Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Glenn Greenwald as RS in Frank L. VanderSloot

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

Article: Frank L. VanderSloot

Content:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• There's no reason in policy that I can think of that Glenn Greenwald's article here could not be used as a source. He's a prominent commentator, and opinion pieces are allowed, particularly as this is not a borderline BLP. Because it's a BLP it should be used judiciously (not reproducing quotes at length and overegging the pudding), but I see no reason to exclude it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Grande Rock

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

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

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

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

This isn't about Melodicrcok.com.

This isn't about notability but reliability.

No, none of the bands ring any bells.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bo Gabriel, comte de Montgomery is a new article evidently created to make a point (see talk page) about a writer of dubious notability. The claims "r his commentary regarding the Pax Britannica in 1936 when he argued for increased trade and friendly relations between Britain and the USA. He suggested the two nations had a "common interest in preserving the international peace", and was a lead proponent of the Special Relationship," are backed by two sources. One of them is a book by the subject. The other is [1] by Ali Parchami[2] which mentions him but only cursorily. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we call him a count on his sayso?

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

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

His name is printed "Count B.G. de Montgomery" on the cover of Ancient Migrations and Royal Houses. [3] Don't know if that makes any difference? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mantak Chia on human sexuality (medicine)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights

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

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

"Capital Press" as RS for Frank L. VanderSloot

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

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

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

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

In 1994, VanderSloot bought a $1 million interest in the Snake River Cheese factory in Blackfoot, Idaho after Kraft Foods shuttered the factory.[4][5] Vandersloot paid off a $2 million debt owed to the area's dairymen, and later brought in Beatrice Cheese, a subsidiary of ConAgra, to run the factory. In 1999, the company netted $278 million dollars in sales. In 2000, VanderSloot sold all of his interest in the company to Suprema Specialties, and in 2006, the factory, which by then had been renamed as the Blackfoot Cheese Company, was sold to Sartori Foods.[6]

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

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

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

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

These issues, and the objection raised, are discussed in detail on the Talk page.[7] A third opinion was requested, and that third opinion did not support the proposed revisions. Why that third opinion wasn't sufficient is unclear. Seems like a case of WP:FORUMSHOP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Capital Press is the 10th largest NEWSPAPER in Oregon.[8] It has an audited circulation of 35,582.[9] Can we agree that it is Reliable? (The other remarks by RIR should really be handled on the Talk Page or on another NoticeBoard.) Is this a fair summation? GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

To make matters worse -- and this is a very serious issue -- the Capital Press/Agri-News article has been scrubbed since the discussion of it began here on October 6.[10] The article originally included the politically-charged byline text "'Bitter foe of the gay rights movement' invested in plant" -- we all saw it and discussed it.[11][12] As of today, that byline has been scrubbed and no longer appears in the article, and there were other changes as well.[13] This surreptitiously revised version, appeared right after we objected to that very byline specifically on the Talk page, and that's more than a mere coincidence. The newspaper's apparent willingness to secretly sanitize their article (they were not even transparent about the fact that the article was revised -- it still shows the March 1 pub date and no correction notice) gives the final "no' vote as to their reliability and raises the larger questions of shady offsite coordination to influence the WP BLP. This source merits inclusion nowhere. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That subhead, "'Bitter foe of the gay rights movement' invested in plant," is still on the page," with a Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:00 AM date. I refer you also to this list of articles by John O'Connell, including a chapter in a book, that should illustrate the bona fides of this agricultural journalist. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to withdraw my previous comment about the article having been revised. I could have sworn it had been revised but now I'm starting to second guess myself. Nonetheless, the original concerns about the proposed revision still apply. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Can this be included on Brandon Teena?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you may be putting words into their mouth. Why don't you post that source here with the content you propose to include and we can all look at what serves the article best? Insomesia (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Attack on Sydney Harbour

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article: Frank L. VanderSloot

Content:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the editor wants clarification on whether the claim sourced to Rachel Maddow about threatened defamation lawsuits is reliable. A previous thread questioned the reliability of Salon, which is the other source used to support the same claim. The Salon article was an opinion piece, and Maddow's show is also a kind of opinion/commentary, rather than a news program. The guide to identifying reliable sources states "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

With that being said, the statement about threatened lawsuits is probably true (that's my guess), but it's not presented in a non-partisan or neutral way by the sources it's attributed to. The greater concern for me is not about compliance with RS, but with NPOV. Maddow and the Salon author are partisan, and it's unclear what, if any response VanderSloot would have. Defamation lawsuits are legitimate if a person has been defamed. Otherwise, threatening lawsuits against critical news organizations displays litigiousness and intolerance. The reader isn't given enough information to figure out which category VanderSloot might fall into.TheBlueCanoe 05:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

TheBlueCanoe: Do you have any suggestions for the BLP? It's become a hotly contested page and outside feedback is always welcome.Andrew (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Reliable source. Is Rachel Maddow a WP:Reliable source? Can what her show reports be considered Reliable in Wikipedia terms? Sometimes her show is Good Reporting, and sometimes it is Commentary. Should WP make a distinction, based upon which hat she is wearing? Her show often casts negative aspersions on living people: Does that aspect of her show negate using her as a Reliable Source?

Copyright. RM's television show is copyrighted. Because of the copyright, can we link to it in the way that this article has — that is, simply as a source for the sentence, phrase or paragraph to which it refers?

I'm not making an argument one way or the other here because I really want to know what how noninvolved editors see this, and also I am pretty much confused by the rules about linking to copyrighted material, because there was a big kerfluffle on the VanderSloot page a few weeks ago about linking to another copyrighted video, which link was eventually eliminated at the insistence of an uninvolved editor that it violated the [[WP:BLP}} policy. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC).

---

She is a reliable source to what she has said, and thus her statements should be ATTRIBUTED; therefore she is a reliable source to only her own statements. However, as a stand alone, I would find other secondary or tertiary sources to verify the content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

metalwani.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Almeder

Background

I would appreciate some uninvolved input to resolve a dispute about a source at Ian Stevenson. It concerns whether an article by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, is a reliable source. Dominus Vobisdu has been removing it and the material it supports. [14] [15] Discussion here.

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

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

Disputed source

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

Extended content

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

The definition is not contentious, and no one has objected to it. But there are objections to the use of this article as a source because it was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The editor-in-chief of this journal is another philosopher, Stephen E. Braude, emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. [16] The journal is regarded by some editors as not an RS for anything, because it is not peer-reviewed (the journal says it is peer-reviewed, the editors say it is not; I don't know which is true), and because it specializes in anomalies (parapsychology, etc).

My argument in favour of the source

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

Notifications: Talk:Ian Stevenson, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, [17] and the wikiprojects with banners on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, [18] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group, [19] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spirituality, [20] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal, [21] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative Views, [22] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism. [23] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

a)Their submissions policy does not conform to academic standards [[24]].

b) "peer-review" is not mentioned in their discription on ERIC [[25]], which reads as follows "Features original research papers in areas falling outside the established scientific arena. Attempts to provide an unbiased, professional, forum for discussion and debate about anomalous phenomena".

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ec) Sources don't have to be peer-reviewed to be reliable, especially not in a biography. And this journal does seem to be peer-reviewed. It is listed on the Education Resources Information Center, [26] and on EBSCO Academic Search. [27] In addition the journal itself says it is peer-reviewed. [28]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, it wouldn't. If Almader himself didn't think that it was valuable enough to publish in a real academic source, why should anyone else think it's important? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's partly my point. But, FAIK, the article in question could be a re-hash of something Almader previously had accepted by Nature and has since been cited 8,000 times. Not particularly probable, perhaps. But if this were the case, that would change the picture. Formerip (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it would change the picture. We wouldn't be having this discussion, for one, as this source would become irrelevant. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

(ec; reply to FormerIP) Thanks, I hadn't heard of this journal before I looked at the Stevenson article. And I have no interest in pushing a pro-Stevenson POV there; on the contrary I've been adding criticism and would like to continue doing so. I'm asking only that I be allowed to use this single article from Almeder. The definition he provides is completely straightforward to anyone with a background in academic philosophy.

Stevenson has had a tremendous influence in this field. Obits in major newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, Daily Telegraph); two in the British Medical Journal; an entire issue devoted to him in the 1970s in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. His work is impressive when you look at it casually. When you start to look closer, it isn't (I have only just started and am perhaps being unfair to him, but I see major flaws in the way he collected information from the subjects). However, other physicians, psychiatrists and at least one philosopher disagree and see his work as thorough and important. I can't explain that, which is in part why I'm interested in him. Anyway, here again is the definition I want to include. There really isn't a single contentious thing about it, except for its place of publication. And it's a good definition, because it distills the argument down to its essence.

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

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the point, SV. Whether Stevenson (or Almeder) has had a significant influence in his field is not the issue. The question is whether Almeder's views on reincarnation are at all significant in the field of philosophy. Given the outlet, that looks unlikely. It's not impossible, but it would certainly require further sourcing. If Almeder's views in this specific instance cannot be shown to be important to Stevenson's biography, then they should not be in it. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If you can find that Almader has published this definition elsewhere in a REAL peer-reviewed academic source, then we might be able to use the definition in the article using the REAL academic source, depending, of course, on whether it is relevant to the topic of the article or not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

(reply to FormerIP) Your point would be fine were it not for the fact that there's a very small Western academic philosophical input into this area. So it's unlikely that Almeder's definition has been picked up by anyone else (also, it's such a straightforward definition most philosophers would just write their own -- the only reason I need to cite someone is that this is WP, so I have to cite someone who has offered a definition and discussed Stevenson, and that is Almeder).

The situation is that Almeder wrote two books about the general topic and Stevenson's work (1987 and 1992), then Edwards in his book (1996) criticized Stevenson and responded to some of Almeder's points, and then Almeder (1997) offered a rejoinder in the disputed article. So what you are saying is I can use the first two-thirds of the discussion, but not the final rejoinder, no matter how pertinent it is, no matter how important for NPOV, no matter that it would clarify things (e.g. the definition) for the reader. That makes no sense to me. Almeder is not just some nut writing on a website. See some of his work on JSTOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not actually saying you can use the first two-thirds. That's not something I have considered. And I'm not suggesting Almeder is a nut. What I am suggesting it that the fact that an article was written in Journal of Scientific Exploration citing Stevenson appears irrelevant to Stevenson's biography. The fact that there is a small Western academic input into the relevant area is not a problem for WP. We have a solution - there should be a small amount of content citing Western academic sources on the topic in the encyclopaedia. What you say about NPOV and clarification doesn't seem relevant here. It seems like just a gratuitous mention of an article in a fringe publication. We can simply perform a paragraphectomy on the article without making anything less clear or creating any NPOV issues, surely? Formerip (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The Edwards/Almeder discussion is a discussion between philosophers, and the problem we have on WP is that we have very few people with a background in philosophy. Most philosophers would not (I believe) care that Almeder had chosen to publish his rejoinder on this minority issue in a minority publication. Almeder may have placed it in that journal because Stevenson had published in it (including autobiographical material that we use as a source in the article), and was one of its founders, so it was a natural place for Almeder's essay.

Yes, I could remove that paragraph, and lose the only definition of reincarnation that it's in the article. Under WP's rules I can't simply add another one that I think might apply to Stevenson. Also, I will not be able to add the first two-thirds of the Almeder/Edwards discussion of Stevenson if the last third is declared off-limits (that is, I won't add Edwards's criticism of Almeder if I'm not allowed to add Almeder's response), so article expansion is somewhat stymied, which will please Dominus, but it ought not to please Wikipedia.

There is nothing in our content policies that allows this to happen, and this board is meant to be patrolled by people who explain the content policies, not who try to rewrite them. If you disagree, please point to which part of which policy would allow Almeder's essay to be excluded. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not to be seen as a source that just happens not to be peer-reviewed. JSE is a pseudo-journal. Nothing in it is reliable for factual claims in the natural sciences, social sciences, philosophy or humanities. However, it may be reliable as a primary source for what proponents of fringe theories assert. Even then, mainstream analysis of the fringe theories, e.g. by a sociologist of science, a media analyst, even a respected commentator in the mainstream press would be preferable. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a request to have this journal declared a reliable source. It is a much narrower request to have this article declared to be an RS for Ian Stevenson. The article is written by a mainstream academic philosopher, and academic philosophers are of course reliable for the claims of academic philosophers. My argument is that, because he's an academic who has written about this elsewhere, it doesn't matter that he published his rejoinder in this journal. If he had published it on his blog we could still use it (under SPS). So that's the only question that matters here -- does reliability in this case reside in the author or the place of publication?

As for the primary/secondary distinction, Almeder is a secondary source for Stevenson and a primary source for his own views, but I'm not sure that makes a difference here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Question: I am not sure if this applies to this specific article or not, but could the problem here be one of Due Weight rather than Reliability? Would the problem be resolved if the article did a better job of summarizing what various sources say... stating viewpoints more concisely (ie would it help if the article spent less article space outlining the various views)? Rather than the outright removal of entire paragraphs (and thus entire viewpoints)... could the paragraphs be reworded and combined to make everything more concise? Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and that will happen. I am hoping (or I was hoping; this discussion has been rather off-putting) to rewrite the article with a couple of case studies from Stevenson, then criticism of them, and criticism of the criticism, insofar as it exists. And during that process everything will become more succinct. The disputed article from Almeder is part of the discussion, and I don't want to write the article with one hand tied behind my back. It's the nature of the beast that some of this material has appeared in fringe publications. But the authors themselves are mainstream academics, which in my view is what matters. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Essence of the argument

What some editors are arguing here is that if Robert Almeder, an academic who has been published independently in this field before, had written the same essay in a journal they approved of, it would be an RS. If he had published exactly the same words on his blog, it would be an RS (per WP:SELFPUB, which is policy). But the same words from the same academic are not an RS if published in the Scientific Journal of Exploration. That seems irrational. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Professor Jane Bloggs is Chair of Widget Studies at the University of Southern California. Let us consider her following publications: "Findings of some recent major Widget research studies" in International Journal of Advanced Widget Theory; "A radically new approach to the widget", letter to the editor of The Smalltown Review of Local Widget Research; "Fun Tricks with widgets in the home", in Very Easy Engineering for Everyone; and "Widgets will end the energy crisis", in Journal of Perpetual Motion. 1 is your standard RS. 2 might be OK as a scholar's non peer reviewed output. 3 is very weak when there is academic literature on the topic. 4 is no good. The existence of 4 puts a question mark over her other work that would otherwise appear highly reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a little more complicated than that. The situation is

(1) Professor Jane Bloggs, "Findings of some recent major Widget research studies" in International Journal of Advanced Widget Theory;

(2) Criticism of Jane Bloggs by Professor John Doe in "A critique of Bloggs' widget hypothesis," in American Journal of Widgets, and

(3) Professor Jane Bloggs, "Reply to John Doe," in Very Silly Journal that No one Likes.

In wanting to cover the Bloggs/Doe debate -- which is directly relevant to the article I'm working on -- I am only allowed to mention the first two parts of it, but not the third. But had Bloggs published the third part on her blog, SPS would have allowed it. That's what I'm arguing is irrational. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Liking" has nothing to do with this. It's "Journal that no one has never cited in reliable independent sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominus Vobisdu (talk • contribs)

I haven't seen any editor present that position except you, SV. As indicated by a number of editors above, this is mainly about UNDUE rather that RS (although it is also true that JSE is not considered RS per WP:PARITY).

For any biographical article, there is a limit to what information should be considered encyclopaedic. If you want to cover someone's influence in an article then that's fine, so long you restrict yourself to their influence on things that can be demonstrated to matter, even if only in a small way. This ideally means fidning them discussed in third-party reliable sources. Once you're scraping around in fringe journals (or, for than matter, on blogs) then you're just too close to the bottom of the barrel.

In other words, you're not demonstrating that anyone in the world should care about Stevenson's influence on what Almeder wrote in an obscure fringe journal. Formerip (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this has nothing to do with UNDUE, no one is scraping around anything, and I don't understand your final sentence. These are the two academic philosophers that discussed Stevenson. The view of these philosophers is directly relevant because they specialize in philosophy of mind and philosophy of science, and wrote about reincarnation. Most of their writing about Stevenson is published in three of their books by independent publishers. A final rejoinder was published in the disputed journal. It is this final rejoinder that we're discussing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Slim may have a point here... I see this as being similar to the "expert exemption" clause of SPS (where we allow a self-published source if the author has previously published on the same topic in a more reliable forum). Suppose the exact same rejoinder had been published on Almeder's personal webpage, instead of in the iffy journal. Would we allow it? I think so. And in which case, disallowing it because it was (instead) published in an iffy journal really strikes me as being a wikilawyerish technicality. In this case, the reliability of the author outweighs the unreliability of the venue. That said... because the author did publish it in an unreliable venue, we do need to down play it somewhat. It definitely should not be an equal third in terms of weight (note: I would say the same if it had been presented on his personal website). Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It bothers me that some peer-reviewed journals are dismissed out of hand and not allowed on WP, simply because of the topics they cover. Of course, HOW and WHERE they're used is key. I feel that in this instance the use is appropriate, per SV and Blueboar. I agree that there doesn't seem to be a policy that would disallow this source in this particular instance. TimidGuy (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(to Blueboar) As things stand, Almeder could simply create a free blog and post those same words on it, and then we could use it. Yes, I agree about the two-thirds. It won't be. Most of the material I want to use will be from Almeder's and Edwards's books. The one thing I do want to retain from Almeder's essay is the "minimalist" reincarnation definition (see above), which describes Stevenson's position, and any pertinent rejoinder to Edwards. But it won't be anywhere close to two-thirds. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Why, exactly, should they be assigned any weight at all? If Almader himself did not consider them important enough to publish in a real academic outlet so that it could be read by the academic community, how is this any different that him crying to his mother? Almader is just licking his wounds in his own corner of the ring and preaching to the choir. We have no credible eveidence that the other party to the debate has even seen this "response". There is no evidence that the journal is even read by serious independent academics in the field.

Second of all, Almader has no demonstrated expertise in the topic of this article. All of his work on this topic has been published in non-academic sources, and this is a scholarly topic. Nor is he an independent source on Stevenson, as Stevenson was the founder and editor of the "journal" in question, and Stevenson had written the preface to one of Almader's books. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

@TimidGuy: Reliable sources are not an option here, as per the very first sentence of WP:V. You can't do anything on WP without reliable sources, no matter HOW or WHERE you do it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Forget about the blog argument. It would disqualify the source as unduly self-serving. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Almeder's books were published by reputable publishers; our sources don't have to be published by university publishing houses. His books on this topic are Death and Personal Survival (Rowman & Littlefield, 1992) and Beyond Death (Charles C Thomas, 1987), and numerous other books and papers on philosophy of mind and philosophy of science, all of which are directly relevant to whether he has demonstrated expertise in this topic.

He also doesn't have to be independent of Stevenson. It's common for academics to write prefaces to each other's books. But even if he were very closely connected to Stevenson (which he wasn't so far as I know), his being a primary source would not change whether we could use him. As for "unduly self-serving," his defence of Stevenson wasn't in his own interests in the sense intended by the policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Not, in his own interests, but in the interests of his publisher, who was Stevenson, effectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominus Vobisdu (talk • contribs)

Stevenson was not in any sense Almeder's publisher. But even if he had been, that would not affect whether the essay is an RS, because subjects and those connected with them are allowed as primary sources. Also, please sign your posts. SlimVirgin^(talk) 02:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

He was on the editorial board of the magazine. [29] Formerip (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What difference does that make? The worst it can do is make Almeder a primary source, which is fine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it would prevent things going round in further circles to point out that the text inserted into the article doesn't seem to be a correct representation of the source in any case.

Extended content

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

The problem being that Almeder gives that definition on page 502 of the source, but he doesn't say anything that implies it is associated with Stevenson. It is just Almeder's own defintion. In fact, it seems somewhat at odds with Stevenson's view of reincarnation. Almeder's minimal version talks about "irreducible traits of human personality" being passed from person to person - i.e. something purely psychological. But, as can be seen from the WP article, one of Stevenson's main claims is that people get birthmarks where their past selves had scars - i.e. something bodily. Formerip (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

All this will be explained in the article if I'm able to continue working on it. Someone arguing that consciousness does not equal brain states does not mean they are arguing that brain (and other physical) states are not involved, or that consciousness can't affect a body, when clearly it can and does. So I don't know what "purely psychological" would mean here. And I want to use the essay as part of the Edwards/Almeder discussion about Stevenson, not only for the definition of the minimalist position, so I need a decision about that essay as an RS in that article. If we get that decision, we can discuss further on the talk page how it should be used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

But, for now, we can remove the content as unsupported, yes? Formerip (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I had to stop writing the article because of this. If I can start to write it again knowing that this source won't be removed (i.e. that I won't be wasting my time), I'll be able to make clearer how it is supported. But I'm not willing to discuss the article here. I'm here only for a decision about that source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Example of the kind of thing the source is needed for

Here is one example. Edwards highlights a Stevenson case study that he regards as very weak, and presents it as a reason not to trust Stevenson's methods. I have added that case to the article here. In his essay, Almeder argues that Edwards has misrepresented Stevenson, that it is not a typical case, and that he took the description from the wrong book, not the original one where the case was written up properly. Now, even though I could see that myself from Stevenson's work, I can't write that opinion without it being OR. But if I'm also not allowed to source the material to an academic making the same point, it leaves the article POV and misleading.

So if Almeder is not allowed, that example from Edwards should be removed. But if I try to remove it, I'll be reverted, because it makes Stevenson look bad, and so the editors who don't like him will want to keep it. This is what I mean by being asked to edit with one arm tied behind my back. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wherever did you get the idea that anyone involved to date would oppose your removal of the Edwards article? It's from the same fringe journal. If it weren't beddy-bye time, I'd remove it myself, and all the other fringe-sourced material. Do you seriously think that serious scholarly discussion among serious scholarly experts takes place in outlets like JSE, where no other serious scholars would even bother wasting their valuable time looking for them? You just walked in on an academic circle-jerk, and thought it was a full-fledged orgy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Edwards material comes from his book, Reincarnation: A Critical Examination. Prometheus Books, 1996. The material he was responding to comes from Almeder in Skeptical Inquirer (vol 12, Spring 1988) and Death and Personal Survival (Rowman & Littlefield, 1992). The third part of the conversation is in the essay by Almeder that is the subject of this discussion.

I came here for input about policy from disinterested people who had not already commented on the talk page. You and I have already discussed it there at length, so repeating the exchange here is unlikely to be fruitful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops. I mispoke about Edward's. That book was not published by JSE, but by Prometheus Books, which is a reliable non-academic press with editorial oversight and a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It can be used to present the mainstream view on Stevenson's work per WP:PARITY. Almeder can't be used to criticize Edward's though, because it's an inferior fringe source published in a sham journal. Even if he were to publish it on his own blog, it couldn't be used because a self-published fringe source cannot be used to criticize a reliably published mainstream source, per WP:NPOV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your interpretation of policy is just mistaken. Please allow uninvolved editors to weigh in. The more the conversation seems to be between you and me, the less likely others are to respond.

Regarding whether anyone other than Edwards has responded to Almeder's views on reincarnation, there is another exchange: Almeder responding to Steven D. Hales, a philosopher at Bloomsburg University, [30] in Philosophia with "On reincarnation: A reply to Hales" (2001), and Hales responding to Almeder with "Reincarnation redux" (2001). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

DV has policy exactly right. WP:PARITY couldn't be much clearer: peudo-journals "should generally be considered unreliable". The case also seems almost indistinguishable from one that was thoroughly gone over in relation to the Astrology article not long ago. Information was included in the article about a study in a reputable source (Nature) which tested various astrological hypotheses and came up null. An editor wanted to add further material from a psuedo-journal (also JSE on that occasion, I think) purporting to show how the Nature study was methodologically flawed. After protracted hoo-ha, the interpretation of policy clearly made was that this material could not be included. Arguments about the credentials of the author were neither here nor there. The bottom line was that we simply couldn't rely on the basic integrity of material criticising the work of a mainstream academic if the material came from a pseudo-journal.

Philosophia is not a pseudo-journal, so articles by the same author published there would be a different matter, obviously. Formerip (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:PARITY does not say that. These responses miss two points that I keep trying to highlight, because they are crucial, and I'd appreciate it if you could address them.

1. I am not asking that the journal be regarded as an RS. I am asking that this 1997 essay by Almeder be regarded as an RS for this particular issue, regardless of where it was published. I am arguing that the expert exemption applies, as if the essay were an SPS (which is policy), and that reliability can reside with the author, not the journal, per WP:SOURCES (which is policy).

2. The reason I am asking to apply that exemption is that the essay was part of an extended conversation between two mainstream academic philosophers, both respected:

(a) Almeder discussed Stevenson in Skeptical Inquirer in 1988 and in Almeder's book in 1992;

(b) Edwards responded to Almeder's points in his 1996 book;

(c) Almeder responded to Edwards' points in his 1997 essay.

To cover this academic debate, I need to use all three sources. I do not want to have to pretend that (c) does not exist. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

A REQUEST: to help those of us who know the policy, but who are not really familiar with this specific topic, could someone outline how much WEIGHT should or should not be given to Almeder's initial discussion of Stevenson.

I think that may be the key to this dispute... If Almeder's initial discussion of Stevenson is significant, then I think Slim Virgin is correct. The article should present the entire academic debate; the expert exemption would apply; and we would base reliability on the author and not the venue of publication.

If, on the other hand, Almeder's initial discussion of Stevenson is not actually all that significant, then I would suggest omitting it completely (and if we don't mention Almeder's initial discussion, then there is no need to bring up the Edwards response to it or Almeder's reply to that response.) In other words... I think the key to this tempest in a tea pot is determining how much Weight to give Almeder's initial discussion of Stevenson. All else flows from there.

Note... I am not asking whether Almeder's initial discussion is reliable ... I am trying to get a handle on how significant it is to understanding the article topic. Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is significant enough to include, but the problem is that I was in the process of doing the reading and adding bits to the article, when I encountered this roadblock, and I haven't done any since.

I'm currently trying to find Almeder's 1988 Skeptical Inquirer piece (which kicked off his defence of Stevenson, I believe). Here is a list of references to Stevenson in Almeder's 1992 book, Death and Personal Survival: The Evidence for Life After Death. In case that link doesn't work for anyone, he mentions Stevenson on pp. vi, vii, 2, 4–5, 15–17, 23–25, 27, 31, 33, 35–36, 37–39, 40, 55, 58–59, 60, 62, 65, 81, 89, 90–94, 157, 160–161, 273–274 (and several others). This is a lot of attention from a professor of philosophy.

Edwards' 1996 book, Reincarnation (no preview of this on Google Books, so I can't link to pages) mentions Stevenson extensively and therefore belongs in the article; he devotes chapter 16 of the book to Stevenson (pp. 253–278), with harsh criticism, and with rebuttal of some of Almeder's defence (and harsh criticism of Almeder too). He refers to Almeder on pp. 8, 20, 21, 136, 254, and 266 (not counting the index).

Then Almeder follows up with the 1997 essay, arguing that Edwards has misrepresented Stevenson, by for example highlighting a case study that he (Edwards) regards as weak, then not summarizing it properly, thereby creating a straw man. There is at least one other article about reincarnation by Almeder (from 2001) in Philosophia, which may mention Stevenson too.

Basically, to answer your question in full, I would have to do the reading, write it up, and see whether what emerged made sense and was policy compliant. But perhaps the above is enough to give you a sense of the debate, which is all I have myself at the moment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Here is a summary of the Almeder-Edwards debate about Stevenson. It is from Christopher Bache, professor of religious studies, in his Dark Night, Early Dawn: Steps to a Deep Ecology of Mind, SUNY Press, 2000, pp. 37–40. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Review here of Almeder's 1992 book, saying it is "one of the best books of this type". Another here, by the same reviewer, of Edwards 1996 book. I believe both reviews mention Stevenson, Almeder and Edwards. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Another philosopher, Mark Woodhouse [31] (specializes in personal identity, among other things), refers to the Almeder-Edwards debate about Stevenson in his Paradigm Wars (p. 144ff). He writes that the paradigm war over reincarnation "has pitted Robert Almeder, a nationally distinguished philosopher of science, against Paul Edwards, general editor of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Almeder's recent book, Death and Personal Survival: The Evidence for Life After Death, contains perhaps the most formidable point-for-point defense of reincarnation against a wide range of criticism." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

@Blueboar: In the article in question, Edwards book is used to criticize Stevensons work. In that book, Edwards also notes that Almeder has (somewhat) defended Stevenson's work, but the tit-for-tat between them is peripheral to this article.

How much weight should we assign to Almeder's response? None. Almeder hismelf did not think it important enough to publish in a real academic outlet. As a heavyweight academic and the editor of several heavyweight journals himself, he could have easily published his response in a real academic source so that other academics could read and cite it. Instead, he published it in what he well knew was a sham "journal" that no one in the academic world would bother to read (practically no one cites the journal in serious academic sources). Furthermore, this appears to be the case, as no one in the academic community has so much as commented on Almeder's response in real academic sources, even Edwards himself.

As weight is assinged on the basis of how the viewpoint's prelevance in reliable sources, it can't be said that Almader's views expressed in this response are shared by anyone at all except Almader and Stevenson, and thus can be characterized as "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". Such views do "not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article". Mentioning them in the article on Stevenson would be using the article on Stevenson as a coatrack to present Almader's extreme minority viewpoint.

Furthermore, the sham "journal" that Almader published this response in was Stevenson's own "journal", so far from a disinterested outlet. All the more so because Almader owed Stevenson a favor, because Stevenson had written the preface to one of Almader's non-peer-reviewed books. It's hard to argue that Almader does not have a conflict of interest here. His response in the sham "journal" is basically Almader licking his wounds in his own team's locker room after the beating Edward's gave him out on the field, which is of little significance to the topic of this article or to our readership in general. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You're acknowledging that Almeder is a heavyweight, and that he could have published his paper anywhere. That's precisely why the expert exemption applies in this case -- in addition to the fact that the Almeder-Edwards debate is discussed by other academics, so it would be odd to pretend that part of it doesn't exist. (And Edwards does more than say Almeder somewhat defends Stevenson. He writes that Almeder strongly defends Stevenson and attacks him for it.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Dominus, could I ask you not to change your posts substantively after I've replied to them? Otherwise, I'm replying to something that you appear not to have said, or I'm failing to reply to something that you did say. Here is the version of your post that I replied to.

Your argument about using Stevenson as a coatrack for Almeder is not one I follow. The fact is that the Almeder-Edwards debate about Stevenson has been discussed by academics. There are a number of papers and books on both sides that are part of it, some of them not even mentioned here. I would like to have the intellectual freedom to refer to any of them in my editing of Ian Stevenson without worrying about whether the place of publication has an entry in the Book of Light. I would like to focus on the arguments, the reputation of the philosophers, and the extent to which their arguments are relevant to Stevenson. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You forgot again about SPS, which rules out sources that are unduly self-serving. Almeder's response is a self-defense, and all self-defenses are by definition unduly self-serving. That's why they are only allowed if published in non-self-published form. This part of the Almeder-Edward's debate can be ignored pecisely because no one describing the debate has commented substantially on THIS source specifically in the real academic literature. In fact, as far as we know, nobody has every read it or even knows that it exists. Even if it were mentioned off-hand, it wouldn't matter very much unless the discussion about it was substantial enough to show that the views espressed in it had prevalence in the reliable literature. As far as we can tell, Almeder's views on reincarnation are shared only by an extreme minority of his peers.

As for the coatrack argument, this article is about Stevenson, and material about Edwards response to Stevenson is on topic. Responses by anybody to anybody else, including Edwards response to Almader and the debate that insues, are peripheral to the topic of the article. As for your "intellectual freedom" plea, that is ridiculous, even more ridiculous than an appeal to common sense. The place of publication matters very much as far as our policies are concerned, especially for self-serving self-defenses that make WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The "self-serving" provision of SPS is intended for people saying things about themselves that are unlikely to be true or realistic, not for this kind of situation. Almeder's response was defending Stevenson. You seem to be going from policy to policy desperately looking for reasons to keep this out because you don't like it. But we're here as educators. Two relatively heavyweight academic philosophers have gone head-to-head over Stevenson, and one of them specializes in precisely this field (truth, skepticism, philosophy of science). Philosophers are interested in this because of an interest in consciousness, and a separate interest in knowledge and how it's formed (epistemology). Both have written books about reincarnation in which Stevenson figured heavily. Other academics have commented on their input. Our instinct as Wikipedians should be tell our readers what those people said, not to look for excuses to leave out one part of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No, we are not here as "educators." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thought experiment for Dominus

Dominus, you say on your user page that you have a background in microbiology. So imagine this scenario:

1. Professor of Microbiology John Smith. "A new idea in microbiology," in Very Important Peer-reviewed Journal, 2008.

2. Professor of Microbiology Susan Jones. "Response to Smith's new idea in microbiology," in Very Important Peer-reviewed Journal, 2009.

3. John Smith. My New Idea. Oxford University Press, 2010.

4. Susan Jones. Smith's New Idea: A Critique. Cambridge University Press, 2011.

5. John Smith. "Rejoinder to Jones" in Really Weird Little Magazine that Quite a Few People Don't Trust, 2012.

Suppose you were writing a Wikipedia article on Smith's new idea, and you wrote to him and said: "For heaven's sake, please tell me why you published that last paper in Really Weird Little Magazine?" And he replied that he could have published it anywhere, but he likes Really Weird Little Magazine and he thinks there are sometimes good things in it. And he doesn't care what other people think about the place of publication, because he has reached a point in his career where he doesn't have to care about things like that. Add that Jones has died to rule out any BLP complications. Would you seriously use only 1–4 as sources, but not 5, no matter what 5 said? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If I may reply, JSE is not really equivalent to a really weird magazine that quite a few people don't trust. It purports to be an academic journal but isn't. This is like following a country road that gets narrower and narrower until it ends up in a farmyard. So we can't always follow all the twists and turns of an academic argument. Something similar has cropped up in relation to cold fusion, where the vast majority of academics don't want to engage with the CF enthusiasts at all, then one publishes a critique, then the CF crowd reply, then the critical scientist responds, then the CF crowd are back in again. By this point the critical scientist feels he has nothing more to add. Does that mean the CF-ers have to have the last word? And now I am done with this thread. Not reliable for commentary on academic work. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow the farmyard analogy, and you didn't address the crucial point. If two academics have been discussing an issue for years, would you really only use 1–4 as sources for Wikipedia, and never mention 5, no matter what it said?

We have to follow policy. Otherwise the editors who like and don't like particular publications will go back and forth forever. This has long been a problem, and it's the reason RSN was started, to keep things focused on policy, but away from the policy talk pages.

The policy (V) does allow an expert exemption in SPS for a self-published source, and SOURCES (also part of V) allows reliability to reside in the author, not in the publication. The Almeder-Edwards debate about Stevenson is not an unknown one. Here again is a summary of it from Christopher Bache, professor of religious studies, in his Dark Night, Early Dawn, SUNY Press, 2000; and here from a philosopher, Mark Woodhouse, in his Paradigm Wars. In light of that confirmation of this very specific expertise, there really is nothing in policy that I'm aware of that would disallow that essay as a source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You bet your bottom dollar that I would not cite the fifth source here on WP, even if the ideas in it were consistent with the mainstream view. And alive or dead, there is nothing that Smith could say to convince me otherwise. You forget that for a scholar, the most important thing is not how much they publish, but how many times other scholars cite their work in the real scholarly literature, and that's not going to happen if the work is published in some silly "journal" that no one in their right mind even knows about, never mind would read, and definitely not cite in their own scholarly work. The fact that Smith published it without the benefit of peer review is proof enough for me that he himself was convinced that whatever he wrote was not all that important.

Neither would I cite it in my own professional work, and I can't imagine that any microbiologist would. Or any scientist in any field. I'd have a whole bit of explaining to do to the editor and the peer-reviewers of my article if I tried to pull such a stupid stunt.

I probably wouldn't even use the second or third sources here on WP for a science related topic (including fringe or pseudo-science) if they were not peer-reviewed or had not otherwise undergone some form of credible scholarly review (not everything by OUP and CUL is necessarily peer-reviewed). Otherwise, I might read them, and consider what's in them seriously, but I wouldn't cite them, except perhaps with extreme caution, meaning that I would have to be MIGHTY convinced that they had the consensus of the scientific community behind them.

As for self-published sources, I would never cite them at all for a scientific topic unless the material I were citing was also specifically mentioned in high-quality sources and thus clearly relected the consensus view (which is not the case for Almeder). Even then, I would only use them to support or illustrate what those more reliable sources say. About the only exception that I might consider using them for is to provide a CLEARLY consensus view on a fringe topic per WP:PARITY, like with the Edwards book in this article.

As for reputation, that counts for exactly jack shit as far as the merits of a scientist's ideas go in the scientfic community. When a paper is submitted for publication, only the merits of the paper itself count. The reputation of the author is immaterial. One doesn't even have to be a scientist to publish in the peer-reviewed literature, and even the best scientists get their papers rejected if they don't pass peer-review.

You seem to forget that even Noble Prize winners are perfectly capable of spinning complete and utter nonsense when off the clock, that is, when they are not subject to peer-review. Most especially when they talk to the popular press. Look at Linus Pauling and William Shockley for two good examples of Noble prize winners who did so.

As far as the exception to WP:SPS is concerned, you should read WP:IDHT. I've told you several times that SPSs cannot be used when they involve WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, no matter who writes them. Multiple high-quality sources are required, and for a scholarly topic, those would have to comply with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. So no, there is no policy based reason to use Almeders source here. And your wasting your time and mine insisting that there is. Now read WP:DEADHORSE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There are no exceptional claims in the article. It's a straightforward critique of Edwards' arguments, including those about Stevenson. So the SPS expert exemption can apply. And, speaking of IDHT, I keep pointing out that SOURCES, part of the V policy, says that reliability can lie with the author. Take those two together -- SOURCES and the expert exemption in SPS -- and there is no reason in policy to exclude the source. All the rest that you are pointing to are guidelines, and even they would support it if you read them carefully.

I'm saddened that you would include 1–4, but not 5. Perhaps that's one difference between science and the humanities, and certainly philosophy. A philosopher would want to know what everyone qualified had argued. I think Wikipedia's readers want the same. I can't imagine any reader saying, "please, whatever do you do, don't tell us what Almeder said in response." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you even read the article? It's nothing except exceptional claims, even from a philosophical standpoint, unless you define philosophy as "any old sort of bullshit". If our readers want to read any old sort of bullshit, they could go to Conservapedia or Creationwiki or Astrowiki or whateverwiki. We're only obigated to give the the best possible information from the best sources we can, and any old sort of bullshit from JSE doesn't qualify by a wide mile, regardless who wrote it.

FWIW, Itsmejudith is a humanist, and I have two humanist degrees myself, from a Jesuit university, no less, so I have a darn good idea of how academic philosophy works, and it certainly ain't the free-for-all that you think it is. Lax, yes. Lax to the point of publishing one's work in JSE and thinking that someone will take it seriously, hell no. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Frank VanderSloot

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

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

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

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

That would be no on several counts. I see no reliable source that establish the site as VanderSloot's. It is anonymously registered to Domains By Proxy, LLC in Scottsdale.[32] Vandersloot also cannot be considered a reliable source for documents allegedly published by US government offices. Additionally, the text itself contains no tangible details and serves no purpose. Lastly, it wouldn't be appropriate to include VanderSloot's self-published slagging of reporting from bona fide news/journalism sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be a signed document from the State of Idaho (not "US government") and forgery thereof would be a nice felony to tag vanderSloot with, if it is a forgery. As to news sources, that you lightly use a slang term for slander does your position on this no good at all. Are you asserting that vanderSloot is slandering news sources? On what basis do you make that interesting claim? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to resort to straw man arguments; and you really shouldn't be making these WP:OR speculative comments about felonies and slander in relation to a BLP subject. The site is not registered to Vandersloot, and even if it were, a self-published site by VS would not qualify as a WP:RS for Idaho government documents. What is there left to argue about? Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not accepting it's authenticity without proof is not tagging anyone with a felony. That is a farcical argument. Agree with Rhode Island Red on all accounts. The site is unreliable, and Van der Sloot's comment griping is unduly self-serving, and SPS's cannot be used to provide information on third parties. And his opinion is irrelvant, as he does not have any demonstrated competence to evaluate the work of journalists. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

RIR appeared to call the page "slagging" which is a well-defined term for "slander" - so the problem is clearly on his end. If the image is a fake, then a felony has been committed, and we likely should inquire of the Idaho Attorney General whether the letter is a fake before charging anyone with slander on a Wikipedia noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It just means griping about them, and your attempt to give it any more meaning than that is absurd. Nothing RIR said can be construed as a charge of slander, nor did he even insinuate that a felony had been committed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

as RIR and Dominus Vobisdu have said, a self published site can be used for non self serving comments about the subject. the proposed content clearly fails as being both self serving and about others. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Andrew's question was nicely, politely worded, and I suppose he has his answer by now: No. We should all look for a RS where VDS has responded to the charges against him, and then we could use these other two citations as backup. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the answer is clearly no. Which other two citations are you referring to? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Commercial / Business

Is there a section on using commercial websites or sites of businesses as refs? How about non-for-profit organizations? If I were to cite a fact on the non-profit organization GPTMC would that be permitted? I'm sorry if somewhere somebody talks about this, but I couldn't find it.--69.119.249.56 (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly would you like to add to the article using this source? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Here [33] it says that Philadelphia is the 2nd largest city on the East Coast. The only other sites that say that are ones like usatourist.com [34]. Are either of those OK? What is the official policy on commercial businesses or non-profit organizations' websites? Even though these sites may not be ideal, I think they still work and would like to know if they should be used.--69.119.249.56 (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not a particulary encyclopedic statement. It is largest in terms of what? Population? Due to the bias nature of such sources, you should look elsewhere. If the statement is true, you should be able to find better sources on it, possibily third-party commentary on census data.--Otterathome (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't found anything so far, but I'm still looking. It is in terms of population, that is usually the only factor with cities on the web and Wikipedia. Still, is the website a reliable source or is it not?--24.246.112.51 (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted that earlier in a public location, btw.--69.119.249.56 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC on reliable sources and citing names (with diacritics) in WP:BLP

RfC on Reliable Sources for Names in BLP.  LittleBen (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have commented there. I don't see it as principally a sourcing issue. (Or a BLP one, for that matter.) Itsmejudith (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

American Pie (song)

Hi all, I would like to state that the above song is one of my special songs and I would like to develop its article further. Well, generally song articles require info about their background, recording etc and a famous song like this one would require so. Now in the article at the end, there are many links to different interpretations of the song. My question to RSN is are those links reliable? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You may find helpful information Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs, and WP:ELNO. Reviews and commentary about songs (and movies and other creative stuff) must be from professional reviewers/critics. a list of professional /acceptable and not acceptable is found Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

and because it is such a classic song that has been around for a long time, books.google.com would also be a likely resource for generally reliable sourcing. (although you need to watch out for content "published" by Wikipedia mirrors, Heaphastus and Books LLC in particular)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I was checking the books, but if there are content in magazines like Billboard etc, will they be reliable? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, billboard is a well respected music industry source- although their content at google books is often in the very limited peek version. it is sometimes difficult in that preview mode to know that you are getting the full context.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

San Diego Comic Con

An IP editor added a statement regarding Lucca Comics & Games, on the San Diego Comic Con article using a blog as the reference for the change. Is this blog a reliable source?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are reliable sources if the author has already been published elsewhere as an expert in the field. So someone who is an expert on comics writing about them on his blog could be an RS. See WP:SPS. Is there perhaps another source that says the same thing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

According to his bio on the site, the author is not an expert. He's a lawyer that has been collecting comics for many years. His only notable accomplishments are that he collaborates with a comics e-book publisher where he takes care of storylines (no evidence of length of collaboration or whether anything of significance has been produced), and that he took part in a project that wrote a chapter in an essay on a comic writer. It's impossible to gauge the magnitude of his contribution to these projects, and from the vague language. In 2007, he wrote for a local newpaper. What he wrote it doesn't say, nor is there any indication that he was employed by the paper. He's been blogging on the site for two years. There's nothing here to indicate that he has any real demonstrated expertise. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Would it be safe to say that this fails WP:RS, as that is my opinion at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The only evidence we have about the author comes from his bio on the blog, which is not an independent source (he almost certainly wrote it himself). Nothing in that bio provides any evidence that he is a respected expert in the relevant field or a qualified journalist. Unless someone comes up with concrete evidence, then the source is definitely unreliable and cannot be used. I think it's highly unlikely that any concrete evidence will ever be found, but if someone wants to try, let them go for it. But until then, the source should not be added. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Is an edit by David Rohl adding a source written by him a reliable source to prove he was the first to propose something?

At Osorkon III David Rohl (talk · contribs) added a paper written by him and Peter James saying that "The identification of HPA Prince Osorkon with King Osorkon III was first proposed by David Rohl and Peter James in a paper published in 1982". I reverted this as COI and as needing an independent source stating that they were the first. Rohl reverted me[35] with the edit summary "Please do not undo an edit until you can demonstrate that it is factually incorrect. The additions to the article are published and verifiable." I don't think we can use an author as a reliable source that the author was the first to do anything. I'm also not convinced that a "Sis Workshop" paper, published by the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies is a reliable source in any case for this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The quoted part of Rohl's paper does not assert primacy in formulating the theory, though it argues for it against other established theories. The worse problem is the conflict of interest in which Rohl puts himself forward a length to prove his point. None of the other researchers gets as much marquee treatment—Aidan Dodson and Dyan Hilton are quoted to a lesser degree, and no others get the pulpit. What the article should do is tell the reader about both theories, attributing them to their founders and adherents. There is no need for a long quote about one of the arguments, especially a long quote that was added with self-promotion as a direct or indirect aim. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Not added as self-promotion but to inform the reader of the process which determined the now accepted hypothesis. The article should inform and explain why such a revision was proposed and accepted. This quote does that succinctly. Why shoud facts be removed from an article which is intended to inform? The evidence for the identification of HPA Osorkon with King Osorkon III should be in the article and a quotation taken from the first paper to put forward the hypothesis is worthy of inclusion. The married couple Dodson and Hilton were not involved in this debate. It was Anthony Leahy and David Aston who propsed the identification some years after Rohl.David Rohl (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

David, our conflict of interest guideline says: "It is better not to cite material you have written or published; if the material is notable and relevant, someone else is likely to cite it. But self-citation is not absolutely forbidden. It is permitted if the source material is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUBLISH, and is not excessive. Citations should be written in the third person, and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." See WP:SELFCITING.

So if another editor removes the material, that revert ought to stand until consensus changes. As for the part about you being the first to propose this, is there an independent source that confirms this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you SlimVirgin for your sensible and measured comment. The independent source you are looking for is historical fact which would stand up in any court of law. The paper to first announce the discovery was published in 1982. This is an historical fact. The paper was published by the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies which is an educational charity that has been in existence for more than forty years. The publication containing the article is lodged with the British Library, the Library of Congress and many other institutions. All this is indisputable fact. The problem here is that we are not dealing with a 'reliable scholarly opinion' on the hypothesis that I proposed (along with Peter James) in 1982 but rather a now widely accepted discovery. The discoverers are entitled to have their discovery recognised and not suppressed by an editor who has no academic background in the subject and no training in Egyptology. Doug Weller assumes I am not telling the truth and/or not being accurate ... on the basis of what? If I give a full reference and direct quote from the original article, is that assumed to be false? Does Wikipedia assume guilt before innocence?

The paragraph you quote from COI makes it quite clear that I am entitled to correct inaccurate and false statements within the self publication guidelines (though I hasten to add that I am not the publisher but rather the co-author, the publisher being the educational charity). The edits I made were absolutely notable and relevant because they set the record straight as to who made the discovery and what the basis of that discovery was. For Wikipedia to deny the discoverer his/her place in history is to suppress human rights and to deny truth. The edits conform to the guidelines you quote to the letter. So why should an eitor who makes it his business to constantly undermine my editing on Wikipedia, and who has no knowledge on the subject, be removing my contributions of fact? Is Wikipedia dominated by editors who prefer to supress facts and truth in favour of wrong interpretations of their own rules and regulations? You say "if another editor removes the material, that revert ought to stand until consensus changes'. So does that mean anyone can delete material on grounds which are shown not to breach guidelines and that reinstatement must await a consensus? Again guilty until proven innocent.

The reason why Wikipedia is denounced within academia as an 'unreliable source' (ironic given this dispute) and university students are forbidden from using Wikipedia as a research tool is precisely because it allows anonymous editors with no training or expertise in the subject areas to abuse their position. By the way Abuse of Position is a criminal offence. Is that how Wikipedia's genuine and responsible editors wish things to continue? Doug Weller has now reverted my contribution for a second time. What is his agenda here? Has he checked the sources? No. Is he interested in truth? I don't think so. Do his actions conform to Wikipedia policy? Again it doesn't look that way to me.David Rohl (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not assuming that Rohl is not telling the truth, I am saying that although it is indisputable that he published a paper in 1982, that publication alone does not prove who was first and that we need a reliable source stating this. I am trying my best to get Dodson's article which apparently states that Rohl was first but it may take some time. We could I guess quote Rohl saying that Rohl claims this, but I don't see why we should do this if we can find Dodson verifying this.

Rohl has attacked me various times here and elsewhere, and has attempted to find material on the Internet about my private life that could damage me. He's apologised for posting a link to a forged webpage (now removed) but this sort of activity is not acceptable. He's also accused me of criminal acts here and on his talk page and this is getting tiresome. Rohl has in the past stretched COI to the limit and beyond. And I agree with Binksternet's comments about the wording which certainly to my eyes looked promotional. We are having a similar dispute at Sheshonk IV. I intend to make sure that Rohl gets whatever credit he deserves but that should come from independent sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To repeat, correcting factual errors and making an article more truthful and encyclopaedic is not COI. Here are the quotes from Dodson proving my primacy in the discovery on the Shoshenq IV issue. What else do you need? Perhaps I might be able to extract blood out of a stone if you insist. Doug talks about tiresome ... do you realise how tiresome it is to have to constantly challenge false statements about me and attempts to suppress my Egyptological work/findings on Wikipedia? I am a 'living person' and you have rules that should ensure that you do not denegrate or minimize the specialist contributions on a particular subject by a living person or about a living person - material contributions which are published in books and jounals or confirmed/referenced in other scholar's articles.

Shoshenk IV (Dodson quotes):

That such a ruler might exist was apparently first suggested by David Rohl [Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Workshop 6:2 (1985); Chronology and Catastrophism Workshop (hereafter C&CW) 1986:1, 17-18, n.2; Rohl, personal communication, 1986.], basing his proposal on the stela of the Chief of the Libu, Niumataped, now in St Petersburg. Noting that the latter’s title otherwise first appears in Year 31 of Shoshenq III, Rohl’s view was to identify this worthy with one of identical name and title, attested in Year 8 of a ruler who should probably be taken as being Shoshenq V. [A. Dodson: ‘A new King Shoshenq confirmed?’ in GM 137 (1993), p. 53.]

Rohl’s conclusion was, however, that the monument actually constituted evidence for a second Hedjkheperre Shoshenq, whom he dubbed ‘Ib’. He suggested that he had ruled alongside Shoshenq III from early in the latter’s second decade for some fifteen years, perhaps being the unnamed king of Karnak Nile-Level text 24, whose year 12 corresponded to Pedubast’s Year 5 [Rohl, C&CW 1986:1, 17-18, 21.] [A. Dodson: ‘A new King Shoshenq confirmed?’ in GM 137 (1993), p. 54.]

In a paper published in 1989/90 [Rohl, JACF 3, 45-72.] he brought further evidence into the equation, in the form of finds made during Pierre Montet’s excavation of the tomb of Shoshenq III at San el-Hagar (NRT V). The sepulchre’s burial chamber contained two sarcophagi, that of the king himself, and another, without any inscription. In the debris, however, were found fragments from one of two canopic jars, bearing the names of Hedjkheperre-setepenre Shoshenq-meryamun-sibast-netjerheqaon. [A. Dodson: ‘A new King Shoshenq confirmed?’ in GM 137 (1993), p. 54.]

Rohl took a wholly different position, and used the evidence of the jars as the key element of his theory that there were indeed two Hedjkheperre Shoshenqs. [A. Dodson: ‘A new King Shoshenq confirmed?’ in GM 137 (1993), p. 55.]

Having implicitly rejected such a conclusion in 1986, further study of the canopic fragments as part of my general treatment of royal canopics has now led me rather to support the existence of two Shoshenqs with the prenomen Hedjkheperre. [A. Dodson: ‘A new King Shoshenq confirmed?’ in GM 137 (1993), p. 55.]

Wikipedia's credibility hangs like a Florida chad on its preparedness to publish the factual truth. Please do justice to the facts when they are given to you by someone who knows the truth.David Rohl (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

David, as a fellow academic (even if a minor one, and on a totally different discipline), I understand your frustration. But WP accepts verifiability, not truth. You may know what the truth is and what is not, personally, but we do not aim to write the Truth as a metaphysical concept: we aim at mirroring and condensing what external sources say. Now, it seems there are secondary sources who support your claim, and if so we can happily insert them, but we need them first to accept an edit, especially one where there is a conflict of interest. I recommend you to read this paper aimed at explaining how to edit WP for scientists. It has been written with biological scientists in mind, but many of the points apply to nearly every academic. Point 8 is especially relevant here. Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 13:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Cyclopia. To put an historical perspective on this dispute, my contribution to the Shoshenk IV article was to provide the proper citation to cover my primacy on the discovery (as requested in the article by 'citation needed'). I then added information to make the article consisten with this claim (made by an earlier author of the article). Doug Weller immediately reverted my edits and even deleted the original attribution of the discovery wriiten by the earlier editor, thus removing me completely from the article. The discoverer was therefore unfairly and unreasonably written out of history. This was an act of suppression and a denial of verified facts given in the original article and by my addition of the published reference. Not all editors here play fair.David Rohl (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. Just to update, I've written to a number of people trying to find the Dodson article which gives Rohl credit for this. I still don't understand why David thinks that an article of his claiming primacy actually shows primacy - from my perspective all it shows is that he published on something on a certain date and that he claimed primacy. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. What is wrong with you man? I just provided FIVE direct quotations from Dodson's article independently verifying my primacy, you still don't get it. You asked for independent scholarly verification. You asked for Dodson's verification. I provide this and you just ignore it. Never mind yawning and WAKE UP!David Rohl (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You provided quotations from an article that we cannot find. Normally we would assume good faith, but given the strong COI in this case we need to verify that such quotes are germane. Don't take it personally, it's standard practice. --Cyclopia^talk 14:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see the context as well. I'd alsWe can certainly state that in 1982 Rohl made the earliest "known" proposal that there was a pharaoh. We do that all the time. It could always be changed if somebody were to discover a pre-1982 source from someone else proposing this pharaoh, but I doubt anyone is going to find that, so let's use some common sense here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC) o like to assume good faith but the personal attacks make it difficult to do this. I don't doubt that the quotes are correct (although I'll point out that Rohl says on his talk page it could take days for him to find the paper. I guess this means he found it. I wish I could fine other sources about this as well. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Rohl's confrontational approach is not helping. --Cyclopia^talk 14:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Doug wrote the following: "I still don't understand why David thinks that an article of his claiming primacy actually shows primacy - from my perspective all it shows is that he published on something on a certain date and that he claimed primacy". So Darwin writes a book called 'The Origin of Species' propounding the theory of evolution. Now nobody wrote a book or article on this theory before him. But, hey, what does that prove? According to Doug, Darwin cannot prove primacy. Einstein wrote the theory of relativity. No-one wrote about this theory before him. But, hey, that doesn't mean he came up with it. According to Doug his publishing of the theory of relativity does not prove primacy. Rohl writes a paper on identifying a new pharaoh. Several years later the Egyptological community accepts the discovery. But, hey, what does that prove? According to Doug it does not prove primacy. So, by this distorted view of scholarship, no-one invented or discovered anything. Someone (completely unknown to us) might have come up with all discoveries before the discoverers. Sorry Darwin, sorry Einstein, sorry Rohl, we're going to have to remove you from the Wikipedia articles about your so-called discoveries. What a daft wikiworld we live in!David Rohl (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

So Darwin writes a book called 'The Origin of Species' propounding the theory of evolution. Now nobody wrote a book or article on this theory before him. But, hey, what does that prove? According to Doug, Darwin cannot prove primacy. - Circular reasoning. What has to be proven is the assumption: "nobody wrote a book or article on this theory before him". And the book by Darwin is not evidence of that, alone.

According to Doug his publishing of the theory of relativity does not prove primacy. - Indeed, it doesn't prove it at all. What has to be proven is that nobody published it before him. This can't be proven by the publication itself, quite obviously.

Someone (completely unknown to us) might have come up with all discoveries before the discoverers. All what matters is that reliable, verifiable secondary sources agree that Darwin and Einstein came first. Indeed, they mostly do. That's the same we're asking here. --Cyclopia^talk 15:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are the one with the circular reasoning Cyclopia. It is not the task of an inventor or discoverer or composer to prove that no-one came up with his invention, discovery or composition before him. That is a nonsense. It is up to the person challenging primacy to produce contrary evidence predating publication. An inventor patents his invention on a particular date. In doing so he does not have to prove primacy. A discoverer publishes his findings and his work is copyrighted. He does not have to prove primacy. A composer writes a piece of music and has it published and copyrighted. He does not have to prove that no-one came up with the tune before him. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise? Rohl published an article in an academic journal (a verifiable source, which was fully referenced and which complied with all Wiki critera for verifiability) arguing the evidence for the discovery of a new pharaoh. This was confirmed by another scholar several years later (a reference to this was given in the Wiki article dealing with this new pharaoh). An editor of Wikipedia then removes all mention of Rohl's work from the Wikipedia article dealing with the discovery of this new pharaoh and, in doing so, credits the discovery to the secondary scholar who had confirmed Rohl's discovery. The original Wikipedia article had mentioned Rohl's primacy but the later editor chose to remove that reference written by a Wikipedia author/editor independent of Rohl who had read the secondary scholar's article giving Rohl primacy. As a result, Rohl's discovery is deliberately and knowingly suppressed by Wikipedia. Who is in the wrong here?David Rohl (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not how Wikipedia operates. We need a reliable source for an explicit statement of primacy. Did Columbus discover America? What about Leif Ericson? Similarly, you cite Darwin. But Alfred Russel Wallace was about to publish about evolution before Darwin (although Darwin came up with the idea earlier, and formulated it in a more bullet-proof way), and in the end they published their respective papers simultaneously. That's why we need a third-party source to make a statement about "first". Wikipedia can recognize primacy, but it does not determine it. There would be no problem with a statement like "In 1982, Rohl proposed..." (which, in academic parlance is very nearly equivalent to your preferred wording). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

DR: Stephan, the third-party source is the Dodson 1993 paper in GM 137 which I have quoted above. I would be happy for that to be quoted in the Wiki article as a factual statement on primacy. Once that is done, I would expect where discoveries are then attributed to Dodson in the Wiki article, but which Dodson attributes to me, that they are corrected to reflect the evidence from Dodson. David Rohl (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

We can certainly state that in 1982 Rohl made the earliest "known" proposal that there was a pharaoh. We do that all the time. It could always be changed if somebody were to discover a pre-1982 source from someone else proposing this pharaoh, but I doubt anyone is going to find that, so let's use some common sense here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

DR: Comon sense and the reporting of facts supported by published material is what I am asking for.David Rohl (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't even think that would be appropriate. "earliest known" to whom? To Wikipedia editors? That's WP:OR. If it's the earliest known, there needs to be a reliable source showing that it's the earliest known. If it's the first, it needs a reliable source showing that it's the first. - SudoGhost 17:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

DR: I thought reliable sources would be both the original published articles (1986 & 1989) and the acknowledgement found in Dodson's paper (1993)?David Rohl (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

David, can you email DougWeller the Dodson article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

DR: Troy Sagrillo is apparently sending a PDF. I only have a photocopy of the Dodson paper.David Rohl (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If Troy's handling it, that's fine, but if you have access to a scanner, that would be helpful too, and it might be faster. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"It is not the task of an inventor or discoverer or composer to prove that no-one came up with his invention, discovery or composition before him." - On Wikipedia it is, sorry. No matter if you don't like it, WP:V is not going to change: we need reliable secondary sources stating that someone was first. --Cyclopia^talk 17:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it certainly is not the task of a creator of any kind to prove that they came up with it first (generally). It is however the task of a Wikipedia editor to verify claims that they put into articles. Conflict of interest aside, it doesn't matter that the author of the cited content and the editor are the same person. When you wrote the publication that was as an academic, but when you added it to Wikipedia, it was as a Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia requires verification, if it's the first you need a source stating this. Any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. In this case, you need an inline citation that directly supports the primacy claim. - SudoGhost 18:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

DR:The editing I did to the article was adding the citation requested. All the edits were referenced with author, title, publisher, date of publication and page number. This represents a verifiable source according to Wiki guidelines.David Rohl (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's all in the wording. You could mention the second guy to propose it first. Then, "This had also been proposed earlier in 1982, by David Rohl." Everyone should be happy - no direct claim he was the first, but it at least notes he came up with it before the other guy. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I like this solution. It would be nice is Rohl provides this source nonetheless. --Cyclopia^talk 18:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Troy Sagrillo[36] is going to try to get me a pdf. It may take a couple of days. I think that "Rohl proposed" is pretty good wording, especially as it is Dodson that people generally use as a source, not Rohl.

DR: Doug, you need to get this right. I have no problem with 'In 1989 Rohl proposed ...' but the fact that Dodson used Rohl as a source is the proper and morally correct way to report the discovery with Dodson confirming. That is how the article was written before you edited me out.David Rohl (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the statement added by Rohl that "The identification of HPA Prince Osorkon with King Osorkon III was first proposed by David Rohl and Peter James in a paper published in 1982". Rohl reverted me and continues to assert that their paper proves they were first. I find this hard to accept. It appears to be a pretty old idea, eg found in Hermann Kees' Das Priestertum im ägyptischen Staat von Neuen Reich bis zur Spätzeit (1953) and mentioned in 1976 in "Chronique d'Égypte - Volume 51 - Page 299 Fondation égyptologique reine Élisabeth - 1976 -On a voulu récemment identifier de nouveau le grand-prêtre d'Amon Osorkon B avec le pharaon Osorkon III.[37]. I'm not sure what to make of this, except to repeat that part of my argument is that an "SIS Workshop" publication presumably published by the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (read the article) is not a reliable source. And that I will be even more skeptical in the future if David Rohl continues to add his publications to articles. I may have a bit more to say later Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

DR: You are not understanding Doug. The quotation from the Rohl/James 1982 paper you deleted from the Osorkon article did not simply claim HPA Osorkon was Osorkon III, it countered Kitchen's argument that HPA Osorkon could not be Osorkon III because he would have been well over 100 years old. We reinterpreted the text of the Prince Osorkon Chronicle to show that there was an overlap beween the reigns of Takelot II and Shoshenk III which resulted in an age for Osorkon III of around 80. It was this proposal/interpretation which was new and which enabled Egyptologists to accept HPA Osorkon = King Osorkon III. You deleted that imporant argument from the 'Identity' part of the article, thus removing our research and major contribution to the successful identification, several years before Leahy and Aston's work on the problem.David Rohl (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not what your edit said. And if what you now say is the case and it's indeed important, then we should be able to find reliable sources mentioning the work by you and Peter James. We can use those, we can't use your article. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Another source for suggesting they were the same: Baer, Klaus. 1973. “The Libyan and Nubian kings of Egypt: Notes on the chronology of Dynasties XXII to XXVI.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32:4–25. "Osorkon III was in all likelihood the former high priest". Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In which case, why did you not simply remove the word 'first' in the intial sentence, rather than deleting the entire edit? Here is what I added, for those who might be able to recognise a useful and informative addition to the article. To quote:

"The identification of HPA Prince Osorkon with King Osorkon III was first proposed by David Rohl and Peter James in a paper published in 1982 where they state the following:

“The chronicle of the High Priest of Amun (HPA) – Prince Osorkon states that he served King Takelot II from the latter’s Year 11 to 25 and then under King Shoshenk III from Year 22 to Year 39. The conventional chronology interposes 21 years between these two periods of office, on the assumption that Takelot II and Shoshenk III reigned consecutively, and is forced to postulate that HPA Osorkon lost his hold over the Thebaid and ‘disappeared from the scene’ in the intervening years. We, however, contend that Year 22 of Shoshenk shortly followed the death of Takelot in his 25th year as the inscription logically suggests. This would mean that Shoshenk III began his reign in Busiris sometime during the 4th year of Takelot II. ... it would have been highly unlikely for HPA Prince Osorkon to have eventually attained the throne as Osorkon III, since he would have been at least 73 years old (assuming a minimum age of 20 years when he became High Priest, plus 14 years under Takelot, plus 39 years under Shoshenk). Adding to this the 28 regnal years of Osorkon III, he would have died at the ripe of age of 101! By eradicating the erroneous 21 years of so-called ‘exile’, his identification with Osorkon III, dying at the age of 80, becomes eminently more feasible. This is strongly supported by another piece of evidence – Prince Osorkon’s mother was Karomama Merytmut, whilst Osorkon III gave his mother’s name as Kamama Merytmut.[9]""

This is all evidence to confirm the identification HPA Osorkon = Osorkon III and removes Kitchen's criticism that HPA Osorkon would have been too old to become the long-reigned Osorkon III. This is an important addition to the article. It is a published quotation with a full and proper reliable reference to source, copyright dated to 1982. Why then would you delete it when it complies with Wiki guidelines? What guidelines do you think it breaches? Why can't you use the 1982 article? Do you deny its existence? Why is it necessary to have a comment or reference from another scholar to prove its existence? I don't see that as a requirement in the guidelines.David Rohl (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should you be mentioned here at all? This is a proposal that goes back to at least 1913( Daressy, Georges. 1913. “Notes sur les XXIIe, XXIIIe et XXIVe dynasties.” Recueil de travaux rélatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 35:129–150). A number of people suggested it, yet you edited the article to state that you and James were the first. Why would you make that claim(which makes it appear that you are unaware of these past proposals), let alone give your views such emphasis? You added a large quote from your paper and the way you added it made it look as though the other scholars already mentioned in the article were somehow following or confirming your arguments explicitly. Of course I don't deny the existence of the article, I deny the importance of it. One of the things we expect from sources is not only should they be reliably published but they need to be significant views (part of our WP:NPOV policy and reported by clearly reliable sources. Yours is neither. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says that "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars." That doesn't seem to be the case for the SIS Workhsop. Also, it says "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context." Yours seems to fail that also. I don't see that your views have any place in the Osorkon III article as they are not published in what we consider to be a reliable source and they seem to have been basically ignored by other Egyptologists. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's try to fulfil the Wikipedia criteria. You deny that SIS Workshop and my articles therein qualify on the reliability issue and whether they have 'entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes'. You have already accepted that Dodson is a mainstream academic. So when Dodson lists SIS Workshop and my articles in his books (published by the American University in Cairo) I assume you accept that this meets the Wikipedia criteria? See A. Dodson: Afterglow of Empire (2012), p. 307; see A. Dodson: 'A New King Shoshenk Confirmed?' in Göttinger Miszellen 137 (1993), pp. 54 & 55; also see P. van der Veen & U. Zerbst: Biblische Archäologie am Scheideweg? (Hänssler-Verlag, 2002), p. 534; see Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum III, p. 69. And before you go questioning the reliability of JACF, can I remind you that this journal has published papers by leading scholars such as Professor Peter Warren (Bristol University), Professor Mohamed Ibrahim (now Minister for Antiquities in Egypt), Professor Nicholas Coldstream (University College London), Professor Mike Baillie (Belfast University), Vronwey Hankey (British School in Athens), Dr John Bimson (Trinity College Bristol), Dr Aidan Dodson (Bristol University), Dr Bill Manley, Professor Peter Janosi (University of Vienna), Dr Robert Morkot (Exeter University), Professor John Ray (Cambridge University), Eric Uphill (UCL), Professor Jose Perez-Accino (Universidad de Complutense), Peter Parr (Institute of Archaeology), Jonathan Tubb (British Museum), Professor Wolfgang Helck (University of Hamburg), Dr Toby Wilkinson (Cambridge University), Professor Karl Jansen-Winkeln (University of Berlin), etc.

On the matter of the claim to primacy, I have explained that already. Kitchen, the leading TIP scholar had dismissed all previous suggestions that HPA Osorkon could be one and the same person as the later Osorkon III on the grounds that the interval of time between the two was too great and Osorkon would be far too old. This view pertained for a number of years. Rohl and James were then the first (in 1982) to propose a chronoogical revision of 20 years to Osorkon's period in office as High Priest of Amun (as indicated by the 'Chronicle of Prince Osorkon'). This enabled HPA Osorkon to be identified with King Osorkon (dying now at the age of c.80 years). This proposal was then taken up by David Aston and Tony Leahy and is now widely accepted. You say the Rohl/James proposal needs to be a 'significant view (part of our WP:NPOV policy and reported by clearly reliable sources. Yours is neither.' This is patently untrue as that same view (i.e. the same proposal) was later made by two respected scholars and accepted by Egyptology. So not only is this aspect of Osorkon III's identity significant to the article but the source is historically attestable, verifiable in copyright dated publications and accepted by the academic community. This view was not 'given such emphasis', as you claim, it was simply added to the article in the form of a quote which succinctly explained the proposal - a piece of the evidence for identifying Osorkon III which was not otherwise included in the article. So I ask you, why would you exclude it? You deny the importance of it but the proposal was the key to unlocking the identification. Without it Kitchen's view woud still pertain.

As evidenced by your constant challenges to my Wikipedia editorship, going back to my first contribution, you seem to have given yourself a mission to deny my research contributions to scholarship wherever you can in Wikipedia. Why are you doing that? You are not behaving in a fair and reasonable manner because you set standards for me that would not apply to the vast majority of Wikipedia editorial contributors. If I were to apply your Draconian interpretation of the Wiki criteria across the board of Wikipedia articles, a large proportion of the contents would have to be deleted as 'unreliable' and 'unverifiable'. In a court of law, a document exists by its very publication and the copyright date of the document acts to establish when the document was published. The document is therefore verified (especially if it is held by an institution such as the British Library). The contents of the document is also intellectually copyrighted and for an editor of Wikipedia to knowingly ignore that document in preference to a later document claiming the same discovery or hypothesis is dishonest and a suppression of truth. I ask you to rethink your position and start behaving in a more reasonable fashion.David Rohl (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Rohl, this is not a court of law, your edits are subject to much higher standards and scrutiny for WP:COI and WP:SELFPUB (and perhaps WP:FRINGE, but I have no knowledge of the subject to determine that with any clarity), and it has been exhaustively explained why the mere date of your publications is not enough to apply primacy. Seems like you begin to act deaf. --Cyclopia^talk 12:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying the same thing, I think, in a different way. David, this is already a very long argument, but however long you argue, you aren't going to be able to say, in a Wikipedia article, I was the first. For any such claim Wikipedia has a clear need for a secondary source. Making any such claim about your own work shows a clear conflict of interest. Andrew Dalby 12:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

David argues that the Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum is reliable (although I don't think he understands what we mean as a reliable source). He doesn't mention that it is not peer reviewed, or that it was published by the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences of which he was Director - or even that he was editor of the journal. Perhaps he thinks that's not relevant. He argues that because the Rohl/James proposal was also made later "by two respected scholars and accepted by the academic community" it is a quote from his work that should be used. I don't see the rationale there. I agree that he should get some credit for the Shoshenk IV proposal and will try to add something to that article if no one else beats me to it. If there is significant discussion about the Osorkon proposal in mainstream sources akin to Dodson's discussion of Rohl's Shoshenk IV proposal that can probably be included. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've edited Sheshonk IV (who I've literally just noticed we call "Hedjkheperre Setepenre Shoshenq IV", using the Shoshenq spelling throughout the article) and replaced some of Rohl's edits more or less intact. I've cited his JACF article as Dodson also cites it, citing Dodson's as well. Rohl's edit said he proposed it in 1989 but Dodson says 1986 so I've used that earlier date - Rohl wrote another article in 1989. David, if you are unhappy you can comment on the talk page. I'll look at the Osorkon article sometime as I have more material now relating to it. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this synth at Art Pope?

A user has removed a line from the article on Art Pope which reads

Additionally, during the same year, the John William Pope Foundation donated $1.35 million to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the sister group of the conservative political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity.

References

as a violation of WP:SYNTH. I have argued that this is not synth because the first source ("The John William Pope Foundation, headed by North Carolina multimillionaire Art Pope, gave the Americans for Prosperity Foundation $1.35 million in 2010.") establishes the bulk of the sentence, while the other sources only add additional details -- that AfPF is the sister group of AfP, and that it's a conservative political action group. However, there is very little activity on the article's talk page, and I would appreciate more eyes on the issue. Thanks, a13ean (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not synthesis. However, it could be undue weight given to the biography article, when the John William Pope Foundation article seems the more appropriate place for that bit and for most of the discussion of Pope money spent on politics. The biography should be specifically about Art Pope the man, not a sidecar for hauling John William Pope Foundation concerns and activities. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, and I understand the concern. I would, however, note that Pope's donations to political causes are one of the primary reasons he is notable, and that the page currently spends more space discussing his non-political charitable donations through the same foundation. If both of these were only mentioned on the foundation's wiki page it would make his article rather short. a13ean (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Are Think Progress, Rachel Maddow's blog, and Al Jazera WP:RS in the article Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections

The article in question is Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections. THe text in question is as follows:

Jim Buchy: "It’s a question I have never thought about"

State Rep. Jim Buchy (R-OH) gave an interview with Al Jazeera . The reporter asked Buchy why he thinks some women may want to have an abortion. He stated, "Well, there’s probably a lot of — I’m not a woman so I’m thinking, if I’m a woman, why would I want to get — some of it has to do with economics. A lot has to do with economics. I don’t know, I have never — It’s a question I have never thought about." These comments were picked up nationally, including by the Rachel Maddow Show.

The sources in question are Think Progress, Rachel Maddow's Show, and Al Jazera. The current conversation on the talk page can be found here. Relevant conversations for Al Jazera can be found Here and here . One discussion I found for Think Progress can be found here here.

Thanks in advance. Casprings (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• The section is no longer part of the article. The last edit with it included is here. Again, thank you in advance. Casprings (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• And it was Rachel Maddow's show, not a blog. A relevant discussion can be found here. Okay, last edit. Will wait for your inputs. I think I finally got all the information in. Thanks again.Casprings (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You're just looking to confirm whether Al Jazera is a reliable source for that quote, is that right? All we need to do is verify that Jim Buchy made this statement in the video documentary produced by Al Jazera. This seems too simple. I wonder if I'm missing something. TheBlueCanoe 06:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was simple. People disagree. I would say I need to show two things. 1. It happened. 2.Notable people and sources talked About it happening.. The question is, are these sources WP:RS to show that. Casprings (talk) 06:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

A video posted on the Al Jazeera website showing someone talking is always going to be a reliable source for what they say. The other questions to ask: Is the quote accurate compared to the video? Is the quote something our readers will be interested in or is it basically a non-event that we should ignore? I think the MSNBC video is fairly strong evidence of high-profile public comment, so it is probably not a non-event. Formerip (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI; TWO parts to this. The first, as Casprings was told on the Article page, is that there is a transcript/video/story on Al Jazeera where this candidate responded to a question. That is fact, and Casprings has been told that the fact that it was said satisfies WP:RS on several bases, but that this clip from the interview was not in any way notable, by WP:RS. The second part is, is the expansion of this clip to state in WP's voice through a whole section on the candidate's "rape controversy" that he actually meant x or y, when he clearly made a half-hearted attempt to answer and then said, I don't know. THOSE can only be attributed to the other refs. The real question is if you can take that the attack blogs SAID this is a controversy as fact not opinion, can this be said without attribution as to opinion, and whether erecting a section which just states (actually pretty hyperbolic) commentary/attacks of what he "might" have meant is sufficiently notable to overcome WP:BLP concerns as a WP:RS. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, this isn't a question of whether Al Jazera is reliable for the quote—that can be verified by watching the video. The quote could be treated as a primary source, but interpretations of it, and of its overall significance, should come from secondary sources. This material might be notable, but be careful to remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.TheBlueCanoe 14:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, there ARE problems with the transcript, the source isn't actually Al Jazeera, but those are a little more complex for editors to get into. Yes, I like your point that A-J CAN be used as a secondary WP:RS, but in this case, is not, but is instead being used as a primary; that is a good way to put it, and makes the perspective clearer that it is only the take of opinion/attack sites that tries to elevate this to notability. Cannot in any way state in WP's voice that THIS is a Controvesy, or any general descriptions of the attacks/opinons except through tertiary sources. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is my point. Once source shows it happened. Two (Now three) sources shows why it matters. In the context of the article it is notable and should be included. Casprings (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't see any point made. One source, generally a WP:RS secondary source is being used as a primary source; no part of WHAT they say about this quote is included, nor do they assert it is WP:N. The other refs are only reliable for what is important TO THEM, aka for opinions only. Neither the WP:RS (because they do not assert it) nor the attack blogs (who assert it but are not reliable) can be taken to be a WP:RS that this is some significant controversy. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Grand Comics Database

Is Grand Comics Database a reliable source?

I am concerned because it is being used to verify claims on BLPs. For example, in Al Gordon (comics),

In 1982, Gordon left Marvel for DC Comics to ink writer-penciler-co-creator Scott Shaw and fill-in penciler Stan Goldberg on the funny-animal superhero series Captain Carrot and His Amazing Zoo Crew. In 1983, Gordon did a year-and-a-half run at the independent Eclipse Comics, inking Will Meugniot on Will and Mark Evanier's The DNAgents, as well as inking Rick Hoberg for the company's spin-off series Surge and its anthology Eclipse Monthly.

Afterward, he returned to Marvel to become the regular inker on the company's flagship series Fantastic Four, and on the science-fiction adventure limited series Rocket Raccoon (with Mike Mignola penciling). Other work around this time includes issues of The Eternals and Power Pack, and Marvel's licensed series Thundercats and Transformers.

Freelancing once again for DC, Gordon in 1987 began inking Kevin Maguire while working with plotter/thumbnail artist Keith Giffen on Justice League International. Two years later, Gordon, this time inking Giffen, also began cowriting with Giffen and Tom and Mary Bierbaum for DC's revamped Legion of Super Heroes. Gordon took over the complete writing and scripting chores for issues #21 though 24 (Aug. 1991), while continuing to ink Giffen.

In 1992 he began adapting a childhood creation, WildStar, with Jerry Ordway for creator-owned company Image Comics. WildStar: Sky Zero was the title of the miniseries that was written, inked, edited (with the help of Bud Shakespeare) and produced by Gordon, and penciled by Jerry Ordway. There was also a continuing WildStar series started with penciler Chris Marrinan.

At the time of writing, all of that information is referenced only to GCD, here [38].

I am concerned that it is not appropriate to reference info on living people to that source.

Shaz0t (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think we can use it for anything here on WP, except for non-controversial information about himself. From our article, "The Grand Comics Database is a volunteer organization of hobbyists." It sounds a lot like WP, with content contributed by the volunteers. There's no credible editorial oversight. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, I need to point out it does have credible oversight. For details, please see my 19:58, 21 November 2012 post below. And come to think, all we're using it for is indeed "non-controversial information about himself" (publicly posted credits). --Tenebrae (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree; I just need confirmation of my belief that it's not an RS. Thanks, Dom. Shaz0t (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I would not consider it a RS, but I am certainly no policy expert. --Malerooster (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's just a bunch of volunteer hobbyists, then no, it isn't reliable. They don't exactly have the reputation for fact-checking, nor the expert level notoriety, that would be required for it to be considered a reliable source according to our guidelines. Silverseren^C 03:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It states We're a nonprofit, Internet-based organization of international volunteers dedicated to building a database covering all printed comics throughout the world on the main site. Clearly along similar lines to IMDB, which is not RS (see WP:RS/IMDB): there may be some editorial control, but it is not possible to assess the expertise of it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep The Grand Comics Database is completely different from IMDb in that accountable registered users, using their real names — and in many cases authorities in the field such as Dr. Michael J. Vassallo — make recommended edits that, as I know from experience, do not go into after a thorough vetting process involving at least one and often more than one "mentor" editor. There is absolutely an editorial process. This is not Comic Book DB by any stretch.

As with movie credits, for which the movies themselves are allowed to serve as primary sources, the comics credits are from the comics themselves. When not, the source of the credit, such as an interview with the creator, consensus from a comics-historian research group, etc. Nothing is unsourced and everything is transparent.

I would also note that Shaz0t has been blocked indefinitely for abuse of multiple accounts and disrupting Wikipedia for apparently his own amusement. This attack on the single most reliable source on the net for comics credit seems simply a part of his anarchic campaign. I believe if he actually knew the site's vetting process and transparency ... well, he'd probably do no different since he seems to enjoy creating chaos that ends up involving many, many editors' time and efforts. He seems to be doing it for a laugh. As one editor says on this blocked user's talk page:

Shaz0t's entire purpose here is to harm the encyclopedia by using our policies as weapons against us. I don't know if the motivation is simply to fuck with "the man" (as Wikipedia has become, as the primary source of online information), the furtherance of anarchy, or an adolescent thrill with messing around with important shit, but it would behoove us to take editors such as this into our consideration as we discuss the future of Wikipedia....

All worth keeping in mind. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You can probably argue the case that certain entries in the database are RS if they are entered by a published expert in the field; in a situation like that though, you have you take each instance on a case-by case basis since you are establishing the 'expert' credentials of each author as opposed to the RS status of the database as a whole. For instance, we make an exception for the IMDB writers credit when they are supplied by the WGA, since the WGA is an RS contributor to IMDB. Betty Logan (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There being no comics equivalent of the WGA, the published credits stated in the comics themselves would serve the same function, I imagine. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but as Betty Logan said, the individual entries are only reliable if they are written by a published expert in comics. Not if they're written by a random guy who volunteers for the database. Silverseren^C 01:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a point needs to be made that this is not original-research information, but for the most part simply an aggregation of published credits. For credits that were not published, as in many Golden Age comics, for example, I agree that the original source that GCD references should be used instead of GCD.

Additionally, unlike a open wikia, material goes through a rigorous (occasionally exasperating) verification and approval process.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I remember when I learned, much to my frustration, that we couldn't use CBDB as a source because its info was user-generated. I assumed the same was of Grand CDB, but was then told by someone (I don't remember who or when) that it was okay, because Grand was not UG. Now I'm seeing that some people here are saying it's not reliable. So is it or isn't it? Betty Rose says that it's "clearly along similar lines to IMDB", but the mission statement that she quotes from Grand CDB doesn't make it user-generated. It's whether its info is restricted to a staff of editors. (And more generally to IRS, whether it's considered an authoritative, reliable source by the industry.) So is it? This is important, because Tenebrae says that it shouldn't be used for info on anything other than itself, yet there are scores of comics-related articles, including BLPs, that indicate Grand as a reference, often in the References section without any inline citations. Nightscream (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Tenebrae, I see no reason why it should not be an RS or any less reliable than something like say Variety, which is staffed by experts and yet gets things wrong often. GCDB isn't like IMDB in that users can almost freely edit it. Unless it is being used to source some very extreme claim then there shouldn't be a problem, which is true for pretty much any source on Wikipedia. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Specifics please

Let's take this from a policy point of view (using WP:RS at least as a guide), and also in comparison to other reference works.

I'd like to hear how GCD may differ from any encyclopedia (or other compendium of information) that we might use as a reference. And also how it may be the same as any encyclopedia we might reference. Please list the specifics. - jc37 02:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't we try to avoid using other encyclopedias as much as possible, since they're tertiary sources? Silverseren^C 02:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect jc37 is referring to things like the reliable-source Internet Off-Broadway Database, which is a similar nonprofit effort serving the same function in the same way: Edited and vetted contributions of publicly available (albeit often hard-to-find) production credits. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"Darío Fernández-Morera: "The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise" The Intercollegiate Review

• "Darío Fernández-Morera: "The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise", The Intercollegiate Review, Fall 2006, pp. 23–31 (30)

Roscelese talk delets

Her Spanish colleague Darío Fernández-Morera takes the opposite view, arguing that "Islamic Spain was not a model of multicultural harmony. Andalusia was beset by religious, political, and racial conflicts controlled in the best of times only by the application of tyrannical force (by its rulers)

‎saying; (a source from an agenda-based organization does not refute real sources) [39] I checked the source and found it to be OK at worst so I restored [40] again deleted as an unreliable source (rmv poor source; neutral point of view is not about "balance" at the expense of WP:RS) [41] The claim is contrary to the poets claim just above but the article is referenced and I will leave it to user Roscelese and others to make a case J8079s (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Intercollegiate Review, contrary to its academic-sounding name, is a publication from an, ahem, "pro-Christian" and "pro-European" think tank, not a scholarly institution. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's putting it lightly. It's religious/political propaganda thinly disguised as a scholarly journal. Not reliable for anything on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

sources at Franklin Mint

Franklin Mint was a marketer of "mass-market collectibles" including "coins" or medallions, ceramic plates, books, and die-cast miniature automobiles. Much of the content has appeared to be ads or perhaps fancruft mostly about the die-cast cars. Are the following sources considered reliable in this context? I've added commercial pages from the websites after the * (because I don't think commercial sites are in general reliable sources)

Current, Jenny. No date. Met Collectibles / Toys. Hoosier Met Website dedicated to Nash Metropolitans. [42]

• http://www.hoosiermets.com/dealers.html

Flickr Reitwagen. 2012. Franklin Mint's Daimler Reitwagen. Flickr photo gallery.[43]

Johnson, Dana. 1998. Collector's Guide to Diecast Toys and Scale Models, Second Edition. Padukah, Kentucky: Collector Books, A Division of Schroeder Publishing. ISBN 1-57432-041-6.

JSS Software. 2012. The Franklin Mint Diecast Model Library. Independent diecast database website dedicated to reviews of diecast models. [44]

• http://www.jsssoftware.com/asp/forsale.asp

Olson, Randall. 2007. GM in Miniature. Dorcester, England: Veloce Publishing. ISBN:978-1-84584-156-0.

These sources are used to support statements like

"One website reviewing Franklin Mint vehicles points out that though the lines of the 1:24 scale 1948 Tucker were "clean and precise" the model suffered from unrealistic thick hinges, window plastic 'glass' correct in some places but lacking in others, and misplacement of steering wheel and other interior parts (JSS Software 2012)."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Scarecrow Press as a reliable publisher

G'day, I am wondering about "The A to Z of Bulgaria", Raymond Detrez, Scarecrow Press, 2010, ISBN 0810872021, and whether Scarecrow Press can be considered a reliable publisher. Does anyone have any information that would help? This [45] indicates that the book was originally from Penn State. Assistance would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Scarecrow Press is an academic press with a very good reputation. --Orange Mike | Talk 07:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Musician's official web site as a source

Hello, I am just starting with Wikipedia, and wanted to know if a musician's official web site is considered a reliable source for information about them, especially when it comes to basic bio info, like where/when the person was born, and where they went to school.