phrase "Ica Stones" but don't use them to describe this fringe view but as a label for a set of stones of general archaeological interest. And maybe you could drop the personal attacks? Find a peer reviewed analysis of these stones, discussion in some books on the archaeology of the area, that sort of thing. Do the work that's needed to back your views. I've looked and couldn't find use of the phrase outside of discussion of this fringe view. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you see my criticism of your position as a personal attack. Perhaps I can remind you that on a previous occasion you were kind enough to describe my request for a source as "repugnant" while also lecturing me on the need to use WP:COMMONSENSE. Now you're demanding I find sources which I would indeed dearly wish to find, but ignoring my suggestions, based on WP:COMMONSENSE, as to what this article should say in the mean time. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Just so others don't have to bother, what I said was "The suggestion that calling Holocaust denial pseudohistory contentious (and doubting that there is a source saying so) is to me repugnant." I stand by that. Are you really arguing that Skepdic is a good source for such a vague claim about Spanish texts? Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since discussing things with you is neither productive nor pleasant, I shall stop. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Making of Modern Israel

The book The Making of Modern Israel by Leslie Stein has been cited in 1948 Palestinian exodus, and other hot-button pages, in support of contentious and novel assessments of the historical narrative. I have never before heard of the book or the author, and am struggling to ascertain its reliability. Although there are nearly 70,000 Google hits for the title, almost all are Amazon or other bookshop sites. Looking closely, I have found one critical review on Tikkun, and one, possibly supportive, behind a pay-wall at Social Science Research Network. I have found precisely 0 reviews at Google News archives. Although Stein is described on the Amazon website as a "Senior Research Fellow at Macquarie University", he is neither a historian nor a Middle East expert; his field of studies appears to be development, and in particular the Japanese economy. Given this, and in the apparent absence of any serious peer reviews of the book, can it be regarded as a reliable source for contentious statements? RolandR (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's some stuff I found in a 2 minute search. Not sure how you only came up with Tikkun.

• polity [15] quotes blurbs from various reviews in some reliable sources.
• Israel Studies Review [16] (can't read the actual review, but someone took the trouble to review the book)
• The Australian Jewish News [17]

Then I stopped looking. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As TDA notes, Google gives different results, depending not only on geography, but also on previous searches. I had seen the first site you quote, but blurbs are certainly no evidence of anything. I too can't actually read the ISR review. It's significant that the review in Australian Jewish News (which I had not found in my Google search) states "He is unashamedly pro-Israel, and at times some readers may feel he is too one-sided"; this does not inspire me with confidence in the book's reliability. RolandR (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I found these links: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. Sometimes Google doesn't give us the best results first time around and different countries may have different issues searching for sources. Stein appears to be mentioned in a few notable places. Of course, that does not make Stein reliable in general. However, there is a tier system of reliability in my opinion and, in this case, Stein certainly meets the threshold for inclusion as representing a prominent view on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He should not be treated as an authoritative source on what actually happened, but his views are worthy of inclusion with the typical considerations we give partisan sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

How did you came to the conclusion that he is a partisan source?--Shrike (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from reviews: "Stein’s work is in many ways a partisan account of the early years of Israel’s existence"[24]; "While Stein takes pains to declare himself a dispassionate historian, he is clearly making an argument"[25]; "He is unashamedly pro-Israel, and at times some readers may feel he is too one-sided"[26]; "He remains cocooned in his avowedly unashamed sympathy for 'Israel's general plight'."[27]; "Stein is a proud Zionist and never questions the murderous rampage of Zionist fighters against the British before Israel's birth"[28]. Thewre is barely a mention which does not note the author's bias, and the author himself states that he is "unashamedly sympathetic to Israel's general plight". This is clearly a partisan source, whether reliable or not. RolandR (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This should placate the editor who opened this discussion

• The book is from a well-known publisher Polity that publishes scholarly texts[29].

• It is subject to a vetting process and peer review which makes it compliant with WP:RS. It is readily available and verifiable per WP:V.
• The author has published a number of scholarly texts[30]
• The book has been listed as a “good read” on the Barnes & Noble website[31]
• And here is the publisher’s Synopsis and exhaustive list of peer review and accolades (cut and pasted):
  • "Israel moves forward. Palestine stands still. Israel builds its future. Palestine guards its past. Stein's work provides a good introduction to this sad saga for the perplexed and the uninitiated." History Today "This volume could very well last as required reading about Israeli history for the next decade to come." Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies "Stein takes us on a fascinating tour, highlighting major and lesser events in the history of young Israel." Democracy and Security "Balanced, well researched and will substantially extend the knowledge of any student of Israeli history." Birmingham Jewish Recorder "Leslie Stein explains in this eloquent, highly readable and well-researched study how the Israeli state overcame the threat to its existence and emerged as the most feared military power in the Middle East ... Stein's account of the events leading up to the 1967 war is one of the most masterly and lucid to appear in years ... There is little doubt that his study will be viewed as an indispensible authority on one of the most intractable conflicts of our time." Tribune "This book can serve as a refresher course for more knowledgable readers and a sound introduction for novices." Hadassah Magazine "There is little left uncovered in this up-to-date and meticulously researched book. Anybody wanting a quick and easily understandable account of Israel's formative years would do well to read this refreshing, informative and concise telling." Canadian Jewish News "He offers a good historic overview of the respective period, his book is elegantly written, easy to read and his knowledge of the material is broad." H-Soz-u-Kult "Any reader of this book, however familiar he or she is with the history of this crucial period, is bound to learn something." Jerusalem Post "The deeper into the twenty-first century we get the less we know about the twentieth. This ignorance has so distorted even educated people's grasp of the conflict between Israel and its Palestinian and other Arab neighbours that public discussion of it routinely descends into half-bias, half drivel. Leslie Stein's elegant and learned book is, first of all, truthful, a rare enough quality in this research area. Beyond that, it is well written and argumentative in the sense that his topic requires. The years 1948-1967 constitute the crucible of discord. Without a clear understand of these two decades, which this volume so amply provides, the citizen is in the desert with only mirages to (mis)lead him or her." Martin Peretz, Editor-In-Chief of The New Republic "With great verve and a robust appreciation for the Zionist achievement, Leslie Stein accurately captures the drama, excitement and danger of the fledgling Jewish state's first two decades, thus putting its current tribulations in perspective. Daniel Pipes, Director of The Middle East Forum (Pennsylvania) and Taube/Diller distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University "The Making of Modern Israel is an invaluable contribution to our understanding of one of history's most extraordinary and inspiring stories. Leslie Stein is to be commended for authoring what is certain to become an indispensible resource for scholars, decision-makers, and students." Michael Oren, Senior Fellow at the Shalem Center, Jerusalem and author of Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East "Continuing his masterful previous history of Israel before statehood, Leslie Stein tells the complicated story of the state's first nineteen years in this highly readable, admirably concise and eminently fair-minded account. Threading his way deftly through controversial minefields with sure footing, Stein manages to convey the best up-to-date scholarship with unusual clarity. This book is strongly recommended for the general reader and as an excellent introductory text for the classroom." Alan Dowty, Emeritus Professor of University of Notre Dame and author of Israel/Palestine "Anyone who wants to find the way through the internal politics and external wars that accompanied Israel in its early and formative years can rely on Professor Stein. He gives it straight. This ought to become a standard work on the emergence of Israel to the place it holds on the international scene." David Pryce-Jones, former senior editor of National Review, former literary editor of the Financial Times and of the Spectator and author of The Closed Circle--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The contentious information is :

Some historians have argued that if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs who were seeking to ethnically cleanse the region of its Jewish population. They point toward the ever-increasing vitriolic rhetoric espoused by various Arab leaders and commanders in connection with their plans for the Jews of Palestine.

As mentionned here above, this is a wp:rs source.
But more, this is not totally speculative. It is true that the wording could be neutralized : the sentence : if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs is pejorative. But the information that some historians argue (this part is important !) that Arab [and some of their leaders] wanted to exterminate the Jews is true. Benny Morris in his last book 1948, Efraim Karsh in Palestine Betrayed, Zvi Elpeleg in his biography of the Mufti, Klaus-Michael Mallmann in Nazi Palestine argue this. To be perfectly NPoV, the arguments they use to justify this and the arguments given by others against this should be introduced too. Eg, Yoav Gelber wrote that it is speculative (and not scientific) to try to give the aims of the Arabs given we don't have access to Arab sources of the period ; Benny Morris support the idea that Islam is antisemite ; Karsh choses some quotes (and forget others) such as the fake Azzam one, ... 87.66.170.243 (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the author, Leslie Stein is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics, Macquarie University. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the reviews above says concerning Stein's book that "Stein estimates that the victorious Israelis expelled half of the 800,000 Palestinians displaced." This doesn't dovetail very well with the text that's being proposed based on this book. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

@Dailycare : on the contrary. It proves this guy is very neutral.

• about half of the Palestinian refugees of '48 were expelled (particularly during operations Nachshon, Dani, Hiram and Yoav). Morry writes this in his book 1948 and this explains why several historians compare or claim Israelis performed an ethnic cleansing.
• but Morris also claims (and several others given here above) that, would the Arabs have won, they would have done the same.

If Leslie Stein reports both these points of view, it is good for his reliability.

(It seems it is a tertiary source).

@RolandR : "This is clearly a partisan source, whether reliable or not."

He seems to look a little bit like Morris. He is one-sided as a person but reliable and more neutral in his profession. I underline I don't know this author but he seems worth reading even if disappointment could come after this reading. A good review by Daniel Pipes is of course a very bad point.

@all : another review : "On the whole, it is not easy to judge Stein’s “The Making of Modern Israel”. He offers a good historic overview of the respective period, his book is elegantly written, easy to read and his knowledge of the material is broad. The strong points of the book are to be found when he describes domestic developments and political decision makings. Yet the book is troublesome in the sense, that he is at times overtly Zionistic and thus in his judgments often very one sided and apologetic. Consequently he rejects findings of the so called New Historians like Avi Shlaim or Ilan Pappe right out of hand, with the partial exception of Benny Morris. But even the latter’s works are hardly incorporated when reaching critical conclusions. Thus the weakest point of the book is the almost total declining or ignoring of most of the findings of the New Historians."

91.180.49.186 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If Stein says that the Israelis expelled half of the refugees directly, then does Stein really say that it was really the Arabs who were seeking to ethnically cleanse the area? I think that's a key question. If Stein says both things, then it would be easy to agree with the reviews of Stein that say he's very partisan. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

thepeerage.com

I am wondering if thepeerage.com is ok to use as a source for basic biographical data i.e. birthdates, marriage dates etc. It looks SPS, but it seems to be pretty well sourced by reliable sources. I have tried to search for some of the sources it uses online, but to no avail. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I'd think not. Apart from other issues, it cites Wikipedia, and e-mails from private individuals, as sources: [32]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It is an acceptable source, but not strictly WP:RS, as some of its sources are not. Where its source is Burke or Complete peerage, it is quoting a WP:RS, and so is itself one. If it is quoting WP, we have a circular argument. If it is quoting provate information it is rather too close to WP:OR for comfort, unless the informant states precisely where his information came from. Thepeerage.com is a massive comilation, and is very frequently cited as a source in WP, but if it conflcts with a better source, the better one is to be preferred. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If it quotes a reliable source such as Burke, we should use that. Of course we should actually read the source, not just copy the reference across! Cusop Dingle (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a self-published site written by someone who does not appear to be a published expert on the topic. It does not qualify as a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  08:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It isn't a reliable source in our terms. Andrew Dalby 09:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As per Will Beback, as a self-published web site not by an established expert it is not a reliable source. Let me add, though, that the citation of a "reliable source such as Burke" is not a good metric. The Burke works are of variable reliability, depending on the edition and the time period being covered. Unlike Complete Peerage, these are not presented in a scholarly fashion, lacking footnotes or bibliographical information, and in earlier times served as little more than a credulous vehicle for the vanity of the families whose pedigrees were being presented. Experts in the field only use Burke's publications with extreme caution and only for material nearly contemporary with the publication date. The routine unqualified citation of Burke's volumes for earlier times tends to speak against the reliability of a web site, not for it. OR is not a concern. Sources are allowed to do OR, and reliable sources should do OR. It is just Wikipedia editors who are not to. The failure to cite precise source details speaks not to the propriety of the OR, but again to its reliability. Agricolae (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to search right now, but I think we've had this discussion before. And agreed it isn't a reliable source, which is the case. We shouldn't be using it. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Lundy. Note: this template simply adds an external link to thepeerage.com.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Is BET a reliable source?

Various artist's sales are based on confirmations by either VH1 or MTV, so I was wondering if BET, short for Black Entertainment Television, is regarded reliable as well? Thanks for your replies. Malcolmo (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Black Entertainment Television, "90 million homes ... launched 1980... mainstream rap and R&B music videos" can generally be considered similarly reliable for artist's sales. --GRuban (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't view BET as similarly reliable, especially for sales figures. For example, BET claims here that R. Kelly has sold 150 million records, in fact, R. Kelly's available certified sales from those music markets covering 90% of the global sales are only 50 million, which translates into some 70 million in actual sales. The 150 million claim is clearly an inflated figure for R. Kelly and that alone suggests that BET doesn't use enough resources to get their information correct. Therefore, it cannot be considered as reliable as MTV or VH1 for example, neither of which has a history of publishing such outrageously inflated sales figures.--Harout72 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a verifiable published source. I can't seem to download that compressed file from that other link you're pointing to, so I don't know what it is supposed to be. Can you summarize what it says and who it's published by? --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The figure within must be verifiable, and the 150 million as claimed by BET, doesn't agree with R. Kelly's available certified sales. The file that I've put together and uploaded are the certified sales of R. Kelly which I've retrieved from the certification-databases of the certifying bodies such as RIAA, BPI, Bundesverband Musikindustrie etc.. I just tried to view it, and it seems to work for me.--Harout72 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, the doc downloads for me now too. You've searched a number of databases for sales of multiple individual albums, added the numbers together, written the results in a Word doc, and uploaded it to a file sharing site. I'm afraid that is pretty clear Wikipedia:original research. It is not a routine, obvious, and correct calculation that anyone could be expected to trivially perform. Do we know that the databases are in each case correct? Do we know that you copied the numbers correctly? (There aren't one or two figures to add up, there are lots.) Do we know that you got all the albums? Did you miss any? Did you confuse any with any others? (In several cases, your own doc says you had to look it up under another performer's name... are you sure you got the right one each time and every time? Can we be sure you did?) I'm afraid that doc is not close to being a Wikipedia:reliable source. It may be the truth (or even The Truth!) or it may not; since it's not a trivial judgment, we go with with the reliable sources; in this case, that's Black Entertainment Television. --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The databases are of those associations which issue certifications in each market, yes they are correct. These are routine and trivial calculations at the List of best-selling music artists where Malcolmo intends to use BET as a source. Nothing is copied from the databases, the certification-awards are converted into figures by following the corresponding award-levels provided directly on the sites of the certifying bodies, criteria for RIAA, criteria for BPI, Bundesverband Musikindustie, the sources are listed on the uploaded doc.. Every Platinum/Gold/Silver award is converted, nothing is missed. And no, it's not an original research as the certifying bodies do provide the levels for certification-awards. All one has to do is follow the release date and apply the levels provided on the same sites. The document is not provided on here to pass as a reliable sources, the sources the certifications are taken from are reliable. WP:RS states: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context; and BET in our case is not reliable. --Harout72 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you're pretty clearly matching the results of your own research against that conducted by a national cable TV channel. If some other reliable source came up with a different number for R. Kelly's sales, we could cite them. Until then, though, BET seems to be what we have. --GRuban (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Time Mazazine claims 50 million records for R. Kelly which immediately agrees with his available certified sales. There should never be such a gap between artists' certified sales and their actual sales as it is with BET's claim.--Harout72 (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be better, except it's from 2007, so can't be compared to the 2012 BET article. Kelly just might have sold a few records in the last 5 years. In fact, if he had sold 50 million by 2007, I'm even more wary of your figures from that Word doc that say he had still only sold 50 million by 2012.--GRuban (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Times' article can't be compared to BET's, not because it's from 2007, but because BET is rather lousy when it comes to getting its facts right. R. Kelly's sales have been quite poor since 2007 (see R. Kelly discography), so a few millions on the top of the 50 million wouldn't make BET a better source and it most definitely doesn't make his available certified sales which I've put together on one sheet questionable. As I explained above, the Certified Sales are often less than the Actual Sales, because not all albums/singles/videos reach the required levels to be certified. Artists like R. Kelly whose popularity is mainly concentrated on the U.S. market, could not have sold 150 million records that easily. That figure is only possible when artists experience widespread popularity all over the world. BET could perhaps be an OKAY source when supporting statements about music events, but sales figures do take a lot of research and require careful calculations which I doubt BET has the right staff for.--Harout72 (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we need a third (or rather fourth) opinion. Anyone? --GRuban (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

celebritynetworth.com

Was added to David Copperfield (illusionist) as a specific source for his "net worth" and I doubt it meets WP:RS. I do note that it is used as a source for about thirty articles, in some cases for no actual apparent reason, and suggest that if it is not RS that it be removed from them. Collect (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks highly questionable: "Neither we nor any third parties provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials found or offered on this website for any particular purpose. You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies or errors and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors to the fullest extent permitted by law". [33]. It gives no indication of how it comes by such figures - I see no reason to see it as anything more than guesswork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My exact view. Collect (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the ultimate conclusion, but I do think it's inappropriate to read a perception of unreliability into the presence of legal boilerplate. This sort of standard disclaimer is common and entirely unremarkable. For example, the New York Times offers, in part, the following disclaimer:

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY CONTAIN INACCURACIES AND TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY MAKES NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY FACTS, ADVICE, OPINIONS, VIEWS, STATEMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION DISPLAYED ON OR DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE WEB SITE.

(In all, it runs to four paragraphs of ALL CAPS SCREAMING LEGALESE explaining why we can't hold them responsible for errors or omissions.) You'll find similar terms on the web sites of many of our generally-considered-reliable sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Maybe you're right - but we have no indication whatsoever of where they get their numbers from, or whether they give a damn about their accuracy (not that they define what the figures are supposed to represent anyway...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The terminology strikes me as very odd. If someone claimed to evaluate my net worth based on what they think I have in the bank, I'd be highly offended (and humiliated). Maybe it makes more sense in US English!

Setting that aside, how we could ever claim to report the value of someone's property and investments is a mystery to me. If the total amounts to anything much, internal revenue services spend man-years trying to get it clear, and even they often fail to come up with complete results. How can we possibly claim to have reliable sources on this? This item shouldn't be in the infobox at all. NB. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does indeed insert a figure called "estate" in its biographical articles, but (a) it is dealing with dead people, and (b) the source is specifically post mortem calculations by lawyers etc., and (c) they claim no knowledge beyond that. Andrew Dalby 10:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Terrorism

Are Christopher Hitchens' works, including ones specifically on Terrorism, not RS for the reasons proffered on Talk:Terrorism, to wit that he was not an "expert" in the field (He was not an expert on terrorism or anything else for that matter), that Getting a BA with a C average and being a popular journalist with the Trotskyist and popular press does not make one an expert. The fact he co-authored an instant book on Callaghan and wrote an alternative narrative for Cyprus do not make him an expert either and that Hitchens' opinions on terrorism as just not notable. I suggested RS/N as a good place to ask this question, but do not think it likely the other editor would do so expeditiously. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? He was certainly a reliable source for his own opinions (of which he had plenty), but what exactly is it proposed he be cited for in relation to the Terrorism article? Clearly, not every source on a subject needs to be written by an 'expert' - but some things probably should be sourced to those recognised as having relevant expertise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

An editor said he was surprised that the article Terrorism did not mention Hitchens' 1986 Harper's magazine piece "Wanton Acts of Usage - Terrorism. A cliche in search of a meaning". I replied that Hitchens "was not an expert on terrorism or anthing else for that matter". Collect then replied that he was "a British Trotskyist" who studied at Oxford [he had a third class BA degree] and had a career in journalism. But as I explained to Collect, the issue is not an issue of rs, but of weight. How much weight does Hitchens' article have in terrorism studies? Collect has not even explained what part of the article he believes should be added to the article. There is no evidence that this article has become part of the study of terrorism, and the editor who mentioned it was doing so in order to point out the contradiction between Hitchens' views in 1986 and after 2001, which may be important to an article about Hitchens but is irrelevant to the article about terrorism. TFD (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please actually deal with what I wrote instead of possibly misleading people here about what you claim I wrote. The words you ascribe to me were clearly a quote from a source which I clearly indicated, and were not a claim made by me whatsoever. [34] The sources clearly also indicated that Hitchens was a major journalist who had written on topics about politics etc. and chopping words from the sources and acting like they were claims made by me personally is a quite irresponsible tactic in a post here. Cheers - but please when you are quoting a post, be sure not to imply that the editor wrote what he has quoted from a reliable source! Collect (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I would hope that everyone would agree that 'former Trotskyist' was more applicable in Hitchens' case, and yes, he seems to have changed his mind on the issue of terrorism, so maybe he can't really be cited for his own opinions either. ;-) The point remains though that without further details, it seems difficult to answer this one way or another - though the fact that Hitchens changed his mind is clearly more relevant to his biography than to the 'terrorism' article. I'd suggest that unless someone makes a concrete proposal, we leave the matter undecided - there really isn't any point in doing anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since there's doubt whether he's a recognised expert on this subject, one way we find out is by verifying whether his views on this subject are cited and taken seriously by confirmed experts. That would also apply to any older article by him: if recent reliable sources on that subject cite it and take it seriously, we have reason to cite it too; if not, not. Andrew Dalby 11:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ugg boots and the Peoria Journal Star

Hi! There have been various claims that this should be brought here for discussion, and that makes a lot of sense. So:

The article in question is Davis, Jim (December 26, 20011) "Ugg kicking it in the U.S.", Peoria Journal Star [35]. The author is a freelance writer who is a partner in a Chicago law firm. There are two claims from the article that are in dispute:

• "By 2010, all of the Australian manufacturers combined added up to only 5.9 percent of Deckers sales for Ugg boots alone."
• "In the case of Uggs, even some Australian manufacturers have been found guilty of making counterfeits."

The arguments in support of the source's reliability are primarily that the newspaper would do fact checking, and would be more careful for a freelancer. Arguing against it, the article is written in a tone that suggests that it may be advertorial, there is no additional support in other publications for the claim that Australian manufacturers have been found guilty of counterfeiting, sales figures for Australian manufacturers (which is largely a cottage industry) would be unavailable (and again, no additional support in other publications), and Deckers, whom the article is about, are known to use Chicago law firms to protect their IP online, although there are no substantiated claims that Deckers ever used the author's particular law firm.

Anyway, this has been kicking around for a while, and although consensus is currently against using it, the idea of bringing it here for neutral evaluation seems fair enough. The discussion is at Talk:Ugg boots#Another new source - hopefully I summarised the main points ok. - Bilby (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

While a newspaper does qualify as a reliable secondary sources, the listed statements make strong unsupported claims. If no other sources can be found that mention the same facts, while not quite a WP:REDFLAG, the statements seem more opinion than actual verifiable facts. Perhaps an acceptable compromise would be to quote them as an opinion piece ( Jim Davis wrote...) like in WP:NEWSBLOG--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess that would be a way forward. :) My only concern there is that it would seem to be providing authority to Jim Davies, in the sense that it would read like we're reporting Jim Davis' opinion on the basis that it carries some weight. I'm happier attributing claims to an individual, I think, when that individual has recognised expertise. But I guess that's also a matter of how you read the attribution. - 06:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you say Jim Davis "is a freelance writer who is a partner in a Chicago law firm," I will assume good faith. Thanks for doing the research and confirming that for us Bilby. There appears to be only one person named Jim Davis fitting that description (a partner at the McAndrew firm;[36] Deckers is a client of a rival Chicago firm), and he specializes in patent and trademark law, which means that he has recognized expertise and his opinion does carry some weight. No conflict of interest, recognized expertise, what's not to like? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty is that Davies is not an expert in sales of ugg boats in Australia, an given the lack of other sources, I can't see why we should regard him as having any specialised expertise on the matter. In regard to the second claim, accusing Australian manufacturers of being guilty of counterfeiting is a very strong claim, and I think warrants a very reliable source. I don't see a freelance writer with a possible COI in a small paper as being sufficiently reliable, without at least some other support to the claim. - Bilby (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You've already established that there is no COI, since Davis is apparently a partner at McAndrew Held & Malloy, not the firm employed by Deckers. Mainstream fact-checked news organizations often cite their sources, but not in all cases and there isn't any mention of such a requirement in WP:NEWSORG. We already know about the Vaysman case, involving a manufacturer in Melbourne, Australia who was ordered by an Australian court to stop counterfeiting UGG brand boots, and that's been confirmed by several reliable sources published in Australia.[37][38][39] Davis is in a position to monitor legal and trade publications that may not have an online presence and are not susceptible to Google searches by Wikipedia editors; and in my opinion, this is most likely where he got the disputed information. We have obtained a neutral opinion from Luke Warmwater101, a previously uninvolved editor. Unless there's a reversal of this opinion by previously uninvolved editors, let's accept it and move on. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The source says "manufacturers", and you've shown one person who sold counterfeit boots (not even clearly a manufacturer). Simply, I don't believe that a puff piece by a lawyer in a small newspaper is enough of a reliable source to accuse multiple Australian manufacturers of counterfeiting, or to trust data that hasn't been published anywhere else and is unlikely to be available even to experts in the field. So far, the only person to believe it is sufficiently reliable to express as facts is you. This does suggest that you are in the minority.

In regard to Davis, it has never been shown that he doesn't work for Deckers, who employ at least one Chicago lawfirm, and who are particularly active in IT-related cases. The tone of the piece is so glowing about the company I'd be inclined to assume that he did have a COI, but we haven't shown that, either.

As an aside, as mentioned before, WP:NEWSORG doesn't guarantee that specific articles should be taken as reliable, but instead judged on a case-by-case basis.- Bilby (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We have an opinion from a neutral third party and I don't care to watch everyone repeat all these arguments. WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies. No COI has been proven. Unless you can prove that Deckers is a client of the McAndrew firm, rather than a rival firm, you have only suspicion, innuendo and guilt by association based on geography. If that principle (or lack of principles) is applied across the board, no editor from Australia should be allowed to participate in the editing of this article. Unless there are more opinions from previously uninvolved editors who can be trusted to be neutral in this dispute, it's time to accept Luke's decision and move on. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The writer in the news article makes a number of claims about sales figures, salary figures and employment numbers. Davis makes so many specific claims that the entirety are called into question. Where does he get his facts? We cannot determine, he says nothing about his sources. The implication is that he was fed figures by Ugg boots promoters, because the tone of the piece is "puff" promotion. As an information technology guy working in a law firm (not a partner in it!), Davis appears to have no expertise in the topic. I cannot recommend using any portion of the newspaper puff piece as a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bilby seems to have discovered evidence that Mr. Davis is an attorney in patents and trademarks, and a partner at the McAndrew law firm. I'm inclined to believe him. His area of (non-exclusive) practice appears to be IT related technology, according to his bio. But that doesn't disqualify him as an expert in patent and trademark law. If you have something negative about Deckers to add to the article from some other source, let's discuss it. (Personally, I believe the only negative material has always been described with tender, loving attention to detail in the section about the Uggs-N-Rugs case.) But is there anything negative about the company that hasn't already been described at tiresome length, and can be added? And if not, how is the accurate representation of positive facts by Davis fairly described as a "puff promotion"? The Journal Star is a mainstream, fact-checked news organization. The two of you appear to have an issue with the way Davis wrote his article. That doesn't undercut the reliability of the facts he presents. All these objections are addressed by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

P&W, I cannot believe you are still editing Ugg boots. I cannot believe you have not been RfC'd and been given a lengthy topic ban. Dang.

Bilby's research appears to me to be a case of mistaken identity. IP specialist and Law Partner James L. Davis Jr went to U of I College of Law, not ISU. The partner of a law firm is rarely, if ever, inclined to write for a backwater newspaper, not with their time worth tons of money per hour but the news item paying peanuts. IF the partner in a law firm writes an article, he is never credited with just his high school in Peoria and his university without mentioning the law firm partnership. I beliieve that our Mr. Jim Davis is a right-wing political hack who is definitely NOT a partner at a Chicago law firm but rather a mere IT guy. I credit him with Daily Caller pieces such as this: "It's ironic that Obama is getting credit for bin Laden's death". The Daily Caller Davis is "a freelance writer and IT specialist working for a major Chicago law firm. He has been observing corrupt Chicago politicians (from a safe distance in the suburbs) for nearly half a century." "The suburbs" mentioned in this DC bio corresponds neatly with the PJ Star bio which says Davis lives in Glendale Heights, a suburb of ChiTown. There's a world of difference between an IP specialist partner and an IT specialist employee. The IT guy, who often sits around doing very little at more than one company I know, definitely can find the time to write articles for online opinion sites and for small newspapers. But IT guys are not experts in Ugg boots sales figures! Not a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as a brief aside - I didn't identify Davis. That was made by another editor on the ugg boots talk page. If it is incorrect, then that just continues the mystery as to who it is, and reinforces that we have no idea as to whether or not he has any special expertise on the subject. - Bilby (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Binks: Thanks for your lovely observations and best wishes to you as well. Perhaps it was Wayne who identified Davis as the law partner at McAndrew. Here in America, attorneys might attend ISU at the undergraduate level and U of I for law school. I will add that I've done a little checking of my own by calling the Greer Burns & Crain law firm, the only firm in Chicago known to have Deckers among its clients. There's nobody named Jim Davis working there. Call 312-360-0080 and see for yourself. Any COI accusations against Davis are lies, motivated by bias. Regardless of that, I keep stressing that it's a mainstream, fact-checked news organization and although it's very clear that the two of you and your many Australian friends really, really do not like it, it's a reliable source and the only neutral, previously uninvolved editor who has bothered to comment agrees. If the fact checkers at the Peoria Journal Star were satisfied that the sales figures and counterfeiting accusations by Davis were reliable, then Wikipedia is also satisfied that they are reliable. The fact that Davis did not cite his own sources is unfortunate, but does not negate WP:NEWSORG. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, I honestly think it's long past time for the article to head to arbitration. We've got Phoenix & Winslow, a persistent Deckers-line editor here who has SPA "ugg boots" accounts on half a dozen or more foreign language Wikipedias who seems intent on erasing one kind of meaning from Wikipedia (in all languages), is quite happy to ignore consensus for his own edits but will cling to the letter guidelines things like WP:NEWSORG introduce ridiculously dubious sources - I think everyone agrees that it is dubious, whether it qualifies as WP:NEWSORG or not - and who, while he will never acknowledge repeated defeats as he shops around the forums for people to agree with him, quite happily accepts one neutral editor whose post seems to contain strong reservations and tends toward neutrality as validation of his views. There's no arguing with someone who clearly is involved on half a dozen different language versions of Wikipedia for reasons other than informing people about every facet of reality. Like the entry on "Scientology", while the huge company intent on extreme search engine optimization stands to gain from a particular view being presented, there's no hope for the entry on ugg boots as a generic concept.Mandurahmike (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The fine folks at ArbCom will kick it back downstairs because the problem's gravitational center can be identified as Phoenix and Winslow. They will say that arbitration is not needed, just the lesser correction of reining in P&W. It's high time for an RfC. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Is a source necessarily reliable if a secondary reliable source uses them?

An article I'm editing has a press release sent out by the article subject's company, it was copied almost verbatim, and made up the entirety of, articles distributed by 2 other news providers/aggregators, with credit for the info going to the subject of our article listed at the end of the articles. It was not independently reported on by either 3rd party news provider. If either of the news providers are deemed to be reliable, does that then infer "reliable" status onto the primary document/press release? (If it's relevant, the 2 secondary sources are www.prnewswire.com and www.thestreet.com) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 04:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this depends on the concrete context/case and what reliable refers to exactly. If you mean that content of the press release becomes automatically "factual" if a few newspapers more or less copy it verbatim, then the answer is no. If it is just used to give a reliable description of the company's position, the press release alone might be good enough and the news providers don't really matter much.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The news item in question deals with an event, and notability, if these secondary sources just push out the press release without any other journalism attached, does that make it notable? I will paste the actual links here, but I'd rather get opinions that can't have any subject bias attached first. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In reviewing the sources you provided it seems to me they are mostly press release distributors. If that is the case, I would think that until the story is picked up by a news agency such as the AP or AFP, or Reuters, to name a few, it is not yet published and therefore neither the original press release, nor the reproduced ones can be conspired reliably published by a secondary source.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A press release is only usable as a WP:SPS. Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

But keep in mind that if the information is truly worth reporting, secondary sources would have reported it. So, yes, they can be used, but they should be the exception, not the rule (so to speak). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Urantia Book

I am new here so please forgive me if I express something not entirely clear. There is a long discussion about reliable sources for The Urantia Book article on Wikipedia. The neutrality of this article has been disputed for a long time. The Urantia Book, over 2000 pages in volume, is basically religious-philosophical book but contains also information from all areas of human knowledge. One of the most quoted sources in the article is Martin Gardner critical book "Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery" - Prometheus Books 1995. Credibility of this source as well as it accuracy was often questioned in discussion. Is this book reliable source for all critical statements in The Urantia Book article? Below I attach all opinions on this subject from discussion, including mine opinion, in chronological order:

I understand from reading the archives that you consider Gardner to be a reliable and credible published source. At one point you seemed to say that referencing ubthenews would be like referencing ubhoax.org - and the thought came to my mind that Gardner's book is the equivalent of ubhoax. It does not pretend to be neutral. It ridicules and has a rude tone toward the book and movement. It is not of the tone that you would find from an academic scholar. Gardner may have a reputation from previously published works, but it is still possible that the quality, and thus credibility, of this work was not very high isn't it? When you called him third party, (I believe it was you in the archives) you make him sound as if he were neutral towards the book, and not in the 'pro or con' parties. But reading his book shows that he is clearly in the 'con' party. How many verifiable major blunders would it take for you to see that his book may not be all that well researched and that it often stretches and does not stand up to close scrutiny from someone who knows about the book? Maybe we could start a list, because Gardner, for example, even talks about Jesus' having traveled to India in his book, which he did not do in the story in the UB. In reviewing Gardner's book, the credible and neutral third party source, the Library Journal, in its April 15, 1995 issue, said "Given the lack of scholarly distance from the subject, the patronizing tone, and the gross editorializing, it would be difficult to recommend this book to any library." Gooch was much more neutral toward his topic of study, and he seemed a bit perturbed by how unfriendly Gardner was toward the book. He calls Gardner's book 'scabrous' (p. 48) and Gooch finds it worth mentioning that Gardner 'admitted' to him (in a telephone interview) that 'The Urantia Book is remarkable among these types of books claiming divine revelation, in that it is occasionally well written...', Gooch goes on to say that 'This response mildly echoed the much harsher appraisal in his book...' (page 22). His book was written for a skeptical publisher by a skeptic who set out to debunk the book, in stark contrast to the neutral perspective of the sociologist or historian of religion etcetera that lends credibility. It is more in the 'anti-cult' genre, like ubhoax, than the neutral. Do you think it might be considered to add a remark about Gardner's having aimed to discredit the book from the get-go, or about his many inaccuracies (which I imagine myself and others here can be demonstrate if you wish), or about his 'lack of scholarly distance from the subject,... patronizing tone, and ... gross editorializing' as noted by a very credible reviewer? (and which is also clear to anyone who reads his book). Best regards... Mwcm1975 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Martin Gardner published in Scientific American for a quarter of a century and has been writing works about scientific skepticism for over half a century, including perhaps the most classic work in the field. Gardner is a valuable and fully WP:RS published reference. Not only is he a good representative of skeptical POV, he did collect a lot of factual historical information, as well as evaluating science and plagiarism claims, which are useful to the article's criticisms sections. When you say things like Gardner "aimed to discredit the book from the get-go", you need to back that claim up with a reference from a reliable source, otherwise it's just hearsay. While Gardner's tone and writing style in his book weren't what would be considered WP:NPOV on wikipedia, the information he published certainly can still be utilized and doesn't need to have caveats alongside it about him. I'm not sure even if you have a specific dispute with anything the article currently says, do you? Wazronk (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The main source of criticism in this section is Martin Gardner book - Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery. Sandra Collins, SLIS, University of Pittsburg, wrote in the conclusion of her opinion about Martin Gardner book [Library Journal/April 15, 1995]: “Given the lack of scholarly distance from the subject, the patronizing tone, and the gross editoralizing, it would be difficult to recommend this book to any library”. I find this article about The Urantia Book rather far from neutral point of view. Jaworski (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin Gardner was intimately involved with TUB, and including his opinion as if he were an unbiased observer or scholar breaches NPOV (and also, in some twisted way, self-publishing/self-reference). This must be revised or removed: in any case, the extant statement is not referenced even as-is. JohnChrysostom (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

At the same time this article is full of one man - Martin Gardner – opinions. His opinions are quoted 12 times in various parts of this article WP:UNDUE He had bachelor degree in philosophy but his opinions on the subjects of astronomy, physics, biology etc. are regarded in this article as WP:RS . His findings are 16 years outdated and biased. Because lack of scholarly distance from the subject his book was not recommended to any library. All his biased opinions should be removed from this article except for fact, that he wrote critical book. Jaworski (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

More information about Martin Gardner and his work can be found in Wikipedia article. Most of his articles published in Scientific American are about recreational mathematics.

There are a few web sites related to The Urantia Book including Urantia Foundation, The Urantia Book Fellowship and Jesusonian Foundation. Are these web sites reliable sources for a history of movement, current news and events, readers beliefs? The Urantia Book Fellowship publishes the Fellowship Herald. There are a few articles evaluating scientific information in The Urantia Book. One – Scientific predictions of the Urantia Book part II – was written by Irvin Ginsburgh Ph.D. physicist (Herald 2000), another – The Coming Scientific Validation of The Urantia Book – by Philip Calabrese Ph.D. award-winning research mathematician (Herald 2006) Are these two articles a reliable source?

There is a web site UBTheNews devoted to scientific investigation of The Urantia Book, conducted by group of enthusiasts. Is this web site a reliable source? Can this web site be mentioned in The Urantia Book Wikipedia article? Jaworski (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Herald publication are certainly not RS for any neutral/3rd person description of the urania book. I'd regard Martin Gardner in general as a RS on the issue (for criticism), but the criticism (ideally) should not rely on him alone.

In general however I have to say the notion that the book provides scientific revelation or would matter for science is inherently nuts, so most people/scientist probably won't even bother with it as they don't take it seriously to begin with.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Jaworski tried to remove this section (see page history). I restored it, and would like to add that Martin Gardner is very clearly a reliable source on this topic. Most other sources don't take it seriously enough to bother discussing it, so Gardner might be the best source. There may be others also. I get the idea, though, that Jaworski isn't going to particularly like what any of the reliable sources have to say on this WP:FRINGE topic. 05:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

YouTube (sort of)

Rick Snyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor removed the following material from the article: "In January 1976, he enrolled at the university (cite to YouTube]) and earned a Bachelor of General Studies with high distinction in 1977, then a MBA from the University of Michigan Business School with distinction in 1979, and a Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School in 1982." The edit summary read: "YouTube is not acceptable reference". I raised this on the article Talk page, and the editor agreed it wasn't a copyright issue - it would seem that he just has his own blanket "policy" that one can never cite to YouTube.

The video on YouTube is from a little-known website news source, AmericaJR.com. It is AmericaJR's official channel, so there's no copyright issue. The normal question would then be whether AmericaJR.com itself is a reliable source (that was questioned by another editor). However, as I pointed out on the Talk page, except for a nothing introduction at the beginning of the video, the entire video is just Snyder's speech. We're not citing to any content provided by a reporter from AmericaJR.com. So, the only real issue is whether we can cite to Snyder (WP:SPS) for the material in the article. This has nothing to do with YouTube or even with AmericaJR.com, although both are "providing" the content.

At the moment, as I pointed out on the article Talk page, the YouTube cite is back in the article. It wasn't reinserted by me, but by a bot rescuing the named ref. The original removing editor hasn't commented further.

Assuming Snyder's speech supports the material, does anyone see a problem citing the video of the speech?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

One reason why we do not usually accept Youtube as a reliable source is the difficulty of verifying that the content is what it claims to be. On what authority should we accept that this is an authentic unedited video of this person's speech on that particular day? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Surely there is a better source for his academic record than the crappy copy of this speech. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL. In response to Cusop, although AmericaJR may not be the world's best news source, it is probably good enough to accept the fact that the video has not been edited, and, partly in response to Niteshift's comment, you'd think that if they edited it, they would done a better job. :-) My guess is I can find other sources for his academic record, but the story about what happened when he approached UM would probably be harder. At the same time, it's not terribly important material, more just a cute story.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• And you've already answered my next response....."cute stories" aren't important. A solid source that shows where he went to school and when is much better than a crappy recording that makes you waste 10 minutes to find out the info, is from a questionable "news source" and leaves this many questions. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I question if AmericaJR is actually RS. I cannot tell if they have a reputation for fact checking an reliability. But their page attempts to solicit writers on a volunteer basis. The writers appear to be students and not professionals. I'm on the fence. There should not be any issue with using the video as an inline citation if it is RS. As someone else pointed out: How hard would it be to find an alternate source if needed? Cptnono (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Publius Enigma - use of Google Groups and webforums

This should be more fun than my earlier (and unanswered) post above about another article. Here we have an article heavily sourced from Google Groups, a webforum which seems not to exist any more (Enigmapublius.org which I can only find through Wayback [40] and a whole section based on what looks like a private webpage at [41]. I've deleted some of the original research which was either unsourced or where the sources didn't come anywhere near discussing the subject of the article, but is this heavy use of Google Groups and a webforum appropriate? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of what's in Google Groups is actually Usenet posts. Those, like webforums and blogs and private websites, add up to a huge steaming pile of "not reliable sources"! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted also that a great deal of this article is from User:Chinagreenelvis, and the forum discussions are also heavily drawing from a forum user called Chinagreenelvis. This again reeks of WP:NOR violations. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

'Inspire', magazine allegedly published by al-Quaeda in the Arab Peninsula

Thomas Joscelyn, who has bylines in The San Francisco Examiner and is also styled "Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense Democracies" and "Senior Editor, The Long War Journal", is named as the author of material about Inspire (magazine) on the website longwarjournal.com. His opinions and analysis there are variously cited in the Wikipedia Inspire article (e.g.: "According to Thomas Joscelyn, the chief purpose of Inspire is to spread AQAP's propaganda to the West.")

Thomas Hegghammer, senior research fellow at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, author of Jihad in Saudi Arabia (Cambridge 2010), al-Qaida in its own words (Harvard 2008) and The Meccan Rebellion (Amal 2011), and contributor of op-eds to e.g. The Guardian and the NYT, has an article about Inspire on the website jihadica.com, which is also numerously cited.

In light of Joscelyn and Hegghammer's credentials, are their articles in longwarjournal.com and jihadica.com reliable sources? Writegeist (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Joscelyn has been mentioned in the NYT as knowledgeable on the topic, and Hegghammer has been cited by the NYT as "But one noted scholar of jihadism, Thomas Hegghammer of the Norwegian Research and Defense Establishment, cautioned against drawing ... " as well as writing for the NYT himself. Yep - both (and especially Hegghammer) are noted in the field, and the later quite notably so. Hegghammer is mentioned in a great many books on the topic, and Joscelyn is cited in several books on the topic as expert. Cheers - they both meet WP standards. Collect (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I think you may have misunderstood the question. There was no doubt about Joscelyn and Hegghammer being notable (as I tried to make clear by referring to their credentials). I was not asking for confirmation of that. My concern was with the two blogs. TJ and/or TH in, say, The Guardian would clearly be RS for commentary within their specialist fields - I was not sure whether the same applied in the case of their publication by these two particular blogs. I now think the blogs are acceptable, so no additional input is needed unless someone has a counter-argument. Writegeist (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Blogs associated with experts are usable within their fields of expertise. I had thought that was clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree. We have WP:SPS which allows us to be lenient with "experts," but we also have WP:REDFLAG, which states that exceptional claims must have multiple reliable sources backing them and that a source which makes an exceptional claim found in no other sources is therefore to be questioned. The article relies heavily on Hegghammer's and Joscelyn's writings, but if they weren't published in a reliable source, we can't source them for all kinds of REDFLAG claims based on their famous names alone. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Center for Systemic Peace

An editor has questioned the reliability of a country report from the Center for Systemic Peace as a source for human rights. While not as high-profile as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, CSP seems to be fairly widely cited and referenced in both books and scientific publications. --Sander Säde 10:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Taliban

Are the sources used in the below content suitable for the fact that the Taliban use terrorism as a tactic?

They use terrorism as a specific tactic to further their ideological and political goals.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness Shines (talk • contribs)

Both should be reliable on Taliban politics. I can't get more than a snippet for Skaine so couldn't check if it supports that statement. Shanty, on the other hand, is very clear. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

List of books that plagiarize from Wikipedia

Is there a subpage which lists books that include Wikipedia content without attribution? There have been several discussions in the past about publishers such as the Gyan Publishing House (e.g. 1, 2, 3), but people keep re-inserting their books as references. Once in every few months, I've to embark on a cleanup spree to remove these. Utcursch (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think such a list, perhaps even modifying a bot as well, might be a good idea to detect cites to questionable sources. However it's done, though, we can't get carried away since some publishers existed before Wikipedia. Not all of Gyan's publications could have copied Wikipedia, for instance, so a rather detailed list would probably be needed. JFHJr (㊟) 08:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've created a page at User:Utcursch/plagiarism from Wikipedia, linked from WP:PUS. utcursch | talk 06:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with Gyan/Isha is a little different, while many of their recent publications are reproductions of WP content, quite a few of the earlier ones are reproductions of other author's/publishing house content. Sitush (I think) had picked up one "recent" book of theirs which was used as a source here but was actually copied from an out-of-copyright work from the UK. While some other publishers (notably Motilal Banarsidass) also republish out of copyright works, they retain the original info (author etc) and do not pass it of as new works. With Gyan there really is no way to tell which one is really a new work vs copied from out of copyright works, copied from copyrighted works, unattributed copy etc. —SpacemanSpiff 06:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Would a wider net, plagiarism by publisher/publication/source be best? I bet there are more, and I assume a single publication might rip off several other sources at a time. If there were a list or chart by plagiarist, it might help editors identify original sources and replace citations instead of simply removing. JFHJr (㊟) 06:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Add Kalpaz to the Gyan/Isha mix - they seem to be the same outfit. Some examples of Gyan weirdness (which includes seemingly plagiarising their own authors!):

• Compare [this with [this
• This with this

I have come across at least 100 example pairs, and some triplicates. Probably more, but I binned my list in utter disgust. Which is unfortunate given current developments but was based in part on having the support of User:Moonriddengirl regarding the issue. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, SpacemanSpiff is correct in thinking that I've found examples that pre-date WP but were copies from earlier (and still copyrighted) works. I'll see if I can find that darn list ... - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone come across Int'l Business Publications? User:SummerPhD has removed many references to that publisher identified as Wiki "reprints." I thought that user might find this discussion interesting and left a note. JFHJr (㊟) 07:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks includes both print and online sources, but is a list of publishers rather than pages/titles. To get on the list, websites and publishers don't have to be only mirrors and forks, but I wouldn't put a webpage on the list necessarily for a single instance. For instance, if the fan club of Joe Smith copies his bio but has no interest in any other Wikipedia content, I would note the copying on Joe Smith's talk page, but not at Mirrors and Forks. Gyan Publishing is on the list. Int'l Business Publications isn't, JFHJr, but I can't say that I've never encountered it. There are so many. :/ But this conversation seems relevant and the charge seems fair. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thepeoplesvoice.org

Several articles are using the extremely anti-Semitic http://thepeoplesvoice.org as a reference. This site is basically the left-wing equivalent of Stormfront. It should not be confused with The People's Voice organization, whose name it stole. For an example of its unreliability, see this article, which is full of completely fabricated quotes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghuvar5356 (talk • contribs)

Ignoring the rather contentious Israeli-Palestinian conflict (because there are some issues that shove the whole thing in the grey), that they misspelled clique in their own mission statement, and did not bother to look up that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary (not Jesus), and that they engage in the same sensationalism they decry in other sources, such as claim that the recession and militarism are still a problem despite all empirical observation showing that is not the case, all lead me to think that they really don't have much in the way of fact-checking or editorial oversight, and seems more like a large blog.

An unsatisfactory number articles read like Alex Jones or Glenn Beck, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

I could also argue that this article cites us, which prevents them from qualifying as a reliable source.

I am inclined to say that anything they cover of value would be covered by another site, even an independent one. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, looking through the use of thepeoplesvoice.org on this site, I'm mostly reaching an opposite conclusion as to its use:

• It is used in Craig Rosebraugh, to simply establish that he wrote a book. This is more or less equivilant to citing a press release, I guess it could stay.
• In Islamic gold dinar, it is used to link to a Russia Today video, in a section discussing Russia Today's claims as their claims. The site is not being used itself, but as a redirect.
• In Waziristan, it is used to source "Traditionally, local Waziri religious leaders have enlisted outsiders in their feuds, though it's not always that way, as local Waziris claim they are against the foreign militant presence there," but its simply reprinting this wordpress blog post. It is actually plagiarizing the article, so I removed it completely. There is a link for a Pakistani newspaper, which could be a reliable source, but the link is dead and the only copy of the page on Internet Archive fails to reveal what the article was, except that it was an opinion piece. I have failed to find any other sources, but I've only done a cursory glance over Google.
• In Paul Watson, an interview with Paul Watson is used to source the statement "In 1977, Watson was expelled from the Greenpeace's board of directors by a vote of 11 to 1." This is a rather non-contentious primary source.
• In Mordechai Vanunu, it is used to reprint a letter by Vanunu to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Seems reasonable to use.
• In Matthew Weigman, it is citing something originaly sourced to this apparently dead link, from a site which also carried the story "KID PLAYING VIDEO GAME GETS ATTACKED BY RAPIST DOG LMAO (VIDEO)", "BREAKING Footage of Michael Jackson ALIVE! Back from the dead! Jumping out of the same van his dead body had been in," and "UFO seen hovering over Chongqing, China – Witnesses and Onlookers Amazed." While it will not kill Wikipedia to use the article on thepeoplesvoice until another source is found (as it is otherwise extremely plain), another should be found.
• In The Falling Man, it is citing something that was originally sourced to Esquire. I've changed it to cite that instead.
• In Hannah Rosenthal, it was citing something for the Israeli The People's Voice, which is a different organization. I have removed this
• In Second Vermont Republic, it is being used as a primary source, since the article is by the founder of the Second Vermont Republic.
• In Propaganda in Iran, it is citing an interview with the subject of that section, William O. Beeman. It is a primary source.
• In Courting Condi, it was being used as refspam for a petition. I have removed it.
• In Washington Peace Center, it is in the further reading section, not as a reference. If you feel inclined, you could suggest on the talk page that it should be removed.

Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Reprint a letter? I'm not happy about that. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I realize that some of the places where it's being cited aren't contentious, but we should still replace or remove it where possible (basically for everything except interviews between the subject and the site, like Propaganda in Iran). We shouldn't give the impression that it's an acceptable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

External Link Approval

Hello all,

I've come in contact with a source that I believe would be a tremendous addition to Wikipedia pages dedicated to countries. The project is called "International Futures" from the Pardee Center for International Futures at the University of Denver. International Futures is a long-term forecasting and global trend analysis project that has gained credibility and international notoriety in the policy community. It is the world's largest integrated and endogenous model for global forecasting, and publications from International Futures can be found without much effort.

I've posted a few external links to country pages, but it has been brought to my attention that I should start a conversation on this message board to seek consensus. I think that it's a tool that has a great deal of utility, and the forecasts add something new and interesting to country discussions. I believe it's a valuable addition, and I'd like to see these forecasts on more country pages. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

The web based version of the model can be found at http://www.ifs.du.edu/ifs/Ifs.aspx (Shredder2012 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC))

Do you have any independent reliable sources that confirm what you are saying about the site? (That it "has gained credibility and international notoriety in the policy community") Siawase (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Their work has been sourced in some very credible projects that I've come across.

United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Reports - here's the latest http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2011/papers/HDRP_2011_08.pdf

The African Futures Project with the Institute for Security Studies - http://www.ifs.du.edu/assets/documents/Africa%20Futures%202050%20ISS%20Pardee%20IFs.pdf

The UN's Global Environmental Outlook - http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4.asp

The US Institute for Peace - http://www.usip.org/publications/vulnerability-intrastate-conflict

The US National Intelligence Council, Global Scenarios 2025 - http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_global_scenarios.html

And their work is hosted by Google's Public Data Explorer (Although I've been told that this data is not as current as their website) http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=n4ff2muj8bh2a_

I apologize for being so vague in my first message. I appreciate that you wouldn't take my word for it! It's difficult to find independent sources that verify their work, but I think that some of their clients and projects may speak to the quality of their work. I've been in touch with International Futures to get a list of some of this recent work, so if there's any other questions regarding their work I can contact them easily. Thanks again, and I look forward to hearing from you! (Shredder2012 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC))

• While I could not see any red flags concerning reliability I will have to interject that you are asking for input specifically concerning an "external link" at a reliable source noticeboard. The appropriate place for these discussions (external links) would be on the External links/Noticeboard. However, since you asked and there appears to be possible reliable source application, and so I don't have to chase this around, I will add my two cents.

I have only briefly looked at the futures model and I can not see any actual benefit, in response to your tremendous addition to Wikipedia pages dedicated to countries comment, it would have as to to being indiscriminately place on a multitude of articles.

• Unless there is some serious reason against use the actual best location to determine acceptance of use is on the individual article talk pages. If you do not find some particular opposition for use on Wikipedia and you feel there is relevance, inquiring there (talk pages) will likely give resolution and avoid deletions.

I did not look at your use in articles, however! if consensus is for use (or just as importantly not specifically against), I would advise to do so sparingly and use the link for the model concerning the country the article is about and not the main page link. For relevance actual use would probably be best when there is a section concerning something regarding the future in an article. Many articles already have somewhat of a problem with the number of external links (external link clutter) so even if the site is reliable, and there is relevance, you might still find opposition on some articles if you do just "indiscriminately" place the link. With no opposition as to reliability as a source, and where there is relevance for use, the link might be able to be used in an article as a source, or possibly used in a "See also" section.

If you start to inundate Wikipedia with the links you will more likely than not find opposition as I for one would be against it. If there is opposition, especially link deletion, as to relevance (or other reasons) in a particular article it would be best to leave it out unless you are active in contributions to the article and wish to pursue inclusion.

It might be a cool site with some neat forecasts for the future but these are "forecasts" of what "might" happen if no catastrophic events take place. In the real world such things as major earthquakes (among other things), overnight changes in the government, economic plunge, and other examples, would render, in my opinion, the "Scenario Analysis" section might be considered just a cool tool for trivia fun. Since the world (markets, future allocation of resources and many other examples) do depend on such future analysis, I can also see (my opinion at this point providing some negative reasoning I overlooked is not brought up) where the site could have encyclopedic relevance when used properly in particular articles. Otr500 (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Contactmusic.com on marital breakup

Should http://www.contactmusic.com/news/vanilla-ice-and-wife-split_1232480 be considered a reliable source for a breakup of Vanilla Ice and his wife? Someone claiming to represent Vanilla Ice says at Talk:Vanilla Ice#Factual Errors that there is no breakup. —teb728 t c 20:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Contactmusic, from what I have seen, rarely has exclusives, but rather reports on stories that have appeared in other media sources. From reading this article, it says "She tells the National Enquirer", so it appears this story originates with the National Enquirer which is a rather notorious tabloid. Not a source I would use in a BLP, especially for something contentious like this that has been contested. Siawase (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Help evaluating reliability of blogs

This is a bit of a chicken and egg situation between WP:RS and WP:N, so I'll take it over there if you guys think I should...

We have an article on Luna The Fashion Kitty. The article's creator is using the blogs Racked, Catster, and Fashionista as sources. Here are links to the specific article/posts: Racked 1 and Racked 2, Catster, and Fashionista. Any comments on the reliability of these sources would be appreciated. If you're a notability expert as well and feel like commenting on those aspects, it would be seriously appreciated (and save me a trip to WP:N/N). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick look at their about pages, Fashionista has an editorial staff and is backed by a publishing company, so likely reliable. Catster is a mix of expert and community posts, so you would have to check if the specific author would be reliable under WP:SPS. Racked I can't really get a handle on. (their about page is here[42]) Siawase (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the person who wrote the article. One of the sources is also a newspaper, if that helps (El Imparcial). Not sure if that's under consideration here or not but just wanted to point that out. I'd like to work on this article more but also don't want to put a lot more time into if it is going to be deleted. So I'm interested to hear the outcome of this discussion and open to specific feedback. Akritenbrink (talk)

Akritenbrink, I think you're OK here. Go ahead with improving the article. Nothing is guaranteed at Wikipedia, but I know I won't be nominating it for deletion based on the coverage shown here. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Arts & Opinion; book review

May the arts/culture/politics magazine Arts & Opinion be used as an RS--for the specific purpose of mentioning a book review that is contained in the magazine?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Ith has an editorial board and contributing authors, articles are not written by the editors, and it publishes on a regular schedule. I don't see anything in the couple articles that I browsed that make me nervous. I'd say go for it. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 02:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Its editorial people don't appear notable, they do write quite a lot of the articles, and the list of major past contributors includes (the first one I checked) a "reprint by permission" of an article that Noam Chomsky had actually published elsewhere. I'd gladly be persuaded that Arts & Opinion is independent and reliable, but I'm not persuaded at first glance.

Tell us what Wikipedia article this is about, and which book review. Andrew Dalby 12:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Arts and Opinion's submission guidelines, they also solicit submissions of reviews rather than writing them in-house. Not very professional. This is because Epeefleche wants to use it to attest the notability of Onward Muslim Soldiers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• The wp article is about the book, which is the subject of the book review. The sentence in question in the wp article is "A 2008 review of the book in Arts & Opinion by Bassam Michael Madany describes the book as a "much needed guide to understanding the true nature of Islam, and its attitude to the rest of the world". The AfD by Ros on the article has already closed, as a "keep".

--Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

...a non-admin close which looks like it's about to be reopened for being improper. In any case, it's irrelevant; the publication's editorial policy is questionable and in particular its process for running reviews from whoever feels like submitting them disqualifies it as a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• More responses here would be appreciated, as Epeefleche and another user are persisting in restoring the material even though there is no consensus that it is cited to a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• I see that the review is by Bassam Michael Madany who "was the Arabic Broadcast minister of Back-to-God Hour, the radio ministry of the Christian Reformed Church, from 1958-1994. He is the author of The Bible and Islam: A Basic Guide to Sharing God’s Word with a Muslim". Here is his book for interest which appears to be about bringing "the Gospel to Muslims" and spreading "the liberating Word of God". I don't see why his review would be considered significant or the source reliable. It falls more into the "questionable" and "promotional in nature" areas of WP:RS I would have thought. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• The instructions for submissions here state "PLEASE NOTE THAT WE ARE NON-PROFIT. WE DO NOT REMUNERATE." That sounds kind of like "we print whatever we can get people to send us for free" to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Sarek. Are you suggesting that only publications that pay for opinion pieces submitted to them are RSs? I also note that sources may be considered reliable for statements as to the opinion of the author, while not for statements asserted as fact (e.g., with op eds and book reviews). If a book review opinion statement is not authoritative, as here, we attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. The publication itself does appear to have a full dozen-person staff. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Current Science

The use of the science magazine Current Science is being disputed at Cold Fusion (Talk:Cold_fusion#Current_Science) for not being a RS.

The line in question:

• In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat.Current Science Article

This is obviously a reliably published science magazine with an editorial board. Perfect RS for the line. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• It has a full editorial board and has been in print since 1932. It seems reliable enough for that statement. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There is already an existing source to verify the statement. Current Science is a low grade low impact journal without peer review. There is no sign of quality control, the paper in question was accepted the very next day on being submitted; recieved 9th February 2008, accepted 10th February 2008. Current science is not a magazine, it claims to be a journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a borderline case. A couple of points to consider: (i) The paper is what the journal calls a "general paper" (i.e., broad discussion "of interest to readers outside the field"[43] rather than a research article or scientific correspondence. (ii) The journal's abysmal 0.78 impact factor speaks to its reputation in the relevant academic community. (iii) The fact that the paper was received on a Saturday (9 Feb 2008) and then accepted on Sunday (10 Feb 2008) is quite odd. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A peer reviewed journal is a good source to verify this statement.

(i) the line for which it is used as verification is not "a new concept or cutting-edge research", but only a (secondary source) remark about previously claimed results by a researcher in the field. A "general paper" in a peer reviewed journal is a good as a "journalistic piece" in a science magazine.

(ii) Impact factors a greatly overrated. The closest thing I could find in the policies is "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." I do not think that an impact factor can be directly translated to the reputability of a journal. Please also consider that this is a Indian journal, it is wrong to misinterpret "reputable journal" as "high impact factor journal", as it would push a "only big western/USA science journals count" notion. Furthermore, for the line that is verified this whole discussion about impact factor is irrelevant.

(iii) Well, we don't know what happened between the author of the article and the editor of the journal. Maybe for "general papers" a weekend is deemed enough time to review. To me the article reads like it could have been published in a science magazine as well. I don't know how long science magazines normally would take to proof read an article before publication. Be aware that your interpretation of this being "quite odd" is only one possible interpretation.

I do not think that, for this verification use, it is a borderline case. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Science magazines usaully have their own writers; it is NOT a science magazine, they don't even self-identify as a science magazine. There is no other possible interpretation of a review process that takes one day, it is most certainly out of the normal by any definition. It is only reliable for the opinion of the author, that is all. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You also deleted another reviewed paper from Current Science [44]. That paper was received 17 March 2006; revised accepted 18 August 2006. It is clear that Current Science has a normal peer reviewed process. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No it is not clear. Please provide some sort of evidence to back it up thanks. Someone on an editorial board looking at a paper is not peer review. They have poor editorial control if any paper is accepted after one day, one day just isn't enough time to do the fact checking necessary. There is also zero evidence that they engage in peer review. edit: What I would posit that occurs is a standard spelling and grammatical check but nothing more by the looks of it. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Current Science is a multidisciplinary journal and therefore research and review papers of general significance that are written clearly and well organized will be given preference. All papers, solicited and unsolicited, will be first assessed by a Reviewing Editor. Papers found unsuitable in terms of the overall requirements of the journal will be returned to the authors. The others will be sent for detailed review. Authors of these papers will be notified of acceptance, need for revision or rejection of the paper. It may be noted that papers once rejected cannot be resubmitted. Illustrations and other materials to be reproduced from other publications must be properly credited; it is the authors’ responsibility to obtain permission for reproduc- tion of figures, tables, etc. from published sources (copies of letters of permission should be sent to the editor)." [45] What is your next defense, that India is a country you don't like ?

Are you willfully ignorant? I specifically explained to you that someone on an editorial board looking at a paper is not peer review. Notice how the blurb you pasted does not mention peer review at all in any shape or form, ergo it does not have a normal peer review process. It is impossible for the process of submission, editorial review, finding a peer, the peer review and then a reply to the editor, subsequent corrections etc to take one day. Also at no point does it mention that the apparent "detailed review" will be conducted by a peer. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What part of "The others will be sent for detailed review." is it that you can't understand ? --POVbrigand (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• good source : Very relevant to that time frame. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Tax professor citing Treasury for FairTax

Resolved

 – Found original Treasury source (page 216) Selery (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this blog entry a reliable source for the statement, "the U.S. Treasury Department says a revenue neutral sales tax rate would be 64%, or 89% if high evasion is expected," in the FairTax article? Selery (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul Caron (the TaxProf) is not the source; Bruce Bartlett is the source, in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. If the statement is used, it should be sourced to Bartlett's writing, not Caron's blog. (Note that I am not addressing the suitability of the statement or the reliability of Caron's blog, only how this statement should be cited.) Horologium (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

So we have a blog quoting an editorial citing a statement by the treasury department? I'd say no, from the combination of the editorial and the number of hops required. If you can track down the actual statement by the treasury department, and it does say that, without requiring interpretation, or if you can find a Wall Street Journal article - not editorial - that says the treasury department says that, I'd say OK. From our article on Bruce Bartlett, he seems to be a rather polarizing figure, so I'm leery of taking an editorial from him as strictly reliable for something so obviously controversial. --GRuban (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Findmypast.co.uk

Moneysuch8 (talk · contribs) is replacing book sources with links to the index of this site. Actual details are hidden behind a paywall. Any opinions on how good a source this is? --John (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Commercial genealogical site != generally accepted as a "reliable source." Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Such sites usually have their information sorted by subscribers, effectively turning it into a user-generated source. Even if they are sorted by professionals, it's kinda WP:OR to say "this record is indeed about the person this article is about." Howard Eliott Payne, though not the most popular name ever, is not uncommon eough that we can conclude its the same individual, especially when it contradicts prior sources (unless more sources are found showing the first sources were wrong). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - nonsense. Users CAN NOT edit birth records for England and Wales. What are you talking about?!!?!? You're complete making that up - if you can log in, every record even has a scan from the birth register. Also, in regard to the original post - I replaced one book source as no editors are able to view that. Even if findmypast was all hidden behind a paywall, which you are incorrectly claiming, that doesn't make it any less useful than an autobiography of an artist very few libraries for example would ever have.

Moneysuch8 (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)}

And in regard to Howard Eliott Payne, it certainly is an uncommon enough name to use the service. There are few Howard Payne's born in England since 1970, and there is only one recorded for Liverpool whcih also has the middle name Elliot. An article from a website which likely sourced the information from Wikipedia itself isn't reliable.

Moneysuch8 (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't nonsense. Libraries have books which users can check for free. Books are generally better sources as they go through a fact-checking process. --John (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the claim that anyone can edit the England and Wales birth records on findmypast.co.uk. That is complete nonsense. Re your comment - official records are "generally better sources" than any book. Moneysuch8 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Moneysuch8, do not twist my words. I said "sorted," not "edited." Reread my original post in this thread.

Also, Google books keeps scans of most books. The insistance on using findmypast is starting to seem promotional... Ian.thomson (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Findmypast is partly behind a paywall. You can search for free, but if you want to see the primary records, you have to pay ([46]). It's not clear how much editorial oversight the owners of the site have over the data. I'm curious why Moneysuch is so interested in adding links to this particular service to so many articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Isee Ian Thomson is now stalking my edits. Creepy. And is repeatedly claiming that he has some consensus to revert my edits, despite the only response to this question prior to him giving it any attention was in support of using findmypast as a source. Claims that I am affliated are verging on delusional. It's clearly a reliable source, and I don't believe it's right that you are stalking my edits with no conensus backing you up. You've even reverted the edit to Kunal Nayyar, despite the fact there is only one Kunal Nayyar born in the UK at any point. And is also citing this discussion to back himself up that you can't use the site as a reference which is totaly incorrect.

Moneysuch8 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of stalking aren't appropriate in this forum. So, why are you focused exclusively on this website?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Because it's a great source for referencing birth details? And reverting every edit by someone, and using this discussions to pretend they have a consensus that you can't use findmypast as a reference is stalking. Is it acceptable for someone to revert all my edits, citing this discussion and claiming it is against using the reference - when that isn't correct and the first person to respond to it was in favour of it? Please answer me that.

Moneysuch8 (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you find any support for the source in this discussion except you? Can you find any dismissal of the points raised against the site, except your attempt to avoid the issues of WP:OR and user-generated sources? Again, you do not have proof that you have the records for the individuals in the articles. I'm simply removing instances of that source, and could only be considered stalking if adding a source to a site that profits from people visiting is all you are here for. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• (cross-posted to User talk:Moneysuch8)I'm going to step in here (as an uninvolved admin) and put down my foot. Findmypast.co.uk is behind a paywall; they require registration and payment for every single record they find which matches the searcher's criteria. I can assume good faith up to a point, but the combative attitude exhibited by Moneysuch8 exhausts it. There is more than a whiff of promotion going on here, and it's going to stop until there is a consensus that it is an acceptable source. Moneysuch8, if you add another link to findmypast.co.uk before there is a consensus that it meets our sourcing guidelines, you will find yourself blocked. Horologium (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems a good idea, Horologium.

Although there's no rule against linking to pay sites (if we know them to be reliable), it's much more helpful to Wikipedia readers to reference free sites (if we know them to be reliable) and books (which can be found in libraries). It's a very bad thing to remove other references and link instead to a pay site. Andrew Dalby 09:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• As an aside to the reliability of this site - I have access to it and it records 'date registered' for a birth not 'date born'. As with Noel Redding born on 25 December (Christmas Day) is unlikley to registered until the next year. Registration and birth date are not the same things. It also records the place the birth was registered. This not always the place of birth particularly with those born in large cities which have a registration office covering several districts--Egghead06 (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an important point. Moneysuch8 has been changing birth dates and places on the basis of this not-quite-relevant information. They may all need to be reverted. Andrew Dalby 12:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's taken care of. I was using his contribs page to find additions of the site. While it's used elsewhere, the additions I could find did not appear to be replacing older information but were the first source used for some information. While it would be better that another source be found, I didn't have time for that, nor the resources. Do we have a tag for "need better source," and some bot that could slap all instances of findmypast? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Would seem this site is again being used as a reliable source following changes to Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell - this time by an anon ip user!.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Mitch Mitchell, the information inserted disagrees with his Telegraph obituary (which says he was born in Ealing, not Greenwich). So I've edited, inserted what the Telegraph says, and cited it. We don't really know, I guess. Obituarists can make mistakes. But the Telegraph says born, not registered, so it is our normally-reliable source offering precisely the information we want, while findmypast is not. Andrew Dalby 15:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Amazon.com

In this sentence, "In November 2009 Comedy Central released the DVD of the show Gabriel Iglesias: I'm Not Fat... I'm Fluffy.", is a link to Amazon.com here on the BLP Gabriel Iglesias, considered advertising?

At first I didn't see there were some article related DVD information. A problem is that I did note that there were at least 30 instances of prices, a link to "shop all departments", a couple of "add to cart" links, and an "add to cart with free shipping" link.

It appears to me it is an advertising page with the sole purpose of providing information on how to buy the DVD mentioned in the article. In fact one of the two video links at the top of the page actually states, Own the DVD today.

The link was added back with only the somewhat strange "cite" in the edit summary, so I deleted it again with an edit summary including "see talk" and explained my reasoning on the talk page. The editor re-added the link and left talk comments that included, "The fact that the website is a vendor does not mean that therefore, WP:NOTADVERTISING is being violated. WP:NOTADVERTISING is only violated when the sole purpose of a given publication is advertisement. If the date of release of that video is thought to require a cite (and this itself is questionable, since the credits of any media, which include year of creation, can be used as that media's source), and Amazon provides the year of release, then Amazon is a reliable source for that information."

In my opinion the fact that a link to Amazon being allowed or not being allowed, because the site is a vendor, has nothing to do with the fact that the reference link, to the site in question, is used to support a very short and trivial promotional sentence about a DVD being released. The fact that there is some information concerning the DVD is compromised because this information is underneath a large amount of sales information. Comedy Central is being stated as the subject that released the DVD so there should be a more reliable link concerning the DVD. Otr500 (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Costa Concordia disaster

I would be glad if you would read my request for comment at Talk:Costa Concordia disaster#Do these contents constitute original research? and add your input. Thank you. Teofilo talk 14:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Victoria Institute

Victoria Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The early history of this institute is well-documented, particularly in Numbers' The Creationists. However after it falls out of the story of creationism in the 1920s, its history becomes very thinly documented. The only sources turned up to date have been a piece in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith and a less than satisfactory Google books fragment from 'World Evangelical Fellowship, Evangelical review of theology, Volume 15, p. 191'. We now have a representative from VI claiming factual errors in claims from these pieces: (i) that the VI's library and study center were destroyed in WWII (PSCF) & (ii) that its journal, Faith and Thought, ceased-publication/merged (both sources). On the latter point they are able to offer this as evidence that it is still under publication.

My own suspicion that the VI's modern history lacks sufficient "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content" (to use WP:N's phrasing) -- that any attempt to reconcile the sources would result in inevitable WP:Synthesis and that, due to the VI's reduced profile, we may lack sources with sufficiently intimate knowledge of the topic to be sufficiently reliable (i.e. they may be relying on hearsay and/or imperfect remembrance). If so, we may have to simply leave its modern history unsaid. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Gazeta Do Povo

I was wondering if someone familiar with Brazilian sites could tell me whether Gazeta Do Povo is reliable or not. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a major newspaper. Normally reliable, I'd say. Andrew Dalby 18:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ansumane Mane

Anyone have any thoughts on what is going on at this article? An editor has repeatedly removed two published sources for a YOB on the plain assumption that they "copy from Wikipedia". I'm sick and tired of this and an not going to edit war again, and this time, seek comment. – Connormah (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The person died in 2000, his supposed birth year was introduced in Wikipedia in 2005, and the only "reliable sources" you can find for this date are from after 2005. So you have two possibilities: 1) the Wikipedia editor had a reliable source in 2005 which has now disappeared, 2) there was no such source, and the newer sources simply copied the date from Wikipedia. I do not believe I have to proof that 2) is true, nor even that it is more likely than 1). The mere reasonable possibility of 2) is enough not to accept the post-Wikipedia sources. And it is in fact highly suspicious that no source should exist from during the person's lifetime or from the time of his death, yet years later sources just happen to appear after a date appeared in Wikipedia. I don't have to mention how all the most "reliable" sources have been caught many times copying errors from Wikipedia, so in general it should not be admissible to source any previously added information using a source dating from after it was already in Wikipedia. Mewulwe (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You forget the third option, the authors wrote and found out. Your WP:OR has no place on wiki, the sources are perfectly reliable. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrote what? Mewulwe (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrote to find out his DOB. What the hell did you think I meant. You may also wish to stop accusing BLP's of plagiarism. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrote whom? I didn't (and still don't) know what you meant, that's why I'm asking. And what BLPs? Where did I accuse a biography of plagiarism, and how is that even possible? You are not making much sense, and your tone is uncalled for. Mewulwe (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How about wrote to his family? Or the the registrar for births and deaths? You are accusing the authors of the sources you keep edit warring out of the article of plagiarism, so stop it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Any chance we can get some legitimate outside comment here? – Connormah (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

George C. Kohn and John Middleton are both published historians, authors of multiple books cited repeatedly in our articles; Thomson Gale and Facts on File are both reputable reference publishers. The fact that they confirm a fact that used to be in Wikipedia without a citation does not make them unreliable or the fact wrong. --GRuban (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Beside the point. No one disputes the sources are RS by the usual standards. But even the most reliable source is not to be blindly copied without using common sense. How can you know the fact is not wrong? We know RS have copied errors from Wikipedia before, and it is suspicious that the only sources for that date are from after it appeared in Wikipedia. As I said, I don't think I have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they copied the fact from Wikipedia; you would have to prove that they didn't, and you can't. If you disagree, tell me your estimation of the probability they copied from Wikipedia - surely it can't be zero - and then tell me your threshold of probability above which you would no longer use the source - is it only if it's 60% likely they copied from Wikipedia, or 90% or what? Mewulwe (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

On the main issue Mewulwe is right. Those two sources are what we would call "tertiary", and those two publishers have published bad books as well as good ones. We certainly shouldn't trust those books on a fact like this -- only slightly relevant to their ostensible subjects -- without knowing how the authors researched it. Very likely they did copy Wikipedia, though obviously we can hardly know it now.

The question is, what should we do? Perhaps there never will be a reliable source. I think what I would do is (a) to leave our question mark in the text and infobox, and (b) to add in a footnote the fact that these two books give a firm date and that they cite no source. Andrew Dalby 16:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think they're wrong? Wikipedia didn't invent the unreliable source, you know, if they had written the exact same thing they could equally likelily have gotten it from another unreliable source; why does it make such a big difference when we added the information to our article? In general, we don't ignore respected historians just because we wrote something first. If they had written a date that disagreed with what we had in our article, would we be having this discussion? If there were a specific reason to think they were wrong, that would be one thing, but I can't see treating anyone who happens to agree with us with greater suspicion just on that principle. --GRuban (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Bunt (community)

I need to know is wikipedia the fiefdom of User:Sitush he constantly removes citation on Bunt (community) page from people notable enough to have a wikipedia article like Edgar Thurston saying it is npov but keeps citation of a relatively unknown person called alagodi (which was added by him) who is not even an ethnographer but some christian priest.how can wikipedia allow this to happen.user sitush is too judgemental does not assume good faith when he reverts edits by other contributors please see his edits and comments on talk page.also i think he tries to own articles he edits.look people like me have a life outside so do most editors on wikipedia,so we cannot be on constant vigil and start edit wars.but sitush seems to have got all the time on earth to edit wikipedia.so probably he has assumed that he owns wikipedia.thank god he is not an administrator on wiki.please admins look into the matter.27.4.218.66 (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have specifically said that Alagodi and Thurston are separate issues. I agree that Alagodi needs to be looked into, but as far as Thurston goes, well, I've had a year of dealing with stuff by him and know what passes and what does not. You are conflating, as I have explained to you previously. - Sitush (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

who the hell are you to discredit Edgar Thurston completely.i need to believe your views on thurston just because you edit wikipedia for a year.so that means you own wikipedia.newbies can't edit !.27.4.218.66 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This should be taken to WP:RSN. Where, I expect, short shrift will be made of it given that Thurston was a scientific racist whose views, while of historical interest, cannot in general be used to establish facts for a modern encyclopedia. Not to mention that what he called research wouldn't pass for it today in terms of sample size, sample selection, or measurement. That being said, I'm well-known in some circles as a member of Sitush's cabal, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

why doesn't Qwyrxian comment on sitush's addition of alagodi's views.is he reliable,no wait who the hell is alagodi ?.i haven't even heard of him.and what the hell is this bs thurston views though of historical importance cannot be part of modern encyclopedia but some random fellow like alagodi's can be.27.4.218.66 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Because you haven't heard of them that makes them unreliable? As was suggested above, take it to WP:RSN. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

also thurston has been cited on wiki articles related to ethnicties like Iyer,Velama (caste),Paraiyar,Billava,Vadama,Koraga(which was ironically created by sitush) Vanniyar,Toda people,Kamma (caste) and the list goes on and on and on.now tell thurston can't be part of modern encyclopedia 27.4.218.66 (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, when I pointed you here it was because you appeared to want to complain about me - my methods etc. As others have said, you should take this to WP:RSN if your issue is merely the sourcing. - Sitush (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

issue is you sitush and your gang.not letting others edit.27.4.218.66 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the issue is that you want to use a source that violates our guideline on reliable sources (of course, that's my opinion, and I would accept a consensus at WP:RSN that goes in an opposite direction). I know nothing about Alagodi. I do know that Sitush has told you, rightly so, that these are two totally separate issues. If you think Alagodi is bad, take that to WP:RSN as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

thurston can't be cited only on the bunt page.other wiki pages can use him as a source? what logic.27.4.218.66 (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thurston died in 1935. This is very out of date scholarship and shouldn't be cited as fact on any articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Paper with no indicated publisher

http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/mai/alexanderlugg.pdf

This academic paper says that it was double blind peer reviewed and presented at a conference. I can't tell if it was published by an academic journal, but it's still an RS, right? It is on the Monash University Faculty of Arts page. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What do we know about the author? Was the paper written by an undergrad student? a PhD candidate? A faculty member? Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The paper's author is Alexander Lugg. I'm going to check the university site to see who he is. The first page says "This paper was presented to the 17th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia in Melbourne 1-3 July 2008. It has been peer reviewed via a double blind referee process and appears on the Conference Proceedings Website by the permission of the author who retains copyright. This paper may be downloaded for fair use under the Copyright Act (1954), its later amendments and other relevant legislation" WhisperToMe (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, what information is it intended to cite it for? --FormerIP (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun. The author has a personal belief that the entertainer's career is limited, and he has an explanation of why in the paper. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the staff directory at says: http://directory.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/staffsearch/staffsearch

• "Mr Alexander Lugg Org. Unit: School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics, Faculty of Arts Email: Alexander(dot)Lugg(at)monash(dot)edu No telephone details recorded in the Monash Directory Service"

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also it is a part of a larger event. http://arts.monash.edu.au/mai/asaa/proceedings.php says that it's the "Proceedings of the 17th Biennial Conference of the ASAA" WhisperToMe (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think generally conference proceedings are treated like journal articles because they still have to be reviewed and accepted, provided it can be certain that the paper was actually presented at the conference. If it wasn't then I'd say it's not RS; the reliability of academic research comes from the peer review process. Betty Logan (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Above, the conference paper says "It has been peer reviewed via a double blind referee process and appears on the Conference Proceedings Website by the permission of the author who retains copyright." WhisperToMe (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

At the time of the conference (2008), the presenter was a student (a Ph.D. candidate): [47]. "Double blind" is a weird (bordering on nonsensical) construction to use to describe a peer review process; perhaps the author simply meant that there were two referees, per the description of the proceedings? I'm a little concerned that the review was a straight yes/no decision—reviewers were not permitted to conditionally accept a submission, nor could authors revise their submission in response to reviewer feedback. This topic and conference are out of my area of academic experience, so I can't comment on how usual that sort of review is in that area; my fear would be that it would set a "not egregiously bad" minimum standard for papers.

Looking at the paper itself, it appears that the statement "[Qian's] future career prospects are limited" represents an inference or conclusion drawn by the paper's author, based on his own reasoning and opinion. It's a relatively small part of the overall paper, and I would be reluctant to believe that that particular statement was the subject of rigorous review. I would also hesitate to include it in our article unless the author has established a professional reputation for studies in this area beyond a single conference presentation. Finally, it seems a bit dubious for us to use a 2008 paper to describe the career prospects of a minor celebrity here in 2012. Such predictions are generally not required in a Wikipedia article. Not only can we provide a concise, neutral summary of the actor's film and television credits – thereby allowing our readers to reach their own conclusions about his career and prospects – but we now have four more years of hard information about the subject's career (including a 2010 feature film, which might seem to call into question the paper's glib conclusion). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. In that case I'll leave the citation out. Thanks for your help! WhisperToMe (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this particular conference but (a) double-blind peer review is the standard form of peer review, indicating that the authors do not know the reviewers and vice versa, and (b) it would be very unusual in my experience for a conference to allow "revise and resubmit" decisions by reviewers, likely because of the time commitment necessary for such decisions (by reviewers and authors). So those particular issues don't seem like issues at all and that they've been raised at all is a bit troubling to me. ElKevbo (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

ElKevbo: Some details of the conference are located at http://www.conferenceworks.net.au/asaa/about.php and http://www.conferenceworks.net.au/asaa/about2.php WhisperToMe (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's too far outside of my own discipline and academic interests for me to give an accurate evaluation beyond a general "Yeah, it seems to be a legitimate academic conference." You really need someone with relevant disciplinary knowledge and experience to give you a good answer. ElKevbo (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty - Where do you think I should look? Do you know anybody on here who might be able to answer the question? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that you've got enough here to satisfy WP:N which is the purpose of this noticeboard. If you want to go beyond that to find expert help on the content of the article, maybe you could start by looking for relevant Wikiprojects and asking for help there. Surely we have a few that focus on Asia. ElKevbo (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And as a general reminder: The next step is usually to consider WP:DUE; just because a source is reliable doesn't mean we should include it in an article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. The paper mentions that Qian appears in some other videos that are not currently listed at the Qian Zhijun article. The paper says that one of them heavily promoted the company Google WhisperToMe (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• I work in the Australian humanities system. The paper is reliable. Australian humanities conferences regularly require resubmission, in this case, the following standards applied, 3rd reviewer on 2 reviewer conflict. The conference paper is reliable. The author, as an academic expert in Chinese memes, seems appropriate to make a judgement on the enduring nature of the Qian meme. Reliable for use. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mike Royko columns on LaRouche

At Talk:LaRouche movement the following was cited as proving that Royko's columns concerning LaRouce are RS for the claims made in that article: [48]

Have the standards regarding BLPs been strengthened with regard to opinion columns being cited as "fact"? Has RS been changed regarding use of opinion columns as fact when dealing with named individuals, and named small groups? Does the earlier discussion become stare decisis as apparently claimed [49] ? If we were to discuss the issue ab initio, what would the opinions here from other editors state? Are the Royko columns presented not "opinion columns" at all, but straight factual reportage? (Example follows)

To fully appreciate LaRouche and his followers, you have to have had dealings with them. Which I have. A few years ago, something that called itself Citizens for Chicago took a frenzied dislike to Jane Byrne and began selling posters of her that bordered on the pornographic. I became curious and looked into Citizens for Chicago. Its leader lied and lied, but I established that it was one of the many LaRouche front organizations. When I wrote a column exposing it, their response was to distribute handbills and posters claiming that I had undergone a sex change operation. That didn't bother me, since I had evidence to the contrary. But they somehow tracked down the address of my assistant, a female reporter. They managed to get into her high-rise building and find her apartment. And on the doorknob they left one of their handbills. On it was drawn a bull's-eye. And there was a message. "A warning," they said. "We will kill your cat." So let us hope that the primary is the last election this crowd wins. If not, no cat will be safe 2 WINNERS FROM THE TWILIGHT ZONE; Mike Royko. Chicago Tribune : Mar 20, 1986. pg. 3

Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously reliable. Review Mike Royko. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As fact? As opinion? For BLP purposes? No one is saying Royko is not known - but are his columns to be accepted as reportage in the usual sense of the word? what? Collect (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the reliable source noticeboard. You've asked if a source is reliable. It is. I'm sorry that's not the answer you were looking for. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, unless you are discussing Royko's opinion of the LaRouchies. Royko was a columnist, not a reporter, and he was expected to have a point of view, rather than simply report the facts. LaRouche is still alive, and WP:BLP still governs his article, and using an opinion column to assert facts is not appropriate. Horologium (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Royko was, in addition to being an opinion columnist, an experienced journalist, biographer, and Pulitzer winner and his work is backed by a reliable, long-standing institution with experienced factcheckers. It seems reasonable to rely upon his work for statements of fact. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider the excerpt posted above thus to be absolutely and simply a recitation of fact? Or might one reasonably assert Royko placed opinions therein quite notably? I would note Will is asserting that this discussion has reached a decision that Royko is a reliable source for "fact" about LaRouche utterly and that he "was not an opinion columnist". Collect (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction: I was referring to the last RSN thread on this exact same issue. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47#Mike Royko.   Will Beback  talk  19:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hermann's rendering of Ebert's colorful Windy City colleagues and friends-particularly legendary print journalists Mike Royko and Studs Terkel-are especially engaging.
  • Audio Reviews Publishers Weekly 258. 48 (Nov 28, 2011).
• It's still easy to get lost on Lower Wacker, a street under streets that still boasts the Billy Goat tavern, a favorite hangout for journalists of old (including Mike Royko), though I never did find the third level known as Lower Lower Wacker or the Lowest Wacker.
  • IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN Fishman, Jane. Savannah Morning News [Savannah, Ga] 07 Aug 2011: F.1.
• The late Chicago journalist Mike Royko used to run and judge a rib-cooking fest at the end of summer in Grant Park.
  • Full Slab Epstein, Joseph. The Weekly Standard16. 12 (Dec 6, 2010): 5.
• City News was organized a century ago by several newspaper publishers and closed in 2005. It was known for rigorous training of young reporters, including Mike Royko and Seymour Hersh.

Six counties in 60 seconds Anonymous. Daily Herald [Arlington Heights, Ill] 04 Sep 2009: 21.

• A dimly lit cheeseburger joint may not be everyone's choice, but fans of that dwindling medium known as the newspaper will love the old photos and the memorials to legendary journalists like Mike Royko.
  • Seeing Chicago by Taxi, With a Venetian Twist: [Travel Desk] Working, Russell. New York Times [New York, N.Y] 30 Aug 2009: TR.8.
• I published a book about the great Chicago journalist Mike Royko, who was an authority on Chicago hot dogs.
  • WHAT'S IT TAKE TO GET A GOOD CHICAGO DOG? Moe, Doug. Wisconsin State Journal [Madison, Wis] 24 Dec 2008: A.2.
• For Driscoll, 51, Royko remains the archetype of the acerbic, hypercritical "Western" journalist. "I grew up reading Royko and how he was always giving Mayor [Richard J.] Daley a hard time," Driscoll said. "That, to me, was the way journalism was supposed to be. That was it at its best."
  • Royko fan fights for free Iraqi press Hood, Joel. Chicago Tribune [Chicago, Ill] 21 Feb 2008: 2SSW.1.

And so on. I could post a hundred more citation in which Royko is called either a "journalist" or a "legendary journalist".   Will Beback  talk  18:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice - but "opinion columnists" are indeed "journalists." 1.The activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television. covers a very broad range. Royko did assuredly write for newspapers, and wrote a syndicated column labeled "commentary" by others. A journalist contributing regularly to a newspaper or magazine is a "columnist". Being a "journalist" does not make the person's opinions into "fact". Collect (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC) [50] Mike Riyko, Opinion columnist. Etc. Collect (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, but no cigar. Royko is indeed reporting facts here, not opinion. As a very experienced investigative journalist, he is a reliable source for the facts he reports. In fact, I'd go so far as to label him one of the most reliable sources there is for the seamy side of Chicago politics. Personally, I didn't care for Royko, his opinions and his politics, but I trust his journalism. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Royko material should stay. He's a perfectly reliable source for the statements made. Binksternet (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

New York International Independent Film and Video Festival

Is this a "major" film festival such that winning an award at it makes a film notable per WP:NFILM #3? I argue that it is not; not only does the guideline name awards like an "Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes...major festivals such as Venice or Berlin" as the standard, of which this festival falls far short, NYIIFVF is particularly questionable because it's generally acknowledged as a scam. Multiple independent sources describe exorbitant entry fees, acceptance of submissions based on what filmmakers can pay rather than on quality of the film, large number of categories such that nearly every entry (again, entries are not accepted based on quality) wins an "award," and in general a festival that caters to people who can't get their films screened at any reputable festival. In short, I argue that NYIIFVF would probably not fulfill the criteria of a "major" award anyway, but the fact that you are essentially buying an award rules it out completely. The other user argues that it is "major" because it has its own distribution company and magazine and, according to its promotional material, has screened films of notable people, and also that it is notable and therefore reliable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confrontation at Concordia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. Do you have any reliable sources to verify what you're mentioning? Why I ask is because I see sites like the New York Mayor's office which list this festival. That is enough to qualify on our NFILM benchmark, which is just supposed to be a secondary qualifying benchmark. Academy awards et al are mentioned in the guidelines just to clarify that they should not even be questioned. Wifione ^Message 16:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Among others, IndieWire (the independent film industry magazine), the Village Voice (I can get it in LexisNexis - it's from November 1997 and called "Fest and Loose"), and the Las Vegas Mercury. Can you clarify what you mean by "secondary qualifying benchmark"? I ask because users at this discussion are responding to my pointing out that it lacks reliable sources by saying that it won an award so it doesn't need to have reliable sources - which is questionable to begin with, since, as I said, this is not a "major" festival like those described in the guideline and also is essentially a pay-for-your-award service. It's "an expensive talent showcase, where artists are asked to pay for the opportunity to show their work." We don't accept Xlibris, Lulu, and other print-on-demand books as sources, and this looks like a similar deal. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • None of the sources you mention confirms that the festival allows its awards to be bought. It may not be the best festival, but is it the worst? Do correct me if I've missed something in the citations. A 'secondary qualifying benchmark' means that if a film has won a film award, there would be in general other, multiple, reliable sources for the film. So, having won an award is simply a saving grace during an AfD. But in repeat AfDs, if there have been no other reliable sources added still, then there's quite some weight to the argument to delete the article. Wifione ^Message 19:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear that it was a figure of speech. If entries are accepted solely on the basis of what the entrant can pay (per sources), and if "awards" are almost guaranteed to any entry because of the large number of awards available relative to the number of entries (also per sources), that's pretty close to putting down money for an award; I don't think the award can literally be bought. I don't think the festival would have to be "the worst" in order to disqualify it as a major award - just as the perfect is the enemy of the good, so too is the worst the enemy of the bad, I suppose. Again, take a printed source as a comparison: Edwin Mellen Press isn't as bad as Xlibris or Lulu, which are literal print-on-demand services, but its reputation in the relevant circles is as a vanity press with no editing/fact- or quality-checking where people take their books if they can't get them published with a real publisher. Re: award as sole source for notability, I wish some of the commenters at the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confrontation at Concordia) thought the way you do! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I understand what you're mentioning. Unfortunately, till the time you provide references that confirm awards can be bought, this festival should qualify on our awards guidelines as we've deliberately not set any standard on this issue. Re: the secondary benchmark, the footnote in the guideline by the side of the awards sub-point already contains what I mentioned. You could perhaps ask them to see the footnote and question why there are no other multiple reviews of the movie despite it having won an award... Do you think that would help? Wifione ^Message 22:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I've already provided references that amply demonstrate that this is not a reputable festival, and the guideline as it currently exists doesn't indicate that it would do even if it weren't pay-to-play. This is not Cannes or Venice... as for the folks at the AfD, some haven't even responded to my comments about the festival so I don't know what good it would do. I'm not one to vote at an AfD and then abandon it to the four winds but everyone's different. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you point out which one of the sources you cite say you "buying an award", or something close to it? I don't see it. Jeff Song (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This piece in Digital Producer (second page) is the most direct about it, but source after source states it's pay-to-play, that it's not a real festival, and that most of the films are rubbish ([51], Village Voice, [52], [53], [54]) and the founder is explicit about the fact that they don't care about the quality of the films. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• In addition to all the other negative comments about the NYIIFVF that have come up in this discussion, I note that the festival is specifically singled out by the Internet Movie Database as a festival for which screenings do not qualify a film for listing in the database. [55] It is not even close to being a "major" festival within the meaning of WP:NFILM #3. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll disagree. Your link provides evidence only to the extent that films are accepted for screening in the NYIIFVF film festival on a mass basis. This does not provide evidence that awards can be bought. Till the time there's a clear, valid, reliable link that proves that awards can be bought, NYIIFVF qualifies easily on the standard we've included in NFILMS. The standard was not meant to restrict awards to major film festivals. The standard is a saving standard; in other words, in case a movie has won an award at a film festival, there is a good probability that reliable sources would exist that have reviewed/covered the movie. We're not talking about screening of films (and those are a dime a dozen in NYIIFVF); it's about getting the award. Wifione ^Message 05:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• An alternative - on the talk page of NFILMS, provide reference to this discussion, list out all the sources and request that NYIIFVF be explicitly excluded from the awards notability criteria. Let's go by consensus there. Do you think this suggestion works for you? Wifione ^Message 05:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm referring specifically to the quote in Digital Producer which says "I mean surely the prizes can't be bought (throw in that buzzer one more time) WRONG! I started to watch a film and literally had to leave, it was so bad and -- you guessed it -- it won an award." But yes, bringing it to a more specific place could be a good idea, although the films wikiproject might be better than NFILMS as being more watched. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That quoted bit is perfectly clear to the reader who is expected to understand sarcasm. Combined with the other negative sources, I would have to say that the festival cannot be used to help Wikipedia recognize a film as notable enough for an article about it. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

External Link

Hello, I have a conflict of interest in placing an external link on a Wikipage because I am the webmaster for the website. The subject Wikipage is dementia I write articles and give advise on behalf of dementia care workers and associates on the subject of dementia. Many of the articles are written by dementia care workers and then put onto the site by myself. We have very good knowledge of dementia with hands on experience from people who have worked with sufferers of dementia and other related disease for many years. I believe that we can add great value to Wiki with the website that we want to provide the link to. The domain name is www.dementia.co.uk I believe that we can provide information on the subject of dementia as good as any other website that has been given an external link on the dementia page. I have raised the issue on the dementia talk page but have been asked to raise the subject here. Thankyou for reading John cordingly (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This looks more like a case for Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard which deals specifically with links. Siawase (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks John cordingly (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Falklands

Is this http://www.everyculture.com/Cr-Ga/Falkland-Islands.html RS for the claim that there is evidacnce of Indian settlement on the falklands as it does not seem to me to be anything other then 'just some website'.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Likely a major copyvio from somewhere - the exact same language (the part I used was "The terrain is mainly hilly to mountainous grassland. Shrubs abound, but there are no native trees") is found on two other sites. (try it on Google if you wish) Source is likely Ember's "Countries and their Cultures, Vol 1". Not RS as a result. Collect (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Hindawi a RS publisher for this content?

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.

Not reliable for proposed use, per WP:MEDRS

• I am closing this as the discussion is moving towards the exclusion of RS/N editors, and the discussion is avoiding answering of the RS/N question, due to a general discussion occurring. As a long standing RS/N editor I have recently closed a number of disruptive discussions of a similar kind.
• Editors are reminded that if they wish to see outside opinions from RS/N editors, then they should not continue conversations from other forums on RS/N
• User Granateple is reminded that contributing too much to a discussion damages the quality of that discussion
• Editors reminded that RS/N is for discussing specific issues of reliability, not general discussions of reliability
• Editors reminded to follow RS/N procedure as listed at the top of the page—this includes the discussion being focused primarily on the specific instance for reliability, not a general discussion of reliability
• Editors are strongly reminded of WP:IDHT and the disruptive nature of multiple contributions in an IDHT mode
• Hindawi published journals have a presumption against them, due to their academic publishing model, but specific requests for RS/N investigation are required before a journal, article, use on an encyclopaedia article, and fact can be ruled out
• Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism ISSN 2090-0732 has as presumption against its reliability for medical articles
• Anderson and Taylor (2011) "The Metabolic Syndrome and Mind-Body Therapies: A Systematic Review" in Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism (2090-0732) is not reliable for claiming that Transcendental Meditation has "demonstrated blood pressure-lowering effects similar to primary antihypertensive medications" as:
  1. The publisher is not a fit place to make medical claims relating to blood pressure (as opposed to nursing), for the reasons outlined in discussion: "(ii) by a commercial publisher that is on a watchlist for possible predatory vanity publication by virtue of producing a large number of journals without an adequate editorial staff to undertake the review that it claims to be doing, and it noted for spam solicitation of content; (iv) that is not listed on MEDLINE; (v) is not listed on ICMJE; (vi) is not listed on CSE; and (vii) concerns an article outside the scope of the publication"
  2. The publication is not reliable to make the claim that Transcendental Meditation has "demonstrated blood pressure-lowering effects similar to primary antihypertensive medications" as the review is a review of "A systematic review was conducted to critically evaluate the data from clinical trials examining the efficacy of mind-body therapies as supportive care modalities for management of the metabolic syndrome.", the claim arises from only one study (Paul-Labrador), and thus is a republication of a single study result and not a reviewed finding. Republication of a primary source's claim does not make that primary source secondary.
  3. For valid potential claims arising from this article, within the scope of its claims, see the conclusion, "In light of the important role … this paper highlights the need for such trials of mind-body therapies with regard to the management of the metabolic syndrome, given the relative absence of such studies in the literature, as well as the mechanisms of action involved in mind-body therapies." These valid nursing medical claims contained in an appropriately published review article are a long way from the extraordinary claim derived from the Paul-Labrador study, that has not been appropriately medically reviewed alongside sufficient similar studies to make any such claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

---

I've moved a general comment from here to dealing with a specific source and publisher, Hindawi: Is this a reliable source for this content?:

A 2011 independent systematic review reports the same findings and says that randomized controlled trials on TM have "demonstrated blood pressure-lowering effects similar to primary antihypertensive medications". This review said that research on TM "supports the potential clinical effectiveness of mind-body practices in improving indices of the metabolic syndrome".

• Article: [56]

• Article discussing Hindawi:

[57]

• Discussion from medical librarians

[58]

• Hindawi: current impact factor...2.35

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Open_Access_Journals_and_related_issues as this involves a specific issue with WP:MEDRS. Attempting to "move" the discussion here looks like forum shopping. Fladrif (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a suggestion to move that discussion here. As well I am asking for input specifically on one source rather than a more general discussion about open access Thanks.(olive (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

That source and a number of others is already under discussion, and your move comes after the initial comments at Project Medicine were unfavorable to your advocacy of those sources. The comment you refer to was that the issues created by "open access" journals are not confined to medicine alone, but the issue at hand is whether the particular open access journals being cited as sources meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS Fladrif (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It was my suggestion to move it here, as it was not a medicine specific question. Forum shopping doesn't enter into it. The question raised there was too general for that venue. To reformulate: "Are pay-to-publish open access journals intrinsically unreliable sources like vanity press books?" This is a question that to my mind is worthy of some guidance in wp:RS. Further, I think that guidance should be nuanced, and should also solicit input from wp:WikiProject Academic Journals. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

edit conflict

Fladrif. I am, as I said, referring to a specific source rather than a general discussion and this is the proper NB for that as was pointed out by an uninvolved editor in the discussion you are referring to. Further, I am not interested in your assumptions about my motives. If editors here feel this discussion is of no use they don't have to comment. I note that your post not only did not refer to a single source but attempted to trash all of the sources in one article which as far as I can tell isn't the way get neutral comments or to deal with content and sources in a specific way. I very clearly pointed editors here to the more general discussion.(added link later, apology). I also posted on the TMR article talk page to notify editors working on this of my post. Did you do the same? (olive (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

I find your arguments convincing, User:olive. And Fladrif: There is no shame in admitting you are on thin ice regarding Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Granateple (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful in trying to generalize a discussion of a publisher with all the journals that they publish. For example, Elsevier is generally reliable as a publisher, but it publishes journals that would not be generally considered reliable for general medical information (such as Homeopathy). If there is specific questions about specific journals, they should be discussed separately. I think a general discussion about pay-for-publishing is an important discussion, but any discussion about the underlying specifics should probably be discussed separately so that we don't muddle the discussion. Yobol (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes. I agree. This post is in reference to a specific source rather than being a general discussion.(olive (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

Good point, Yobol Granateple (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yobol is spot-on with that observation. Each journal should be considered on its own practices, publishing houses are rarely in a position to trump the editorial decisions on a month-by-month basis even if they do have some sway over the selection of editors-in-chief. Indeed we would not want them to have that kind of control. One strong indicator for biomedical journals is whether or not they appear on the list of Journals Following the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. The Uniform Requirements is a set of best practices collaboratively crafted over many years by the ICMJE. Neither the Journal of Nutrion and Metabolism nor Homeopathy are on that list. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Further, the Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism which is the particular Hindawi publication in question, not indexed for MEDLINE [59] and the particular article at issue "The Metabolic Syndrome and mind-body therapies: A systemic review" [60] would seem to be either outside or at most on the periphery of the scope of the publication, raising a red flag per WP:MEDSCI, and has been cited exactly once.[61] Fladrif (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

”Nutrition and Metabolism” (academic journal): Not currently indexed for MEDLINE, but all of their articles are listed on PubMed.

ICMJE lists “Acupuncture in Medicine” and “Pharmacognosy” (herbs), but not Nature medicine, Cell, or Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Sometimes we eat (Nutrition) and something happens (Metabolism). Granateple (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS there are multiple ways of judging RS sources so while an indicator might be inclusive it cannot be exclusive as long a there are multiple ways of identifying reliable sources.

"The Metabolic Syndrome and mind-body therapies: A systemic review" is on the periphery of "Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism"? I don't see that reasoning.(olive (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

MEDLINE indexing is a very low bar to clear for sourcing on medical articles. That the title has the word "metabolic" in relation to the syndrome doesn't make clearly related. The journal website says their content is "focused on the integration of nutrition, exercise physiology, clinical investigations, and molecular and cellular biochemistry of metabolism"; outcomes research on "mind-body" techniques seems somewhat outside that limited scope, as it doesn't have anything to do with nutrition or biochemistry/metabolism. These issues, plus the pay-to-publish problems, seems to make this a less than ideal source. Yobol (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Stress can cause high blood pressure. Some people find meditation relaxing. What’s the big deal?? Granateple (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the topic in general, this is a place to discuss whether the source is reliable. Please refrain from further distracting the discussion with off topic discussion. Yobol (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's try not to confuse Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism ISSN 2090-0732 with Nutrition and Metabolism (London) ISSN 1743-7075 or Nutrition and Metabolism ISSN 0029-6678. That said, being open access leads to full-text carriage of the former pub in PubMedCentral, which diminishes the rationale for PubMed indexing. Lack of PubMed indexing in such cases should not reflect discredit on the journal, rather the reverse.

Clearly I should have been more explicit. We were not discussing long-established journals (such as Cell, Nature, etc.) which are so prominent that they are widely known to most readers. We are discussing new-minted, relatively low-circulation journals known to few. Indeed, the ICMJE list could reasonably be put alongside the list of Member's Journals of the Council of Science Editors as being presumptively credible journals. That list does include Cell, Nature, and Journal of Clinical Oncology. The [World Association of Medical Editors resource list] also has some useful linkages. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification regarding the different nutrition journals, much to digest!

Everything we do affect our biochemistry and metabolism: walking, a discussion on Wikipedia, meditation, having sex, thinking, sport activites etc. This is called catabolism. “Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism” is published by the respected Hindawi Publishing Corporation. The Editorial Bord is unfortunately full of peoples connected to universites around the world.

The question whether this particular review belong to this particluar journal or not, that’s a side track. It could have been published in another journal, if it got through the peer – review process, but I find it unlikely that the topic (a bit uncommon) fits that many journals.

Since we unfortunately have to pay to get published in academic journals these days, that’s also a side track, as I perceive it. Granateple (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has to pay to have their work published in quality journals, they merely have to pass the peer review and editorial process in place to select those articles worthy of publication. The incentive for journals like Nature to publish only reliable articles lies in their need to maintain their reputation. In contrast, Hindawi and its stable of pay-to-print publications have no reputation for the quality of their articles, being hardly ever cited in other mainstream publications. They actually have an incentive to publish anything of whatever quality since they are paid for that. The journals simply do not display the reputation for fact-finding and accuracy that is required for a Wikipedia WP:reliable source, let alone the high quality expected of any source making a medical claim per WP:MEDRS. They have no place in this encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the meaning of "pay to publish" in this context? It's entirely normal for reputable journals to assess page charges. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

RexxS: I find your opinions interesting, but also one-sided. Perhaps not for you, but many people have to pay to get published these days. This also has to do with the gradual change from traditional journals towards open access – journals. And I think it is fair to assume that Hindawi must think about its reputation, and that the peer – review folks have some self-respect. But the business aspect also holds true: publications becomes ever more numerous and specialized. And when the first sentence in WP:RS read “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered”, then I think you are a bit too harsh when you say that Hindawi and their journals (have a look at them and the content) have no place in this encyclopedia. We accept news sources and medical information resources. As a matter of fact, I find your opinions not very convincing and also unscientific. Granateple (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that RexxS's information seems incomplete. Especially in the sciences, many highly-respected journals make page charges, so in effect the author (or the author's research funding) pays for publication. It's always been the case, ever since the 15th century, that notable authors sometimes pay to get notable work published. Andrew Dalby 14:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Granateple, I find your badgering of everyone who comments at this threat troublesome. A question was brought here for outside opinion and you need to let other folks offer that opinion without you intervening on every comment you don't agree with. We heard you the first six times, and you have nothing new to offer other than repeating the same mantra about the reliability of Hindawi and their journals. The truth is that although some respectable journals may make charges, not all of them do, and that is a world of difference from a unknown publisher such as Hindawi actually having a business model that relies on accepting payment-for-publication in the same way as a vanity press does for books. Hindawi journals have no reputation and are almost uncited among the mainstream. Those are the key issues: their business model is merely the reason why they have no reputation. They have no place in any serious article or in Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm criticising myself (see above) as well as others: too many criteria are being thrown into the pot here if the real issue is one sentence from one paper in one journal.

The way to see whether that paper is worth citing is whether other reliable publications elsewhere have cited it. If none have, the authors' view may still be well worth citing if their other work is regularly cited elsewhere. If these are borderline issues, we may still think it's worth citing their view with an in-text attribution to their names. If the paper and the authors are never cited elsewhere, we should forget them and look for a different source. Andrew Dalby 19:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

”The impact factor, often abbreviated IF, is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to articles published in science and social science journals. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field, with journals with higher impact factors deemed to be more important than those with lower ones.” (source: Wikipedia)

We obviously have different kinds of mantras.

Clinical and Developmental Immunology, impact factor 2.263. Mediators of Inflammation, impact factor 2.059. PPAR Research, impact factor 2.727. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, impact factor 2.964. Journal of Nanomaterials, impact factor 1.675. Comparative and Functional Genomics, impact factor 1.361. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, impact factor 2.468. Advances in High Energy Physics, impact factor 1.846.

The impact factor for these journals are not of the highest, but at the same time not too bad. To say that this research doesn’t belong in Wikipedia, that I find peculiar. Granateple (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be emphasized that the Impact Factors for open access journals are almost certainly inflated because they are open access (indeed the main selling point of these open access journals is that they will inflate the coverage). That these journals only have mediocre Impact Factors despite being open access says much. Agree with RexxS that we should be using better sources. Yobol (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion and as such editors may discuss, oddly enough. So far there is a lot of information here from everyone and the environment is pleasant. I hope we can continue that way. Thanks.(olive (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

From what I've seen so far, the main problem with Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism is common to any new journal. It is new. This means it hasn't developed a readership and its articles (whether good or bad) are not seen much by experts who might otherwise spot their strengths and weaknesses. It is quite normal for new publications to take five years before even an impact factor is assessed. Open Access journals grow a bit quicker than paid-subscriptions, but it still isn't instantaneous. We have wp:NODEADLINE. We can wait a few years to see if citations appear in the existing journals. Otherwise, the experts' silence will have spoken. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have informed WikiProject Academic Journals about our discussion. Perhaps they will give us their opinion? Granateple (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a list of "predatory" journals here, which mentions Hindawi on a secondary "watchlist" of journals that are not as predatory but still somewhat questionable, and a lot of discussion about Hindawi specifically in the comments. (Note that I don't consider the posterous link to be a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense, but I still think the previous discussion of the same issue there could be useful for informing our discussions here). My own impression of the Hindawi discussion from that source is that they do publish some (many?) reliable journals but that it might not be appropriate to give a blanket assumption of reliability to all of their journals. I have no opinion on the specific journals concerned in this question, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, David. This is an interesting piece of information and it might indicate a problem. However, what do you make of this article [62], and this discussion [63] (pasted from above).(olive (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

Thank you, David Eppstein.

olive: I think you should be allowed to use your review about relaxation/meditation and high blood pressure in the Transcendental Meditation article. The clinical findings are straightforward and would have amused the violinist Albert Einstein. Perhaps the journal is not reliable enough to be used as reference in the “Hypertension” article, but for the TM article I think it is okay. If it belong somewhere, it must be there. Now I withdraw from this discussion, and I wish you good luck. Granateple (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you input Granataple: I guess the best thing to do would be to wait a bit more time until posts stop coming in, but I'm not attached to this source.There are many good secondary sources that can be used. I just want to make sure that if we decide to not use this source it is for the right reasons and that those reasons are neutral. There has been a lot of good input here and that's great .(olive (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

olive: I think you should not use your review about relaxation/meditation and high blood pressure in the Transcendental Meditation article. It is not published in a journal that meets our standard of reputation for fact-finding and accuracy. If it's not reliable enough to be used as reference in the “Hypertension” article, then it's not reliable enough for the TM article either. The reasons for not using it are founded in WP:V WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, rather than in Granateple's belief that if they repeat something often enough, somebody might believe it. It really is beyond a joke that the editor engaged in the earlier discussion, lobbying for the inclusion of that source, and has now posted 9 times in this request for outside views on the reliability of a source. How is anyone supposed to draw any conclusions with this sort of interference? --RexxS (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but that comment doesn't make sense to me. The reason we're at this NB is to get input on whether the review does in fact meet our standards. The allegation was that because it was open access or pay to publish it could not be reliable but there are multiple comments here that indicate that may not be the case. Fladrif suggests this is a vanity press and that doesn't seem to be the case,either. I've also linked to an article and to a discussion that indicate the journal may be well regarded. So in my mind right now we have a draw. I'd like ton see what David Epsteinn has to say and then see what any other editors have to add. At that point I feel I and the other editors on the article can make an informed decision. I'm not attached one way or the other and I 'm not in a rush to push this with out good information which I feel we are getting. Thanks for your opinion and comments.(olive (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

A draw? I have given a number of reasons and other uninvolved editors have offered additional reasons why this is not a reliable source aside from it being pay-for-play, and I have read not a single reasoned argument by any editor as to why this journal and this article would be considered a reliable source. If I may summarize, yet again, the comments that have been made here: this is (i)an obscure, low-impact, relatively new journal (ii) by a commercial publisher that is on a watchlist for possible predatory vanity publication by virtue of producing a large number of journals without an adequate editorial staff to undertake the review that it claims to be doing, and it noted for spam solicitation of content; ((iii) which charges authors for publication; (iv) that is not listed on MEDLINE; (v) is not listed on ICMJE; (vi) is not listed on CSE; and (vii) concerns an article outside the scope of the publication,raising a red flag under WP:MEDSCI. While there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether an open-access journal that charges authors publication fees is an automatic disqualifier as a RS, there is not a single uninvolved editor who contends that this journal and this article would qualify as a source for an article on medical research per WP:MEDRS. The single uninvolved editor who originally stated that the publisher is respectable and could be used has now conceded that this source should not be used in a medical research article. Neither of the articles you linked to concern this particular journal. I would say the matter is settled conclusively that this source is not a RS and not compliant with WP:MEDRS. Fladrif (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Arabs in Turkey

A number of users insist on including a reference putting the number of Arabs in Turkey at more that 8 million, 10 folds more than US and Turkish estimates. Is this source reliable enough to be included?

• [64]

Compare with [65] and [66].--Rafy talk 02:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously the Turkish source you cite talks about Turkification (see the Kurdish part). The population of Hatay province alone is 1.4 Million of which two-thirds were Arab according to your "US source". Another article puts the number of Arabs (only native speakers) at 365,340 and Kurds at 2,219,502 as of 1984. If we use the numbers from Turkey which show 15.7% of the population is Kurdish, with the same proportions (given that Arabs and Kurds live together in the same areas) from 1984 we will get 2.6% as the Arabic native speaker proportion (equivalent to 1,905,216 people). Again, this only considers native speakers knowing that many Arabs have lost their language during successive Turkification campaigns. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This noticeboard should only be concerned with the claims found at http://www.turkiyearaplari.org. Other issues can be discussed at the talk page of the article.--Rafy talk 21:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing for a claim of prophecy

1. Is a claim of prophecy (whether or not given in Wikipedia's voice) an extraordinary claim, and thus subject to WP:REDFLAG?
2. Is the claimant's own writings, published by the publishing company he founded, an adequate source for the claim?

• The article is Calvary Chapel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (History section)
• The claim is:

While Chuck Smith was still a member of a denominational church, he claimed that a prophecy came to him in which the Lord said to him that He was changing his name. His new name would mean "Shepherd" because the Lord was going to make him the shepherd of many flocks and the church would not be large enough to hold all of the people who would be flocking to hear the Word of God.

• The source is: Smith, Chuck & Tal Brooke (2003) Harvest. pp. 23. ISBN 0936728426, The Word For the Today Publishers, www.twft.com

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think REDFLAG is the issue; Wikipedia has hundreds of pages related to religion in which we somehow manage to cover exceptional claims in a neutral way. I was going to respond that the question was why we considered some guy's self-published stuff important enough to include in an article, but then I double-checked and some guy is the founder of the article subject, so it should be fine. Ideally the article would be based primarily or entirely on coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources so as to ensure due weight, but it's not inadmissible. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• The article does not state that a prophecy occurred. The article states that someone said he had received a prophecy. This is hardly extraordinary, but rather happens quite commonly in certain religious circles. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Trying to take the two questions in a straight way.

• 1. Of course not. It would be REDFLAG if WP treated the prophecy as true, and reliable sources did not.
• 2. A prophet's own words would be good enough for the words of the prophet, for example if the prophet had a blog. But there are sometimes questions about whether interviews, blogs etc are really those belonging to the person whose opinion is being cited. As long as that is not an issue, no problem.

...but obviously this begs the question. Notability is much more likely to be an issue. And notability for a prophecy involves not only the prophet but also people who believe him or her.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be noted that the initiating editor has withdrawn the point on the original talk page. Perhaps this thread is ready to be closed? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Deutsche Presse-Agentur at Monsters and Critics

While Monsters and Critics itself, to my knowledge, isn't an RS, this news story about Qian Zhijun is credited to the Deutsche Presse-Agentur. So, is it alright if I use this link right away, or should I try to find an alternate URL or a print source with the same information? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I see the same story hosted on rawstory.com WhisperToMe (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Call of Duty Wiki

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Call_of_Duty_Wiki

Is this a reliable source for gaming or Call of Duty related subjects, particularly about stuff in-game?

Anonyma Mädel (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, wikis and other user-generated content are never reliable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Health Science Journal (f/k/a ICUs and Nursing Web Journal)

In the Wikipedia article Transcendental Meditation research, an article published in the Health Science Journal[67] is cited twice as a source. Health Science Journal, formerly known as ICUs and Nursing Web Journal is a 5-year old, online-only from Greece the Technological Educational Institute of Athens. In stark contrast to most scholarly journals, it sells advertising. [68]. It carries a rather striking disclaimer as to the reliability of the information contained in the articles it publishes:

The information at this website is provided with the understanding that the publisher, authors, editorial board members and experts are not rendering nursing, medical or professional services. Nursing is a rapidly changing science, so efforts are being made to provide update information that is professionally correct through the review of the recent bibliography and the use of approved quantitative and qualitative research methods. However, there may be mistakes both typographical and in content, and subsequent findings may invalidate what is posted on this journal. The material provided should be used only as a general guide and not the ultimate source of information and should not be used to make personal or professional decisions. The authors, editorial board members, experts and the publisher shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by the information presented in this journal.

It is not listed or indexed on MEDLINE, PUBMED, ICMJE or JSE. One would need a microscope to see its impact factor.[69] The purpose and focus of the publication is nursing, but more specifically, ICU and critical care nursing. [70]

The specific article being used as a source is Varvogli, L and Darviri, C, "Stress Management Techniques: evidence-based procedures that relieve stress", Health Science Journal Vol 5, Issue 2 (2011) p74( [71] The article summarizes ten stress-management techniques, one of which is Transcendental Mediation, with a description of the History/Origins, the Method/Pathophysiology, and claimed Results/Benefits, with extensive footnotes to various primary and secondary sources for each technique. The ten methods were selected because they are taught in the authors' programs or used in their own research. (p 81)It concludes that all ten techniques "are effective treatment methods for reducing stress and anxiety....improve the quality of life for patients and in many cases contribute in the reduction of disease symptoms" It further concludes:

However, the literature shows that there is a need for more extensive randomized control trials of the aforementioned stress reduction techniques in order to establish their usefulness in the prevention and management of disease. There is also a need to include more biological measures in order to quantify symptom reduction and investigate the pathophysiological mechanisms connecting stress, disease and health. (Ibid)

The purpose for which the source is being used in the Wikipedia Article is in stark contrast to the conclusions of the paper itself that more extensive randomized control trials are needed and that there is a need for more biological measures to quantify results and investigate the mechanisms involved. The editors using this source are instead cherry picking from the narrative description i the TM section, then using that to bootstrap primary source studies that the authors are simply reporting on rather than analyzing or comparing to other studies:

Reviews in 2010 and 2011 reported a 2009 study by MUM and American University researchers on 298 college students that found decreased blood pressure in the TM group that was associated with a reduction in stress and hostility, and an increase in coping.

According to research reviews, a retrospective, non-randomized study that examined the health care utilization records for over 2,800 subjects in Quebec found that the 1,400 subjects in the TM group needed less health care after learning TM, whereas the control group’s need increased. These preliminary findings "suggest the potential for decreased usage and costs among patients using TM."

___

I have raised this issue at the talkpage for the article with input only from the two involved editors advocating use of the source.[72] I do not think that this journal has acquired a reputation and acceptance which would qualify it as a source under WP:MEDRS The sale of advertising and the prominent disclaimer raise a red flag for me. The scope of the article would appear to be outside, or on the periphery of the focus of the publication raising a concern under WP:MEDSCI. The use to which the source is being put, to bootstrap primary sources being reported on but not analyzed by the authors, where the authors conclude that there is a need for more careful randomized control trials, is an improper use of the source.

The closed discussion above regarding Nutrution and Metabolism[73] would appear to be instructive, though there are distinct issues involved.

Assessment and comment by uninvolved editors would be appreciated.

Sorry for the length of this request.

Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My objections to this source mirrors the objections I had to the other source in the other thread above; namely, not MEDLINE listed and publication of material outside the area of usual content of the journal (in this case nursing). Probably should be finding a better source. Yobol (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Original paper"

I removed this reference:

Daniel Dady (2010). Harmonic and Subharmonic Distortions in Musical Interpretations (PDF). Daniel Dady.

from the article on Subharmonic, and wrote on the talkpage: "I have removed the references to an "original paper" by this photographer. Unpublished original research cannot by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as a WP:Reliable source." The ref has been restored to the article by an IP editor. Time to ask for some input from others, see if anyone agrees or disagrees. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a self-published source. The author is not "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" See WP:SPS. A quick search of Google, Google Books and Goodle Scholar shows no books or papers produced by him on this or any other subject matter published other than on his own website. Thus, it is not a reliable source, and your removal of it was entirely correct.Fladrif (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to the same place as the author of the paper. Definitely doesn't meet the sniff test. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Self published books

• Criticism of Meher Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) relies heavily on self published books by one author:

• Shepherd, Kevin R D (1986). A Sufi Matriarch: Hazrat Babajan (Cambridge: Anthropographia Publications) ISBN 0950868019
• Shepherd, Kevin R D (2005). Investigating the Sai Baba Movement: A Clarification of Misrepresented Saints and Opportunism (Dorchester, Dorset: Citizen Initiative) ISBN 0952508931
• Shepherd, Kevin R D (1988). Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal (Cambridge: Anthropographia Publications) ISBN 0950868051

Whilst this would normally make me think they are not reliable, I checked WorldCat and they are held by a fair few academic libraries. Does this mean anything, regarding how reliable they are?

There are also a few books published by this publisher which "aspires to help bring forward a new, creative universal outlook that embraces and transcends divisions of east and west, north and south, believers and nonbelievers. We invite wisdom and good humor from all directions to help you formulate your own individual wisdom—to stimulate, not to dominate, what must be a creative, individual process." - Are they reliable? SmartSE (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hum. A little Googlery reveals that (a) Shepherd appears to be self-taught, and to apparently lack academic credentials, and (b) there have been run-ins with him (and/or his supporters) in the past over the question of his notability etc - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd. In any case, the answer seems to be that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, his works are unlikely to meet our criteria as reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Digressions about sockpuppetry and user talkpage comments Fladrif (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
AndyTheGrump, your brief comments imply a lot without saying much, and then you jump to your hasty conclusion. I'm afraid that where clarity is required, "a little Googlery" is not sufficient. There is indeed a history to discussion of Kevin Shepherd on Wikipedia, which goes all the way back to 2006, when an editor calling himself SSS108 questioned the reliability of Shepherd's books on the Talk Page of the Sathya Sai Baba article. Given the extreme controversy surrounding the latter, it is not surprising that a heated edit war was in progress, and one of Shepherd's books (Investigating the Sai Baba Movement) became the focus for this due to the stance he had taken on Sathya Sai Baba in Appendix One. Editor SSS108 was subsequently banned from Wikipedia. The last time I was involved in this was when an editor calling himself WikiUserTalk made me the subject of a sockpuppet investigation in February 2010. WikiUserTalk created his account on 7 February, and ceased to edit on 13 March, just before the sockpuppet investigation concluded in my favour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Simon_Kidd/Archive). By the way, another editor contributing to the discussion (with whom I had no previous contact) referred to the investigation in terms of harassment of myself. At the time of the sockpuppet investigation, editor DGG was asked for his opinion on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG/Archive_37_Feb._2010#Simon_Kidd_.26_Kevin_Shepherd). I draw your attention to the following passages in particular (emphasis added): "Self-published sources can be used freely in general (a) to document the views of their author, and (b) as sources for non-controversial routine facts about the author. Whether they can be used otherwise depends upon special cases. The two possibilities of interest here are, first, if the author is very well known and widely accepted as an authority in the subject, his postings or informal are usable for many purposes -- Shepherd is not anything near sufficiently accepted as an authority for his postings to be usable; second, if the particular work involved has a reasonable degree of acceptance in the subject -- his books, not his postings, are in a number of academic libraries, and I think sufficient to indicate that they are regarded as worth considering. There's a general factor to consider: the overall nature of sources in the subject. As I indicated in an earlier response, most sources in this general subject, with the exception of a few widely regarded works, are less than satisfactory; very few of them are independent either of the desire to promote the subject, or the desire to denigrate the subject. Some otherwise unsuitable ones are however acceptable as showing what the legends about the subject say, or what he is reputed to have said (which is not quite the same thing as what he actually said). At some times, all we can do is achieve the balance of opposing unsatisfactory sources. Actually, quite a bit of the world is this way. Sources are not reliable vs. unreliable -- they are of varying degrees of reliability. We use the best of what we can get. The above is I think either generally accepted at Wikipedia, or in my opinion ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC) "I removed the unpublished web source already removed as an EL, from within a reference in the Shirdi Sai Baba article. I see no point to continue this discussion here. I have given my opinion clearly enough, or at least as clearly as I am able to. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)" Following more comments from WikiUserTalk, DGG concluded: "For I believe the third time: in my opinion, judging by the usual external criteria that I know how to apply as a generalist librarian, his published books are in an intermediate zone, considerably more acceptable than many of the other sources in the article. If nothing else, Marianne Warren demonstrates that herself, for she takes his views seriously enough to comment on them. It is very common in Wikipedia to try to dismiss a view one does not like by finding some reason to reject the sources supporting it. I have frequently seen sometimes successful attempts to call certain sources inadmissible, when they are in such an intermediate zone. I think this misunderstands the nature of evidence, for nothing is absolutely reliable or unreliable for all purposes. The insistence that his books cannot be used is just as lacking in balance as the attempt to use his website as if it were a published book. My opinion was asked and has been given: the initial positions of neither side were correct. The other party here has accepted this, but you have not. Anyone who looks at this further can use what I have said as a basis for understanding the issues to the extent that they choose. The article talk pages would be the place for further discussion for those who wish. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)" I note that the editor calling himself SmartSE (who has initiated this inquiry and who has been involved in discussions about Shepherd in the past) has also invited DGG to give his opinion on the subject again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG#Self_published_books). In my opinion, DGG was right to draw attention to the "less than satisfactory" nature of "most sources in this general subject". After all, if you look at the references in the Meher Baba article, you will find that over half (9 out of 16) of the books are published by organizations with connections to Meher Baba: Sufism Reoriented, Sheriar Foundation, Avatar Foundation, Manifestation. I'm sure that an analysis of other NRM articles would tell a similar story. As for Shepherd being "self-taught", as a teacher and someone who has been involved in education in one form or another for many years, I could write volumes on this subject. I will refrain from doing that here, but merely observe that I would have thought that you would have had some sympathy for an "autodidact" (to use the term that you apply to yourself in the sidebar on your user page, and as someone who "believes that one should never stop feeding one's brain"). After all, Wikipedia itself is a testament to the fact that amateurs can successfully learn and apply the critical apparatus usually associated with academics. Simon Kidd (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I think that DGG should be asked to respond here himself, rather than having others quote him (we don't know the context). As for sockpuppet allegations etc, they are irrelevant to this discussion. And finally, yes, you are right, there is nothing wrong with being an autodidact - but what matters for our purposes is whether a self-taught expert on a subject receives recognition for his/her expertise (as, indeed, is - or should be - the case for academics). I'd therefore ask for evidence of this recognition to be provided. Looking at the 'Criticisms' article itself, it seems rather strangely constructed, and rather more about Brunton than about Meher Baba - I have to ask whether it is actually encyclopaedic at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I would be happy for DGG to offer his opinion again, although I note that he has many demands for attention. In the text I have quoted above, he did say: "Anyone who looks at this further can use what I have said as a basis for understanding the issues to the extent that they choose." As for the article itself, I didn't create it but I have been working to remedy its defects (see the Talk Page, especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Meher_Baba#Keep_the_article_and_make_it_more_encyclopedic). Simon Kidd (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Btw I would like this issue (the reliability of Kevin Shepherd as a source on Wikipedia) to be resolved once and for all, as I thought it had been after DGG's comments last time. For me (a full-time teacher with two children, who can only contribute to Wikipedia occasionally), that it should come up again is an immense waste of time. When I'm on Wikipedia, I'd rather just do some editing. Of course, the process of deciding the issue is itself far from satisfactory, since it is not transparent. In other words, a negative outcome here may be more a reflection on Wikipedia than on Kevin Shepherd. Simon Kidd (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Just as an aside, can you explain what you mean by 'not transparent'? Are you suggesting that anyone is discussing this issue elsewhere, in secret? If so, I'd like to be told where this is going on, as I'm not involved... AndyTheGrump (talk) I would be happy to explain. The process is not transparent for the following reasons. First, and foremost, the contributors to the process are usually anonymous. In most cases, no one knows who anyone else is and what their credentials are. Now, anonymity may be regarded as a good thing in Wikipedia circles, but it does cause certain problems. This leads to your other question. I am not suggesting that anyone is discussing this issue elsewhere, but I am pointing out that there is no way of telling whether anyone is. There is no way that you, or I, or anyone else on Wikipedia can tell whether there are editors trying to influence the outcome of a process. That in itself is a lack of transparency. Second, the Wikipedia guidelines themselves are often complicated, ambiguous and difficult to interpret. They have evolved over time and often require judgment in their application. Such judgment was demonstrated, I believe, in the comments of DGG quoted above. Notice how Fladrif has said below that "the answer is simple", and yet DGG said "sources are not reliable vs. unreliable - they are of varying degrees of reliability" and "nothing is absolutely reliable or unreliable for all purposes". Fladrif doesn't seem to have absorbed DGG's comments at all, which makes me wonder whether he has even read them. Of course, when you combine these two things (guidelines requiring judgment, and contributors who are anonymous), you have a situation where the anonymous editors can use the ambiguity to their advantage. This is most likely to happen in relation to controversial subjects, where there are often sectarian interests (DGG also noted this). The discussion of Kevin Shepherd on Wikipedia has been in controversial contexts since the beginning in 2006. You say that you are unaware of secret discussions. Perhaps you are. The rest of us have to take your word for that. You ask to be told if there are such discussions, but that is a rhetorical statement. If such discussions were taking place, why would the participants tell you? It is this complex of issues that I describe as non-transparent. Simon Kidd (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC) WP:SPS is straightforward and has a simple test for whether a SPS may be used or not. I have great respect for DGG's analysis, which I read thoroughly before posting, and, notwithstanding that it was something posted on his talkpage and not part of a discussion on RSN, largely agree with it. It is a well-reasoned,careful and nuanced analysis of how a SPS may be used, once a SPS has met the threshold test for inclusion. My own reading of the situation is that this is a simple case, because these sources do not meet the two-pronged threshold test of WP:SPS. Positing conspiracy theories is not helpful. I have no dog in this fight; I have never posted on any article or talkpage related to this subject-matter, and know less than nothing about it or any controversies that may be attached to the subject matter. I have never discussed anything with any other Wikipedia editor off-Wiki on any subject, and have pointedly declined to do so on the few occasions several years ago I have been asked to do so. I am simply offering, as a frequent contributor to RSN, my impartial and unbiased analysis of whether the sources at issue meet the threshold requirements of WP:SPS. Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Fladrif, thank you for your candid statement, and I accept your words as genuine. I am also pleased that you have such a high opinion of DGG's nuanced take on this. I would ask you only to take into account my latest posts below, and also the guidelines on Statements of opinion. Simon Kidd (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The answer is simple. These are self-published sources. Thus, we go to the second question, is the author recognized as an established expert who has been previously published in the relevant field by reliable, third party publishers. My takeaway from the RFD about the author is that the answer to that question is that (i) there is no reliable, third party source establishing recognition of his expertise in the field, and (ii) he has not been published by reputable third party publishers, only in vanity press publications. Thus, he meets neither prong of this two-prong test, and these books do not meet the requirements of SPS. Fladrif (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting a book published is not a very high bar to jump over. Self publishing just shows effort on the part of the person doing it. The only thing I have seen which might give them any sort of usability in an article is that someone else has commented on them. If other people had referenced them to some extent that would show they were recognized but no evidence of that seems to be around. At the moment I really can't seen any reason for saying the books are a reliable source. So agree fully with Fladrif. Unfortunately as editors in Wikipedia we can't just go around recognizing just anything we like as reliable and there's already an awful lot of trash which is counted as okay, putting the bar even lower would increase the proportion and amount of rubbish to a quite unmanageable extent. Yes the occasional gem is lost but hopefully someone will recognize them eventually. It's not our job to search for such gems, we are not qualified to do that. We depend on others to find them. Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq, you say that "no evidence ... seems to be around" that others have commented on Shepherd's books. Really? No evidence at all? Where did you search? How about the following: (1) Marianne Warren, PhD, in her Unravelling the Enigma: Shirdi Sai Baba in the Light of Sufism (multiple references); (2) Antonio Rigopoulos, The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi (multiple references - go to the Google Preview and search for "Shepherd"); (3) an Encyclopedia of Hinduism (listed in the "further reading" sections for the articles on Meher Baba and Sai Baba of Shirdi); (4) Anne Feldhaus, Images of Women in Maharashtrian Society, page 264; (5) a German Encyclopedia of Theology, Theologische Realenzyklopädie, page 547. As DGG said (quoted above): "his books ... are in a number of academic libraries, and I think sufficient to indicate that they are regarded as worth considering". Finally, I agree that Wikipedia editors can't "go around recognizing just anything we like as reliable", but in saying that you subsume all Wikipedia editors in the same category. I am a Wikipedia editor with a background in the Humanities and Philosophy for over twenty years; I have worked in academic bookselling (Shepherd's books were sold in the main academic bookshop in Cambridge, where I worked for four years) and publishing; and I have actually read Shepherd's books. Combined with the evidence above (that specialists have cited Shepherd and that his books are in a number of academic libraries), am I not in a position to judge whether his books are reliable? As is clear from the extensive Bibliography in his Meher Baba: An Iranian Liberal, Shepherd had access to documents that would not be found elsewhere in the archive. So yes, I am using my own experience and expertise to recognize the books of this author as "gems" that have a role to play in the contribution to knowledge. Simon Kidd (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As the originator of the article, may I simply state that in another book listed in the Bibliography, namely Meher Baba’s Early Messages to the West, edited by Ward Parks, that when Parks writes on the subjects of both Paul Brunton and Rom Landau there is the acknowledgement that (a) “Though no devotee of Meher Baba and a sharp critic of Meher Baba’s follower’s, Kevin Shepherd turns his critical eye on Brunton’s account, in Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal (Cambridge, England: Anthropographia Publications, 1986), pp. 146–76; and (b) “For a review of Landau’s assessment of Meher Baba, see Kevin Shepherd, Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal, pp.176–82. If a book produced by a publishing house (Sheriar Foundation) devoted to Meher Baba is prepared to accept the writings of Kevin Shepherd, a non-devotee, as valid contribution, then I certainly have no reservations in including his account of the background to Brunton’s and Landau’s criticisms of Meher Baba in the article. --Stephen Castro (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

We cannot accept the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, no matter how informed, as to the expertise and qualifications of an author; we must rely upon independent, reliable, third party sources for that. If we are to accept these various references to some of his books in third party sources, some of which are incidental, others of which are more substantive, and at least two of which strike me as indictments of his scholarship, rather than endorsements (Warren writes While most of his arguments concerning Sai Baba’s Sufi connections are strong, he provides very little corroboration from the Sai Baba literature itself. For example, there is no evidence that he read Dabholkar’s Sri Sai Saccarita nor that he knew Marathi or the Maharashtrian Bhakti tradition. In fact, no bibliography was given with his monograph. and Shepherd is very opinionated in this book. For example he summarily dismisses Narasimhaswami as an opportunist, whose only interest was in elevating himself through writing the biographies of holy men., and Rigoupolis writes that Shepherd surprisingly seems to ignore the existence of the latter's major contribution...which he never mentions), we are still left with the second prong of the requirements of WP:SPS, that he have been previously published by independent,reliable third party publishers. I am under the impression that he has not been published by a reliable, non-vanity press. If that is correct, SPS unequivocably bars use of these self-published books. That his self-published books are cited, or sold in academic bookstores, or on university library shelves, does not permit us to ignore the clear requirements of WP:SPS. Fladrif (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fladrif, you are cherry picking from Rigopoulos and Warren, both of whom are scholars who appear in the 'Further reading' section of the Sai Baba of Shirdi article. Shepherd wrote two books that deal directly with the subject of Shirdi Sai Baba. The earlier of these (Gurus Rediscovered: Biographies of Sai Baba of Shirdi and Upasni Maharaj of Sakori, 1985) was described by Rigopoulos as “a ground-breaking work” (The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba, p. xxvii); and Marianne Warren declared that “Shepherd was the first author to question this Hindu bias and to redefine the broad ‘Muslim’ category … most of his arguments concerning Sai Baba’s Sufi connections are strong.” (Unravelling the Enigma, p. 15). That they had criticisms of Shepherd is not unusual in a scholarly context, whether or not those criticisms were justified. In his 2005 book, Investigating the Sai Baba Movement, Shepherd addresses the critical comments by Rigopoulos and Warren (the Index contains 39 page references to the former, and 25 to the latter). It should also be borne in mind that both Rigopoulos and Warren were devotees of Sathya Sai Baba, and would not therefore have been sympathetic to Shepherd's critical comments about their guru. Warren later changed her opinion about Sathya Sai Baba (see what she wrote in this letter, for instance, including her comments on Rigopoulos).

We are actually going over old ground here, as many of the relevant points were made when WikiUserTalk (clearly an SPA) questioned the reliability of Shepherd as a source almost two years ago. He even brought up the Warren comment about the bibliography, to which I responded. See the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upasni_Maharaj#Kevin_R_D_Shepherd_as_a_source. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that commonsense is required here rather than attempting to uphold an interpretation of the letter of the “law.” Wikipedia is based on guidelines, not laws, and each case should be judged on its merits. In my own ongoing research into the subject of Paul Brunton, and to a lesser extent Rom Landau, I have found nothing that contradicts what Kevin Shepherd has written. In fact, a recent letter from Paul Brunton to Meher Baba, which the latter wrote in December 1930 shortly after he had left the Meherabad ashram and commenced on his travels in India, has only just come to light, and that letter fully substantiates Shepherd’s writings on the subject. See (http://mymeherbaba.com/pipermail/tavern-talk/Week-of-Mon-20110718/000863.html). The commonsense approach to Shepherd’s books has already been stated on this page. Simon Kidd’s quotes from the experienced editor DGG surely need to be seriously reflected upon. Wikipedia is concerned with knowledge, and unless what Shepherd has written on the subject of Brunton and Landau can be proved as unreliable by the objectors on this page, then I feel that his books should be accepted as a reliable source in the article. --Stephen Castro (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your "own ongoing research" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion - see WP:OR. And no, 'objectors' don't have to 'disprove' anything: the relevant guideline is clear: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - WP:USERGENERATED (emphasis in the original). If we are to ignore the guideline, we need to see arguments based on something other than original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment. I think the criteria for what counts as a RS in this area is somewhat more flexible than in many others, and self-publication is not as strong a reason for total rejection as it might be elsewhere. Some of Shepherd's books are in reputable libraries, and there have been citations of his work. I'd never use his works as sources for BLP, and I've argued in accord with the consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd that he is not a notable author. But the material here does not depend solely or even principally on him, he usually seems to be only a supporting source, often for what has another citation also, and I think they are usable in the context of the article under discussion. But I've never had occasion to look at Criticism of Meher Baba before, & I think it a clear POV fork, POV based, non-neutrally written, with the over-extensive quotation of of material that to a considerable extent belongs elsewhere. About 80% seems devoted to not Meher Baba, but Brunton, a rather less significant figure. So I don't think it matters much whether these books are used for this article: the article has much worse problems. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The situation here is reminiscent of the perennial debate about Joe Baugher [74], a hobbyist who has apparently become an expert on airplane registry numbers, whose website is widely used as as a reference in publications, but who has never himself been published by a third party publisher within the area of his expertise. My own take is the same has here - WP:SPS requires more. Others contend thatWP:SPS should be relaxed, because Baugher is the best source available and there is no alternative source. It would appear that there is either an impasse or a detente about that issue in those articles, with Baugher continuing to be used as a source, and people continuing to complain about it. I take it that there are probably other, better sources available in this instance, so that same kind of argument may not be applicable here. It would seem that if there are other sources of higher quality, those are what should be cited in lieu of these. Fladrif (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the view that if normally reliable sources sources can't be found for a topic we should lower the standards to use whatever is available. If the only good sources on a topic are self-published, or otherwise inadmissible, then we shouldn't cover that topic.   Will Beback  talk  07:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The argument "Some of Shepherd's books are in reputable libraries" (DGG above) has no value. If you self-publish, it's part of your self-imposed job to get your book into libraries. You often do that by direct-mailing the libraries you consider most visible and useful to you, and often by giving them copies of the book. Andrew Dalby 10:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but that is only part of DGG's point. Are you saying that NO self-published books should be used as sources? And what about books that are published by organisations associated with a religious leader? As I said above, if you look at the references in the Meher Baba article, you will find that over half (9 out of 16) of the books are published by organizations with connections to Meher Baba: Sufism Reoriented, Sheriar Foundation, Avatar Foundation, Manifestation. I'm sure that an analysis of other NRM articles would tell a similar story. Are these dubious sources that should be excised? What would happen to these articles if that happened? The most extensive biography of Meher Baba was written by one of his disciples, Bhau Kalchuri. It is in five volumes and published by Manifestation. A book written by a disciple and published by an organisation linked to the Meher Baba movement! And yet, the Meher Baba article has GA status. How do we apply the Wikipedia guidelines in cases like this? Simon Kidd (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Are you saying that NO self-published books should be used as sources?" If I was saying that, I made a poor stab at it :) Andrew Dalby 16:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of RSN is to solicit input from disinterested editors Fladrif (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As another example, consider the articles on Sai Baba of Shirdi and Upasni Maharaj of Sakori, both associated with Meher Baba. First, both articles use Kalchuri as a source. The Upasni Maharaj article also uses the four-volume Talks of Sadguru Upasani Baba Maharaj, edited by Godamastu and published in Sakori by Shri Upasani Kanya Kumari Sthan. The Shirdi Sai Baba article (which also has GA status) uses Dabholkar's Shri Sai Satcharita, published in Shirdi by Shri Sai Baba Sansthan; Bharadwaja's Sai Baba the Master, published in Andhra Pradesh by Sree Guru Paduka Publications; and Narasimhaswami's four-volume Life of Sai Baba, published by the All-India Sai Samaj (an organization of which Narasimhaswami was the President). Simon Kidd (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Contrary to the use of Shepherd's references, the references from Kalchuri's "Lord Meher" in the biography articles of Meher Baba, Upasni, Shirdi Baba and elsewhere do not refer to his personal opinions but strictly and only to historical recorded facts. kalchuri composed the biography by using diaries kept by other disciples who were on the field and recorded the happenings daily without including any comments or personal opnions. These diaries are also available publically. Hoverfish Talk 13:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Hoverfish, have you actually read any of Shepherd's books? And what you say about Kalchuri is absolutely not true, since anyone can see that Kalchuri's work is replete with his own (devotional) interpretation of events. I have been studying Kalchuri all afternoon as I work on the Meher Baba's critics article, and I merely have to look at the page I have open at this moment (Volume 5, Page 1609) to see the following: "These comforting words were a consolation to his lovers. They had no idea yet that, in any event, the whole burden of humanity's suffering fell on Baba's slender shoulders, as he possessed universal mind." This is not a "historical recorded fact". There are many other examples. You do make a useful point, however, which relates to the point made by Fladrif above, that "if there are other sources of higher quality, those are what should be cited in lieu of these" (i.e. Shepherd's). There are several points to be made in response to this. First, there is some truth in it. Shepherd relies on accounts of eyewitnesses to the events, including Kalchuri and Purdom. But his books are "critical", in the sense that they cross reference the sources. In fact, he is very forthcoming about his sources. His Selected and Annotated Bibliography in Meher Baba: An Iranian Liberal is 48 pages long. It is subdivided into Teaching and Biographical sections, and then there are sections on Periodicals, Diaries, Correspondence and Oral Sources. This brings me to a second point. At an early stage in his life, Shepherd had connections with key figures in the Meher Baba movement (see his Autobiographical Reflections). It is clear from the correspondence section of his Bibliography that he has a sizeable collection of correspondence, some of it unpublished. Similarly, his oral sources include people like Adi S. Irani (Meher Baba's younger brother, who lived in London from 1956) and Delia De Leon (whom Shepherd interviewed at her home in Richmond, London, in 1966). So Shepherd has primary source material, much of it unpublished. Surely that in itself makes him a significant source. Third, where he expresses them, Shepherd's opinions are his own, and his own books can be taken as reliable sources for his own opinions (see Statements of opinion). Therefore, I would say that if there are multiple sources for a historical fact, and they do not contradict one another, then it would make sense to take the earliest source. But where it is a question of interpretation, of authorial opinion, then Shepherd's self-published books are reliable sources for his own opinion. As far as I am concerned (and this is my own editorial practice), statements of any author's opinion, self-published or not, should be prefaced with qualifiers such as "According to (author) ..." Furthermore, Shepherd's opinions are highly informed ones, sometimes informed by unpublished primary source materials. Perhaps this is why Rigopoulos and Warren gave such serious consideration to his books. Simon Kidd (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC) What I said is not that Lord Meher does not include Kalchuris opinions and emotional expressions, it is full of them. What I said is that we do not include references here to anything but reported historical facts. The main editor of Meher Baba's biography article, User:Nemonoman, has gone over each and every reference, especially since, at the time, he was being closely checked by User:Jossi, whom you know well, and they both made sure that all the references are exclusively about facts. On the contrary the refs given here are full of Shepherd's evaluations and opinions. But my argument is off subject here, as do not have enough knowledge of the rules to talk about reliability of sources. I merely added this note about the way the sources are used in the articles involved, because as far as I can tell, these references are simply promoting Shepherd as a writer or specialist or whatever here and I find this unacceptable. Hoverfish Talk 15:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Ok, then allow me to add a question. How did Nemonoman and Jossi make sure that "all the references are exclusively about facts", given that Lord Meher has gone through a process of translation and retranslation, from Marathi or Gujarati into Hindi and then into English? Shepherd has a lengthy endnote on this in his Investigating the Sai Baba Movement (pp. 265-8). I can't include all of it here but, referring to Lawrence Reiter (editor of the second edition of Lord Meher), he writes: "He has observed that Kalchuri has compiled and edited in the Hindi language sources that were written in other languages. Those sources include Behli J. Irani's unpublished biography in Gujarati, and the diaries of Dr. Ghani, Ramju Abdulla, F.H. Dadachanji, and Kishan Singh. Kalchuri's Hindi was subsequently translated into English by an Indian hand (Feram Workingboxwala), and afterwards edited by Reiter." In his preliminary Erratum to Vol. 17, Reiter says that "errors have inadvertently occurred in the collecting and retelling of stories" and that "in translation there will be errors, not only in content but also in meaning". I noticed myself today (in Volume 5, page 1612) that Rom Landau is described as Italian, whereas he was in fact born in Poland of Polish-German parents. And that's not the only factual mistake I've come across recently. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Looking into this, I found this rambling entry, evidently written by Shepherd, detailing (among many things) his issues on WP and elsewhere online with harrasment by User:Joemoreno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User:joe108 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User:SSS108 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User:Andries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), involving articles at Robert C. Priddy, Sathya Sai Baba and related wp:RFA. Warning: beware of wp:outing. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC) For another perspective on this, see the following entry from Barry Pittard's blog: Brian D. Steel Updates References To Kevin R.D. Shepherd Writings (Brian Steel is a Wikipedia editor). Also, Guru’s Partisans Banned From Editing Of Wiki ‘Sathya Sai Baba’ Entry, in which he refers to Shepherd as a "rational, competent, independent British writer". Simon Kidd (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Well I had a look at the references that Simon Kidd provided. Two seemed to definitely not consider Shepherd to be a expert in the field as far as I can see and one did. As to Simon Kidd being an expert that is irrelevant. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources of anything, that's why reliable sources are needed. So from the one that does seem to recognize Shepherd there is a small indication that they are okay for use but I would certainly agree with others that if better sources are available use them. If there is good evidence the author was involved with the subject then they can also be used as a primary source I'd have thought. Dmcq (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Well, I certainly wouldn't apply the term "expert" to myself! There are, however, degrees of familiarity with this field of study. And it is a field in which the standards of evidence are more akin to those in the Humanities than in Science or Mathematics. DGG was getting at this when he said that sources are not "reliable vs. unreliable -- they are of varying degrees of reliability" and that Shepherd's published books are "considerably more acceptable than many of the other sources in the [Sai Baba of Shirdi] article". A lot of the arguments above claim that this is a simple case, but I am arguing that it is not simple, and this is why DGG's verdict is so significant. As for Shepherd being an "expert in the field", perhaps Dmcq could substantiate his claim with supporting evidence in the form of quotations. Otherwise the rest of us are in the dark. In my opinion, the word "expert" here is moot. Are we talking about academic expertise? As a matter of fact, I don't think that there are many academic experts in this small corner of the NRM field, which would go some way towards explaining the difficulty in finding references to Shepherd's books. As I pointed out above (and as DGG indicated), many of the sources in Meher Baba and related articles were written by devotees and published by organizations associated with the subjects themselves. Even Rigopoulos and Warren, although academics and published by mainstream publishers, were devotees of Sathya Sai Baba. I wonder how many people have absorbed what Warren says in the letter published here (which I already posted above). For one thing, she admits that she had been "caught in a 'Cult'" when she followed Sathya Sai Baba. But she also says: "Even Rigopoulos was not discriminating enough in his book on Shirdi Sai, accepting Sathya Sai's pronouncements as gospel". So Rigopoulos, an academic whose book, The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi, was published by a university press (SUNY), is criticised by another academic for taking his guru's pronouncements on the subject of his book (Sai Baba of Shirdi) as gospel truth! Should we now strike Rigopoulos out as a reliable source on Shirdi Sai Baba? I would argue no, but we need counterbalances provided by people like Warren and Shepherd. It's a pity that Warren died before she was able to publish the book she refers to in her letter. So again I would just like to point out that it is my familiarity with this field that makes me aware of these complex factors when I'm editing (and also enables me to bring them to people's attention on this page). Actually being familiar with Shepherd's books, for instance, allows me to point out (as I did above) that he possesses unpublished primary source material. How many other people in this discussion would even be aware of that? I am not so bold as to claim that my word should be final. I just want people to be aware of all of the evidence before they make up their minds, and also to consider the complexities of evidence in this area and that judgment is required in the application of Wikipedia guidelines. People with sectarian agendas will, of course, always be biased, but I implore those of you who have no such biases to consider seriously what I am saying. Simon Kidd (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC) I would also like to add that "self-publication" is a very broad category, and that I agree that there are very, very many self-publications that should not be used on Wikipedia. I am just arguing that Shepherd is a serious author with a long track record of self-publication in this area, and that he should be accepted as a reliable source. I am very familiar with his books and the critical apparatus that he employs. Btw he has made his own observations on self-publishing here, and it links to a longer "Publishing Statement". Simon Kidd (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC) I hear that Shepherd and his mother had correspondence with Meher Baba in the 1960s, and later with some of his prominent disciples, that they became involved with another spiritual teacher, against Baba's orders, that this caused them to become ostracized by the English Baba group and that in the 1980s they send letters to all Baba centers around the world defending themselves. I also hear that Shepherd has a dislike of followers of Meher Baba and considers them "sectarian", although no sect actually exists. Considering all this, I cannot be expected to believe that Shepherd is free of bias and clean from sectarian/antisectarian agendas. I am not sure if this is relevant to the issue of reliable sources in Wikipedia. Hoverfish Talk 04:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Hoverfish, in a court of law this would be dismissed as "hearsay". If you want it to be taken into account, then please could you also provide some evidence. An attempt to discern what really happened between Shepherd (and his mother) and the English Baba group would require a detailed study of all the evidence. Hearsay from one side in that conflict is not sufficient. It would be like the judge in a court case hearing the evidence of one side only. Have you ever spoken to people after they have fallen out with one another (e.g. in cases of divorce)? You get one story from one side, and another story from the other side. Shepherd's point about Meher Baba's followers is that they constitute a de facto sect, whether or not they recognise themselves as such. They have a tomb, canonical texts, and sometimes display psychological traits characteristic of cult adherents (I visited the Meher Baba Centre in London in the 1990s, when Don Stevens was giving a talk, and I noticed how several of the other attendees attributed some very mundane coincidences to the deceased Meher Baba's intervention in their lives). I also think, in the interests of objectivity, that you should declare if you have a particular interest in Meher Baba. On this page, you describe yourself as "a reader of Baba-related literaure", which you distinguish from your Wikipedian role. Perhaps you could elaborate on this. My own credentials are clearly available on my User Page. Simon Kidd (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) I must confess, as a new editor on Wikipedia I am finding this page somewhat surreal. So, please do forgive me if I seem a little naïve. As an observer, it appears to me that there are a number of personal agendas to be discerned in the comments being made on this page. To my mind, some are bordering on fanaticism, or pedantry gone mad.. I included a few of Kevin Shepherd’s books because (a) they provided a reliable, and verifiable, source of information on the subject, (b) I had found nothing that contradicts what Shepherd wrote, and (c) the material I have used from Shepherd’s books are relevant to the article. I had also included a predominant number of books from publishers who were specifically formed to specialise solely in books about Meher Baba to the exclusion of any other subject—books that are largely devotee-oriented in content. Now, I am prepared to accept the commonsense comment of the experienced editor DGG re Shepherd’s books, as recently posted on this page 27 Jan: “… the material here does not depend solely or even principally on him, he usually seems to be only a supporting source, often for what has another citation also, and I think they are usable in the context of the article under discussion.” I also accept the criticism of the article. I am currently engaged it trying to improve it, which will take several weeks to achieve. Can we now please move on? --Stephen Castro (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC) @Simon Kidd: I don't see how a court of law applies here. I can do whatever I like in my private life outside Wikipedia and I don't have to give any explanations about it in any discussion in Wikipedia in the interest of any objectivity. I did not write any books that are being quoted here, so my preferences outside Wikipedia are irrelevant. I also did not question anything about you. As far as I am concerned you are editing Wikipedia and this requires no credentials I should inspect. - What some followers of Meher Baba do 30 years after his death is their problem exclusively. If their group-organization passed as notable for Wikipadia and if there were a reliable source describing their behaviour, then one could use that information in an article. As things are till now, there is no group that one has to belong to be considered "follower" of Meher Baba's teachings and no official recognition of following. - Of course I distinguish between my interest in literature outside Wikipedia and what can be entered as information in an article. I consider various writers as "gems" in various fields and yet if their writings were brought in Wikipedia as articles or as sources for articles, I would expect them to comply with all the requirements of notability. Hoverfish Talk 13:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Additionally: "Hearsay from one side in that conflict"... I have never been on either side of the conflict. I merely mentioned that there has been a conflict, which you seem to confirm. I made no evaluation about it, but merely stated my doubt about Shepherd's neutrality in the issue. Hoverfish Talk 14:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:RSN is to solicit uninvolved editor input. The noticeboard is not for the purpose of providing yet another battleground for the combatants to perpetuate their on- and off-Wiki disputes over the author and the subject matter. Thus, I have hatted this digression. I might well have hatted more.

Several uninvolved editors have given their opinions on the subject. I read the consensus as being that Shepherd's self-published books are not reliable sources under WP:RS. Whether or not he is an expert, he has never been published by a reputable third party publisher, and thus does not qualify for use under the limited exceptions of WP:SPS. Most of those commenting conclude that the sources should not be cited. While some editors are open to relaxing the requirements of WP:SPS, they note that sourcing is the least of the problems involved in the articles in which these sources are being used, and that it appears that there are better sources which do meet the requirements of WP:RS that should be used instead of Shepherd's books. Fladrif (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Fladrif, if that is the conclusion you have drawn from the above discussion, before others have had a chance to respond to legitimate points I have made (which you have relegated to obscurity), then all I can say is that this is a kangaroo court, and a travesty of due process. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Doubtless those apparently “better sources” being from publishers, quite often linked to a charitable trust, which specialise solely in books about Meher Baba, to the exclusion of any other subject. Such books are written by devotees of Meher Baba, for devotees of Meher Baba, and in the case of one multi-volume project, initially funded by devotee benefactors. Kevin Shepherd’s major work, Minds and Sociocultures: An Analysis of Religious and Dissenting Movements, was actually published by a third party publisher, namely Philosophical Press, Cambridge, in 1995. I do assure you, it was not a self-published work. --Stephen Castro (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Philosophical Press, Cambridge does not appear to be a reliable, third party publisher. I can locate no other book published by this publisher. Shepherd states on his website that it "was published by a freelance agent sympathetic to my work". [75] Fladrif (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Methamphetamine#Synthesis

Could someone please review the sourcing in Methamphetamine#Synthesis? That section has been drastically expanded several times larger over the past week, apparently in response to concerns about WP:NOTHOWTO on the talk page, where the editor who has done this expansion explicitly rejects peer reviewed sources. Is it kosher to include this kind of chemical synthesis detail based on news reports and law enforcement press releases for a substance known to be an extremely dangerous scorge in part because synthesis is frequently attempted by inexperienced drug addicts? Seriously, getting this wrong kills addicts and innocent bystanders alike. Shouldn't our normal peer reviewed standard apply to keep potentially dangerous information out of the most obvious place that desperate addicts will look? 71.33.165.131 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Our policy is unambiguous: NOT CENSORED. That something is dangerous or illegal, does not mean it cannot or should not be described. Our job is to provide information: controlling the misuse of it is the responsibility of whatever society considers to be the appropriate authorities. If something is so dangerous or secret there are no available sources, or that it is illegal to publish the material in the United States, that's another matter. Otherwise, the only exception, where we would avoid using published material because of the danger, is when it provides undue coverage about a private individual, according to WP:BLP. This cannot be generalized to social problems. Of course the article must primarily use peer-reviewed sources in discussing the synthesis, but for information about the prevalent current illegal methods, any openly published RS is appropriate. The current material does not seem in the sort of detail that would violate NOTHOWTO. HOWTO would be describing the amounts, times and temperatures, and similar practical detail--as in any recipe. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Machine-history.com

Editor Tuzi runs the website www.machine-history.com, and he has added to various articles a number of references to his website. After he put one in an article I was watching I took it out because I could not get a sense of who was in charge of the website and what kind of reliability it had. (This was before I knew it was Tuzi's own.) The reference I removed was this one, said by Tuzi to be a scan of an old article in Scientific American, June 8, 1901, page 357. However, the webpage is not a true scan, it is HTML text. Ideally, we would assume that it was perfectly transcribed word-for-word from the old article, but perhaps not.

Tuzi admitted to me on my talk page that he is not an acknowledged expert in every subject that is represented on his website; rather, he is an auto mechanic. Regarding his level of expertise, I see him as an enthusiast in many things technical, like myself.

Some of his webpages host very old publications; these are free of copyright issues because of age. However, other pages such as this one host copyrighted materials, in this instance images that have an obvious copyright tag and a 2004 date.

So, the Big Question: can we accept any of the old public domain materials hosted by machine-history as references? Some examples:

• Elias Howe: Scientific American 1896 (HTML text, scanned images)
• Letord Let.7: Scientific American 1918 (HTML text, scanned images, two thumbnails of scanned pages of original)
• Refrigeration: Scientific American 1881 (HTML text, scanned image)
• Unconventional wind turbines: Wind Turbine Blade Tip Power System (HTML text, modern images, YouTube video clip)
• Vortex tube: Vortex Tube Operation (HTML text, video clips, colored diagrams, a scanned image from the 1940s)
• James W. Queen & Company: Scientific American January 5, 1901 (HTML text, scanned images)
• Photographophone: Scientific American 1901 (HTML text, scanned images)
• Crank (mechanism): 1918 Reo Owner's Manual (HTML text, scanned images)
• Direct methanol fuel cell: Direct Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFC) (HTML text, modern diagram, modern photograph)

Of course we cannot take the pages that have copyrighted information. Can we accept the pages that are taken from pre-1923 publications? Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would discourage the citations to Scientific American articles on machine-history.com, even for articles in the public domain. First of all, those links would be convenience links at best. Since the articles have apparently been retyped to put them into HTML, one would have to check the original article in the magazine to be sure that they were correct. Second, Scientific American is a well-known magazine held by many libraries, and thus editors should be able to cite the original articles without that much difficulty. Third, if machine-history.com regularly violates other copyrights, then that's not the kind of site Wikipedia ought to link to, notwithstanding that in this case we would only be linking to public domain materials. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Defense of site

Thank you for a forum to defend my position that machinehistory.com is a reliable source.

I am machinehistory.com or machine-history.com. There are no other editors. When I started the site several years ago (2007) I dreamed of a content management site that users could join users knowledge of mechanical things. There were too many scammers, viagras etc, having to add software to stop it and monitoring, so I closed it to other editors. I decided to continue alone and occasionally add to the public site at Wikipedia.org. Wikipeida is where the resources and quality and monitoring were more than anyone along could do.

I am in possession of many thousands of periodicals mostly from the early 1800's to 1970's. My inventory ranges from Abel's Photographic Weekly (196 issues March 1925 to Jan 1934)to Zion's Herald (562 issues May 1869 to July 1918).

I understand Binksternet could have concern over 'unreliable sources' here at machinehistory.com .......... but I want to defend my side.

• Violates other copyrights: I have never had a complaint on copyright, ever. Binksternet may be correct citing images on a informative article this one. I suggest are many violations at other sites. Ultimately, only a federal court can determine whether a particular use is, in fact, a fair use under the law. Over 300 words in a quote, thumbnails, for profit, educational. Consider http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html If there is some over the top violation ( which is by the way is totally somewhere else on the machine site)I would consider changing it. Anyway do not condemn the whole site. Please, depending on how tight you call it, I believe most sites violate 'Scribes' letter of the law. Now, congradulations, I believe Wikipedia is one of the cleanest sites out there.

Defense of first 3 examples given above..........

• Elias Howe I did not add a link here. Only a scanned image from the September 10, 1846 Scientific American article. Maybe a sentence of info. Why protest this?
• Letord Let.7 I started the article, added info from the periodical,image and link. There are now no references on this article. Information with no reference does not seem right to me.
• Refrigeration I added info on 'other methods' and a reference to machine-history.com and Scientific American to back up the text.
• "those links would be convenience links at best." The same material can be found nearly as easily elsewhere from a more reliable source. Where can you find the article at [76] elsewhere? Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? Wikipedia makes it so even the common person without making an appointment with the National Archives can learn and do and not have to pay a fee.
• webpage is not a true scan, it is HTML text: Who wants and can use only a scanned picture of text? With text, search engines can find pertinent information. I scanned the periodical article then used OmniPage Pro 14 an (OCR) Optical character recognition
• I have some other sites: that I may have added text to some of Wikipedia articles. Please rate them and tell me if they disqualify. electric vehicle conversion journal install journal About my father, cold war Naval Photo-recon pilot (many Navy photo's see the video of him If you go the the USS Intrepid in New York and see the display of the arresting system the center of the 5 cables is missing. Dad broke that cable and I have that photo he later took)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuzi (talk • contribs)

• Unreliable: The webpage has no about, no names are listed, they fail to meet basic librarianship and archival standards, there is no evidence that they transmit primary source material intact, invariant and correct. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Do not refactor my comments by movement or deletion as you did here. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• I will not move your comment again. I did so because you and I added at the same time and I formatted incorretly as my defense being a new subject. Anyhow please reply again after reading my defense. If the consensuses is Unreliable then I will take my ball and go home and play, with my feelings hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuzi (talk • contribs)
  • I read your defence, and inquired into the objects under inquiry, before writing my opinion. You may wish you compare your website to the National Archives Australia, or the Noel Butlin Archives in Canberra, or the archival collections of the National Library Australia, or the Australian War Memorial. Your collection does not meet the standards, including the institutional standards, of trustworthyness in the transmission of such materials. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfooare you kidding me? "compare your website to the National Archives Australia, or the Noel Butlin Archives in Canberra, or the archival collections of the National Library Australia, or the Australian War Memorial". Really, that is now your standard. Give me a break.

• • • Intact, invariant, complete, correct. Your websites transmission of sources cannot be seen to be reliable, and is not reliable. Your site don't have ascession numbers, identified staff, an about-us page, a commitment to intact, invariant, complete and correct transmission. Wikipedia has sourcing standards. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Ok, I totally disagree, but three Wikipedia people who probably are much more scholarly than I have each left no doubt, none that these sites I defended above, are reliable sources. I will type my last comment here.

People; I would have handled it different. If I was a leader or 'Scribe' at Wikipedia... well what about encouragement, helpful, friendly? Tuzi

Nasim Yousaf

Nasim Yousaf is a grandson of Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi. He has made his living as an exporter of textiles but has also written numerous books and articles about both his grandfather and his uncle. There are a series of websites dedicated to the former and on which Yousaf seems to be the sole contributor - basically, hagiographic sites + promotion for their publications. Most of the publications have been through AMZ Publications - eg: this, and the publisher's website suggests that their primary output is in fact works related to import/export rather than biography/history/political science etc. Yousaf apparently lives in the US now & I would not be at all surprised if AMZ is operated by him.

Yousaf's books and related websites are being used as the major source at Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi, despite my attempts to remove them as being, imo, unreliable, COI, SPS. Am I correct regarding reliability issues? I need some sort of consensus that can be pointed to if in fact I am (and if I am not then, well, lesson learned!). - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that we have an article on AMZ Publications, created by User:Beautycare, who also created Nasim Yousaf. Their sole author appears to be Yousaf, per GBooks (is there a way to search WorldCat by publisher?) - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC).

Yes JanetteDoe (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't verifiably self-publication, perhaps; let's just say there's no evidence that the publisher adds any reliability to these books. We would need, at least, evidence that they are cited in reliable scholarship before we could treat them as reliable. Andrew Dalby 16:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked whether he was cited by others and could find nothing that was of note. Is there no register of companies in New York? I'd put money on him being a director of AMZ. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The New York State Division of Corporations does not seem to list this business. The publisher's website doesn't seem to list any more specific physical address than "New York", and the contact email is a yahoo account. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Latin music articles

I want to know if the following websites are reliable:

• http://latinrapper.com
• http://corrientelatina.com
• http://nochelatina.com

I have been editing Wikipedia articles for over a year now and I still don't know how to tell if a website is reliable or not. Thanks very much, Gariseiro (talk)

Blog sources in Dennis Ritchie

There is a discussion underway at Talk:Dennis Ritchie#Random quotes and sources regarding the use of blogs as sources. Your thoughts would be useful. Msnicki (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction, there is a discussion where another contributor has asserted that publications, with paid editors, editorial policies, editorial oversight, shouldn't be used because they are "blogs". One of those publication dates back to 1878 and has been a daily publication since 1889. This has been pointed out to the contributor who repeatedly removed material I contributed. Only two of the seven refernces this contributor excised on the grounds they were "blogs" were online-only publications.

Further, I suggested that the reason we don't consider "blogs" to be reliable sources is that what most people call "blogs" are written to some sole individual, who has no special recognized expertise, who may have done zero research, or may have plagiarized a newspaper article. I suggest that online publications, with an editorial policy, paid editors, editorial standards and editorial control, with the fact-checking that implies, can be just as reliable as print-only publications. In the 21st Century a limited number of online-only publications are more reliable than print journalists -- Scotusblog being an example.

In this comment I went through all the references the other contributor justified excising on the grounds they were blogs. Leaving out all but the two ExtremeTech and Newswise which are online-only publications -- they both have editorial standards, paid editors, so they are not the kind of "blogs" we should dismiss out of hand.

Finally, when someone who is already recognized as an expert in WP:RS writes an online publication that some people call a "blog", the pre-existing recognition that they are an expert makes their online writings reliable, even if their is no external editorial control. As a special case, some individuals who weren't originally notable have their online publications cited by other WP:RS sufficiently that they too join the ranks of the WP:RS. Wonkette would be an example.

Blindly dismissing sources as "blogs", just because they are online-only publications, when they have editorial standards comparable to print publications is unwise. It is unwise even when those online publications include "blog" in their name. Geo Swan (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree 110%. There are blogs and then there are blogs. This ain't no blog; it's an online column by a reliable, respected publisher respected for a century + of careful editorial oversight. This is a reliable source, and whomever is deleting it has no conception of the difference between a blog and a blog. Fladrif (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

City Pages?

I'm reviewing a DYK nom and wanted to double-check if a City Pages obit is a reliable source. (The hook fact relies on it) The citation's here: http://blogs.citypages.com/gimmenoise/2005/10/tetes_noires_founder_polly_ale.php. Thanks! - Khazar (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

City Pages publisher is now The Village Voice. Maybe that's what you are asking about? -SusanLesch (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I wasn't familiar with the website and should have poked around on there more before asking. If they've won Minnesota journalism awards they're clearly a good enough resource. -- Khazar (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Khazar. Also I fact-checked this with the Minneapolis Star Tribune music critic. We're good to go. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh. The guy from the Star Tribune thinks "outsiders" think Minneapolis is the same thing as the Twin Cities. Frankly I think he couldn't be more wrong. (If I for example wrote that Garrison Keillor is from Minneapolis, I am confident it would be removed, or moved to the Saint Paul article, in under an hour.) Pardon me while I argue with him. But since City Pages is a good source I won't follow up here. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)