Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Current large scale clean-up efforts
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Extended content
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
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. [1] [2] 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.
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.
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. [3] The journal is regarded by some editors as not an RS for anything, because it is not peer-reviewed (the journal says it is peer-reviewed, the editors say it is not; I don't know which is true), and because it specializes in anomalies (parapsychology, etc).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 using this article as a source is as follows:
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
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)
Essence of the argumentWhat 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)
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.
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)
Example of the kind of thing the source is needed forHere 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)
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.
Publication sequence
Reply to Blueboar – I think I have the Edwards-Almeder publishing sequence about reincarnation in order now. Edwards and Almeder discussed Stevenson in the following, and in several discussed each other, or their disagreement about Stevenson was discussed by a third (academic) party.
It is number 10 that we're discussing here. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thought experiment for DominusDominus, you say on your user page that you have a background in microbiology. So imagine this scenario:
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)
Response from the authorI made Professor Almeder aware of this discussion a few days ago, and we've exchanged a few emails about it. He has given me permission to summarize and quote from the correspondence. Regarding the journal, he wrote:
Note that I haven't seen Almeder's exchange with Steven Hales in Philosophia, but if Hales addressed the 1997 essay in his paper(s), that deals with the objection that there was no academic response to it. Almeder went on to say that he wanted in the 1997 essay to clarify the minimalist conception of reincarnation because Edwards seemed to conflate all reincarnationist views with religious belief and superstition. He also wrote:
He added that the editor who is opposing his work (I assume he meant Dominus, but this could apply to anyone) should feel free to contact him directly with his reasons. If anyone wants to do that, please email me and I'll pass on the details. He also pointed out that he has written a chapter, "The Major Objections from Reductive Materialism Against Belief in the Existence of Cartesian Mind-Body Dualism", in Alexander Moreira-Almeida and Franklin Santana Santos, Exploring Frontiers of the Mind-Brain Relationship, Springer 2011, pp. 16–33 (reincarnation discussed on pp. 21–22, 24, 32). I hope this further addresses the issue of whether he has expertise in this area. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC) |
Summary
This has become so long that uninvolved editors may be reluctant to comment, so this is a summary. The policy question is whether reliability invariably rests with the publication, or whether it can also rest with the author. Sorry for banging on about it, but we sometimes need to cite experts who published in odd places (or self-published) in the interests of NPOV.
I would like to use this essay by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy, as a source for our biography of Ian Stevenson (not a BLP). Stevenson was a psychiatrist who interviewed children who claimed to have lived before. Almeder's essay is a response to another philosopher, Paul Edwards, who devoted a chapter of a book to criticism of Stevenson. I would like to include the criticism and the response. Both philosophers had published several times before about Ian Stevenson and each other. See the publishing sequence above.
The argument against using the essay is that Almeder published it in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which deals with parapsychology and similar issues. The argument for is that WP:V says reliability can rest with the author:
- WP:SOURCES: "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."
- WP:SPS: "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."
If we can use self-published sources when the author is an expert, we should be able to apply the same expert exemption to an essay published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. See the author's statement about this in the section above. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think it allowable to use Almeder in the context that SV is describing. However, I note that (apparently) there are others who have commented upon the debate between Almeder and Edwards... they would be even better sources (as this would avoid having to use both Edwards and Almeder in a WP:PRIMARY context.) Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Using Edwards-Almeder directly is unavoidable if Edwards's critique of Stevenson is to be added, because both the criticism and the response are detailed (more detailed than currently in the article). But I'll use the independent sources too to show that the debate was noted by others. Many thanks again. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- You were given a number of independent responses, you just seem to have chosen to ignore them and keep arguing until one editor gave you a response you like. Your basic argument is to give weight to a dubious source to counter other sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe anyone has adequately answered the points SlimVirgin has raised that a source's reliability can rest with the author and that self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic. SlimVirgin has made the case quite well, I think, especially with statements from Almeder himself. So I agree with SV's position. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- This discussion was hours away from being archived by the bot until IRWolfie reopened it (I hope unrelated to my opposing his position on an RfC). I think it serves no purpose at this point. V and IRS both allow reliability to reside with the author, and the author is an expert. From WP:IRS (bold added): "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." I'm therefore going to close this. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Summing up
A previous discussion on this noticeboard about this journal concluded that it is an RS for the opinions of its authors, but not for scientific fact. During the current discussion, the opinion of involved editors (those already on article talk) was:
- Dominus Vobisdu: opposed using the essay because of the place of publication, no matter who the author is;
- IRWolfie-: agreed with Dominus, but added that the source is reliable for the author's opinion, though not for anything in Wikipedia's voice, and only if following UNDUE;
- Itsmejudith: journal is not reliable for factual claims, but may be reliable as a primary source for the views of fringe theorists;
- SlimVirgin: reliability resides with the author qua expert, not the publication, per WP:V and WP:IRS.
- The opinion of uninvolved editors:
- FormerIP: suggested removing the author's material from the Stevenson bio; wanted to know how significant the author's views were in relation to Stevenson
- Blueboar: the situation is similar to the "expert exemption" clause of WP:SPS;
- TimidGuy: how and where sources are used is important; the source is appropriate here, no reason within policy to remove it;
- EPadmirateur: agreed that a source's reliability can rest with the author.
- Many thanks to everyone who commented. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:36, 2 December 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)
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) [19] I checked the source and found it to be OK at worst so I restored [20] again deleted as an unreliable source (rmv poor source; neutral point of view is not about "balance" at the expense of WP:RS) [21] 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)
- It's all about context. The bar is set very low when it comes to who holds an opinion.[22] Regardless of the direction of the "bais" they are still Reliable for the claim that the author of the article holds the views expressed. The edit summaries and talk here leads me to believe this is a content dispute.J8079s (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. It's not an "opinion". It's a statement about a scholarly topic. Sorry, even for scholarly opinions, your going to need a genuine scholarly source, and this is most certainly not one. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry that I might have given you the wrong impression this is not a scholarly debate it is a debate among scholars. The Ornament of the World is also editorial opinion by María Rosa Menoca (a love song to the poets) she does not cite any sources and makes no attempt at balance, closer to historic fiction than a reliable source. Reducing 800 years of history to he said/she said is not how we build an encyclopedia. J8079s (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly so! In order to avoid "he said"-"she said", we admit only reliable sources, rather than including inferior sources as "balance" to better sources. That's what I've been explaining to you the whole time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry that I might have given you the wrong impression this is not a scholarly debate it is a debate among scholars. The Ornament of the World is also editorial opinion by María Rosa Menoca (a love song to the poets) she does not cite any sources and makes no attempt at balance, closer to historic fiction than a reliable source. Reducing 800 years of history to he said/she said is not how we build an encyclopedia. J8079s (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. It's not an "opinion". It's a statement about a scholarly topic. Sorry, even for scholarly opinions, your going to need a genuine scholarly source, and this is most certainly not one. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's all about context. The bar is set very low when it comes to who holds an opinion.[22] Regardless of the direction of the "bais" they are still Reliable for the claim that the author of the article holds the views expressed. The edit summaries and talk here leads me to believe this is a content dispute.J8079s (talk) 22:34, 23 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)
- Regardless of any perceived bias by the Intercollegiate Review's parent organization, the author's bio suggests a serious and perfectly authoritative scholar at a major university that's certainly not known as a religious-extremist institution: "Associate Professor of Spanish and Portuguese and of Comparative Literature at Northwestern University. He is also a member of the National Council on the Humanities. His most recent book is Cervantes in the English-Speaking World (2006), co-edited with Michael Hanke." I can't conceive of any neutral, non-political reason why his scholarly paper is any less acceptable than one of any comparable professor / editor / NCH member. His view can always be balanced by an opposing view. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Because it's not a scholarly paper. You're begging the question here and it undermines your entire comment. If his argument is sound from a scholarly perspective, why has he been unable to get it published by a source that meets the standards of WP:RS? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Regardless of any perceived bias by the Intercollegiate Review's parent organization, the author's bio suggests a serious and perfectly authoritative scholar at a major university that's certainly not known as a religious-extremist institution: "Associate Professor of Spanish and Portuguese and of Comparative Literature at Northwestern University. He is also a member of the National Council on the Humanities. His most recent book is Cervantes in the English-Speaking World (2006), co-edited with Michael Hanke." I can't conceive of any neutral, non-political reason why his scholarly paper is any less acceptable than one of any comparable professor / editor / NCH member. His view can always be balanced by an opposing view. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- I may be misreading, but I'm afraid It sounds as if you're accusing the author of illegitimate thought because his politics don't align with yours. You may not agree with him, but to denigrate a professor at Northwestern University and say his thoughts on a subject matter in which he's well-versed are invalid I find remarkable. Perhaps it's how you're expressing yourself, but it sounds as if you're pursuing a political agenda and squelching a view in opposition to yours. Where is it said that the publication does not meet WP:RS? I couldn't find that in the Noticeboard archives. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, since you ask about past occasions where it's been brought up at RSN, I'll point you to the only other occasion, where it was soundly rejected as a reliable source. However, if it hadn't been - that's why we're discussing it here, to determine whether or not it's reliable. As for the other point of your comment, that he is a professor so it doesn't matter in what venue he expresses his opinions - WP:V and WP:SCHOLARSHIP disagree with you, stating that the reputation of the publisher for fact-checking and quality is the important consideration. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I may be misreading, but I'm afraid It sounds as if you're accusing the author of illegitimate thought because his politics don't align with yours. You may not agree with him, but to denigrate a professor at Northwestern University and say his thoughts on a subject matter in which he's well-versed are invalid I find remarkable. Perhaps it's how you're expressing yourself, but it sounds as if you're pursuing a political agenda and squelching a view in opposition to yours. Where is it said that the publication does not meet WP:RS? I couldn't find that in the Noticeboard archives. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction; that was considerate, and I thank you. I don't actually read that it was "soundly rejected": I see one editor saying, "Intercollegiate Review does not qualify as a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, it appears clear the the source is not a Reliable Source in general, although it may be considered reliable as either the viewpoint of [an article's author] or of Intercollegiate Studies Institute," while another editor says, "Meh. Peer-reviewed helps, but isn't required." No other editors commented after this, so it reads as if there was a stalemate and no consensus to reject it.
I do see at WP:SCHOLARSHIP that, "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." Do we know for sure it's not peer-reviewed? I'm not sure where the reputation of the publisher as having poor fact-checking and quality is coming from. I can see there's disagreement with its political stance — and I'm no conservative, so I understand and I know it's a principled disagreement. Still, it sounds as if one wants to reject this article because of the publication's politics. What do other editors think? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I see Taemyr rejecting it as a "very biased source" (that, if used at all, would need to be explained as such), Paul B rejecting it, LK rejecting it, and Squidfryerchef saying it's not terrible but that the material should be able to be found in other sources. (Which seems like something we could do here, too - if a scholar has published a similar opinion in a reliable source, fair game.) It looks fairly conclusive to me, but that doesn't mean there aren't other solutions.
- I don't see that it even claims to be peer-reviewed, and if it did, such a claim would be highly suspect because it is not published by an academic institution. That's the problem with it - not its bias per se, but the fact that it comes from a source where bias is the point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I did see the back-and-forth, but it didn't seem definitive. Far more convincing is your point that it's not published by an academic institution, which does open up reasonable charges of bias. On the other hand, the author isn't an employee of the institute but a presumably independent scholar at a respected university.
- I've looked around and I'm finding it's hard to say definitively whether or not it's peer-reviewed. The library software company ExLibris [23] lists it as peer-reviewed here, here and elsewhere, though it does say that the Intercollegiate Review supplement Academic Review is, indeed, not peer-reviewed, here.
- It's a tough call, and I completely see your point and the need for caution. Obviously, we don't want to disseminate deliberately biased, unscientific material. On the other hand, finding and keeping jobs in academia is so much tougher these days, and the imperative to publish stronger than ever, so I can understand how a neutral scholar may not get his article into his first choice of journals and have to settle. I probably don't have much else to contribute to this discussion, but I thought I should add these considerations to the mix. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's exactly this "settling" for an inferior outlet that is the big red flag here. As you rightly point out, getting one's work publish in prestigious journals is a matter of academic bread and butter. Getting the paper published by the Intercollegiate review did little to further the career of the author. The fact that the author had to "settle" is a good sign that their work was of insufficient merit to publish elsewhere, and probably had been rejected by peer-reviewed journals. Or that the author realized that the work was of insuficient merit and didn't even bother to submit it to peer-reviewed journal. Away from the prying eye of peer-review, the author is free to spin just about any nonsense they please, and no one spins nonsense better than an academic who is "off the clock", so to speak. That the journal has a strong ideological mission to promote "the core ideas behind the free market, the American Founding, and Western civilization that are rarely taught in the classroom" brings into question their motives for publishing this paper, and it is much more reasonable to presume that they published it because it advanced their own ideology rather than because it had any real scholarly merit. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's a tough call, and I completely see your point and the need for caution. Obviously, we don't want to disseminate deliberately biased, unscientific material. On the other hand, finding and keeping jobs in academia is so much tougher these days, and the imperative to publish stronger than ever, so I can understand how a neutral scholar may not get his article into his first choice of journals and have to settle. I probably don't have much else to contribute to this discussion, but I thought I should add these considerations to the mix. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not really related to this particular instance, but to the vagaries of publishing in general, I think it's important to throw out any automatic assumption that he only published it in this journal since the paper was crap and no "real" publication would run it. The point I was making is that competition is so much fiercer now that even great papers can't easily get published. I and many of my peers who work for major newspapers can still find ourselves publishing material on websites rather than real magazines though our material is as good as anything we normally write. I'm talking about film critics and writers whose names you'd recognize. It has nothing to do with the quality of the work. Try publishing a children's book or a cookbook, for example, through a legacy publishing house if you're not a celebrity — the nurturing midlist is virtually gone, and publishers only want what they think will be home runs and not solid singles or doubles. (How'd that work out, New York Yankees / A-Rod?) Whatever the merits or not of the Intercollegiate Review, please don't make assumptions castigating the author.
- Unless you write for a living, you have no idea how harsh it is. I've written hardcover books, including one on a weighty topic of national concern, as well as substantive trade paperbacks on entertainment topics.Yet my very-well-paying bread-and-butter is writing about celebrity crap. I still write comics and still write substantive magazine pieces on non-entertainment topics, but they don't pay like the celebrity crap for which I'm way overqualified. Get yourself a mortgage and kids in college, and you'd do the same. So unless you know this academic personally, don't make assumptions on why he chose that venue in which to seek publication. If the cases of good, name writers whom I know are any indication, choices are limited if you're not already a celebrity or a brand name in your field. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's all just special pleading. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I wish people would read more carefully before speaking. As I said at the very beginning, my post was "Not really related to this particular instance." I was not speaking about the Intercollegiate Review, but cautioning that people should not make ignorant comments about publishing if they have no idea how it works. I really don't care about the Intercollegiate Review. But you took a cheap shot at a professor and made POV assumptions. That is what I was commenting on. Not the Intercollegiate Review, but your snide and ignorant comments about publishing. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's all just special pleading. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Unless you write for a living, you have no idea how harsh it is. I've written hardcover books, including one on a weighty topic of national concern, as well as substantive trade paperbacks on entertainment topics.Yet my very-well-paying bread-and-butter is writing about celebrity crap. I still write comics and still write substantive magazine pieces on non-entertainment topics, but they don't pay like the celebrity crap for which I'm way overqualified. Get yourself a mortgage and kids in college, and you'd do the same. So unless you know this academic personally, don't make assumptions on why he chose that venue in which to seek publication. If the cases of good, name writers whom I know are any indication, choices are limited if you're not already a celebrity or a brand name in your field. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- The "journal" is not a reliable source. Fernández-Morera may be a serious scholar, but he is a professor of literature, not a historian. Not a reliable source for any statement of fact, and I see not reason why this would be a notable and weighty opinion that should be included. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The source is WP:reliable, the scholar holds a post at Harvard university (see Darío Fernández-Morera). The opposition to it seems to be driven mainly from ideological reasons (allegedly "pro-Christian" and "pro-European" for some taste as if this were a valid reason for exclusion even if true). His critical stance on the "tolerance" of Al-Andalus is anyway echoed by several colleagues, so this discussion is pretty moot: there are other scholarly sources in Spanish which share his view and which can be quoted in support. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- The Intercollegiate Review is peer-reviewed according to the database of the Colorado State University Libraries which is also used by a number of other scholarly institutions. Since WP:SOURCES stipulates that "where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science", we can close this discussion with good faith: being published by a Harvard academic in a peer-reviewed journal, "The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise" is nothing but WP:reliable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not quite, even if it is peer reviewed and may considered as formally reliable it still a long shot away from a reputable history journal. The latter should be used for sourcing disputed historical claims. It is true that Fernández-Morera seems to be a reputable scholar, however he is a professor for comparative literature and not for history/archeology/islamic studies. So polemically speaking we have an academic publishing on a subject outside his core expertise in a second rate christian oriented journal. That is anything but an optimal source and needs to be treated with caution. Personally I find the title and subject already dubious. Maybe his so called "myth" does indeed get propagated by some circles, but the notion that any serious historian would claim that the period of Islamic Spain (even at its peak) would have been a "paradise" of a society without violence or religious conflict is rather absurd for the reason alone that a such a thing hardly exists in history at all and certainly does not match what we know about this period. In other words the "myth" that Fernández-Morera claims to destruct seems to be a strawman to begin with.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- The scholar in question is a reputable scholar. For a source to be considered reliable, that is sufficient for inclusion, even if the journal is not quite peer-reviewed. In such an instance, the opinion should be attributed ("According to..."), but there is no reason the material should be excluded. Athenean (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, not necessarily. The domain of the scholar and the journal matters and its reputation in the domain to which the subject of the WP article belongs. To give an extreme example we usually do not include (dubious) math claims made by English professor in literary magazine into the according math article, no matter whether that literary magazine is peer reviewed or not. Now in the case at hand it is less extreme/obvious and hence a bit of grey area, that article could be included, but there may also grounds to exclude it or rather to drop it for better sources (an article in a peer reviewed history journal by some reputable historian for instance). The same thing however does not only apply to Fernández-Morera but also to the source for the opposing view (another professor for literature). It would be better for the WP article to drop such "second rate" partially agenda driven sources and cite some proper historian instead. In the end this comes to editorial discretion for the editor involved with the article. In that their consideration they should use the result of the notice board, that is that we have a reputable scholar publishing in a peer reviewed journal, but neither the scholar nor journal seem to have a particular reputation in the domain required for the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- The scholar in question is a reputable scholar. For a source to be considered reliable, that is sufficient for inclusion, even if the journal is not quite peer-reviewed. In such an instance, the opinion should be attributed ("According to..."), but there is no reason the material should be excluded. Athenean (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you: Less controversial sources should be found if available. And to state something else becoming increasingly obvious by the way new objections keep being raised ("It's not peer-reviewed." "Yes, it is." "Well, that's still not good enough.") ("The scholar's a hack." "No, he's a reputable Harvard scholar." "Well, that's still not good enough.") leads to a distinct appearance that the real objections to him are ideological: Some editors don't agree with what he wrote, and are looking for reasons to exclude him. I'm not saying that's the definite reason, but that's unquestionably the appearance. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is probably part of the problem. But the fact remains that the Intercollegiate Review is not a reliable source in general - it's not better than e.g. the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons or Chaos, Solitons & Fractals or the Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine. It has the outward trappings of an academic journal, but does not follow normal protocols and, to but it politely, publishes things that suit the agenda of the publisher without serious consideration of the scholarly merit. And no, being "a serious scholar" is not enough to be taken seriously in a field outside ones specialty. It's a bit like me publishing on problems with the fossil record in Creation Research Society Quarterly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you: Less controversial sources should be found if available. And to state something else becoming increasingly obvious by the way new objections keep being raised ("It's not peer-reviewed." "Yes, it is." "Well, that's still not good enough.") ("The scholar's a hack." "No, he's a reputable Harvard scholar." "Well, that's still not good enough.") leads to a distinct appearance that the real objections to him are ideological: Some editors don't agree with what he wrote, and are looking for reasons to exclude him. I'm not saying that's the definite reason, but that's unquestionably the appearance. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Kmhkmh, your personal view of a "formally" reliable source has, I am afraid, no basis whatsoever in the WP guidelines - unless you can cite them to support your interpretation. Likewise Stephan theorizing along the lines of "not a reliable source in general". Since WP:SOURCES holds that academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources and since it has been now established that The Intercollegiate Review is peer-reviewed, it is a reliable source, and among the most reliable sources at that. This is nothing which can be negotiated against the guidelines.
As for Fernández-Morera's scholarly background as a literary professor, you make it sound a bit as if he were daring to talk about topics as remote as the pleistocene or Japanese history. As it is, his core research interest is the Spanish Golden Age and relations to Islam. If WP were to follow your formal criteria of inclusion, it would have to remove the most notable Western scholar on Chinese technology Joseph Needham, to give but one example, as he was actually a biochemist by profession, and never received any academic training in history or sinology. Despite this, he is widely cited and rightly so.
Tenebrae has rightly pointed out how the constant changing of goalposts evident in the discussion rather points to an underlying WP:IDONTLIKEIT problem. Look, it is not like Fernández-Morera is alone in his criticism of the retroconcept of convivencia. Far from it, although he is quite outspoken, he is only one of many scholars sharing such a view. David Nirenberg, Richard A. Fletcher and Bat Ye'or (The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam) all have attacked the idea of a "tolerant" Andalusian society on varying grounds. Islam never knew nor wanted tolerance in the modern sense but organized its societies and non-Muslim subjects on the basis of the dhimmi hierarchy which is nothing but a two-class system. Fernández-Morera says only as much.
So, instead of losing ourselves in a proxy debate about the alleged lack of reliability, I volunteer to gather more scholarly, reliable literature in the vein of Fernández-Morera. By doing this we show that he is not an eccentric loner as some editors (like to) portray him, but actually representative of a school of thought critical of what one can call the tolerance myth; we do this of course on the basis of WP:WEIGHT which requires us that "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" should be proportionately included in the article. Since his article is somewhat polemic as he seemed to feel the need to address particularly the laymen, I readily agree to put him at the more radical end of criticism in an attempt to move on. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to overlook the word "usually" in your quote of WP:SOURCES. The Intercollegiate Review is not a "usual" scholarly journal. It's published by a political organisation with a very determined outlook, and publishes papers supporting that outlook. You are welcome to try to find better sources, but what you describe is a classical fishing expedition feeding into confirmation bias. Given the amount of scholarly publishing, you will find some support for every preconceived notion. This might work on Wikipedia, since WP:V is all we have, and WP:RANDY roams freely, but it is not an approach likely to give you a reasonable overview of the state of the field. The predominant scholarly view is for more nuanced than the straw man "Andalusian Paradise", and also much more nuanced than your "nothing but a two-class system". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is true that personally "don't like" the source since it's content & structure seems somewhat questionable to me as a outlined above. That is a reason why personally would stay away from such a source. However in addition to my personal suspicion, which is not really relevant for the policy but just some context information, I've given policy based reason and is that the domain and reputation matter, which you neglected above and which is essentially the same as Stephan's argument. Fernández-Morera is primarily a reputable scholar for literature not (medieval Spanish) history, you may however argue that there is a certain overlap, that's why I called it a grey area above. If his article had been published in a reputable history journal then there wouldn't be any grey area, but he hasn't. The journal he published is not a reputable academic journal, but a think tank publication, that might apply some sort of peer review. Clearly there are much better academic sources for that period of Spanish history and those should be used in the article. If you think Fernández-Morera's opinion is widely shared but academic historians, just cite such a historian.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Then we found common ground because this is exactly what I already announced to do, namely finding and citing more scholars sharing his overall critical view (actually, Fernández-Morera cites some of them himself; googling for "convivencia mito andalus" gives a first idea of how much criticism of the concept of convivencia has made its way from scholarship into mainstream). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS both say that reliability can reside with the author, rather than the publication. Journals don't have to be peer-reviewed to be reliable sources, but regardless of that, we can focus on the author, not the journal, per IRS (bold added): "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."
So the question is: can Darío Fernández-Morera, Associate Professor in the department of Spanish and Portuguese at Northwestern University, be regarded as authoritative in relation to the history of Islamic Spain and "The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise"? That boils down to whether he has been published before about these issues by independent publishers, per the "expert exemption" of WP:SPS. If he has been published before in this field, then his essay can be used as a source.
If (a) this is the first time he has written about this topic, and (b) he chose to make his only appearance on it in a journal that some say is not an RS, and given that (c) his qualifications (PhD Harvard, comparative literature) are only indirectly related, then no. (Another factor would be what his PhD thesis was on; if it was related to Islamic Spain, that would change things.) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Frank Dux's side of the stories.
Someone recently added this reference to the second paragraph of the "Martial arts career" section of Frank Dux, presumably to back up the "disputed by Dux" part. Someone else removed it, saying the source is dubious. I've checked the talk page and can't see why he thinks this (I may have missed it). I believe it's only fair, per WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, to include both sides of Dux's story, not just the side calling bullshit on him. But, if this is an unreliable source, it obviously can't be used. Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- One of the discussions was here [24]. Unfortunately the admin involved in that is on a wikibreak. A user using a series of blocked accounts kept trying to force that piece into the article. More than one experienced editor removed that source over the course of the past couple of years. Chasingthefrog has been used a few times on Wikipedia, but I can't see anything that leads me to believe it is reliable either. This is an article, written on a website with no mention of who wrote it. Is there editorial oversight? Who knows, but I'm not too confident that there is. Dux may not like the fact that most reputable media outlets won't simply parrot his claims. The other issue here is that the article is (allegedly) Dux making the claims again. These claims were put forth in his book 'The Secret Man', the one that the publisher backed away from and refused to print a second run of because the claims were...not to credible. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Anybody else want to weigh in? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Is TripAdvisor really a reliable source for Georgian alphabet
Of course not, nor is the GeorgiaTraveller website. But a new(?) editor insists he can use them, see [25] and remove reliable sources that disagree. I've tried to discuss this on the talk page but have gotten nowhere. I'm struggling with this editor who is adding badly worded and usually unsourced edits to various articles, eg [26] and various other edits. Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- For other editors, see Talk:Georgian_alphabet#Edit_by_ChelseaFCG. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, I've put it on my watchlist. --Cyclopiatalk 15:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Its clearly not there are plenty of scientific literature on this matter.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have deleted unreliable sources Dougweller. Kartvelian history is my Profession and i am really insulted that you showed me as unserious perso.n I made 7 reliable sources one of them was copy of discovered scripts, in Nekresi. Really, i have read many disinformation and propaganda in wikipedia and when i corrected something, about what i know everything and from the sphere of my Profession, you called me unreliable. I must remember you that Wikipedia is encyclopedia not the note book of peoples view. I am ready to discuss anything from Kartvelian history with anyone on this planet. I spent 6 years of my life in studying Kartvelian history and i think i deserve to be a little bit praised in this sphere.--ChelseaFCG (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Kartvelian history is my Profession" We don't care about your CV. We care about edits being backed up by reliable sources and we care also about avoiding to give fringe viewpoints more weight than they deserve, because we are committed to be neutral. Hope this helps. --Cyclopiatalk 16:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Chelsea it sounds like you must have read other sources? Maybe it helps to know that you can cite non-English sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Kartvelian history is my Profession" We don't care about your CV. We care about edits being backed up by reliable sources and we care also about avoiding to give fringe viewpoints more weight than they deserve, because we are committed to be neutral. Hope this helps. --Cyclopiatalk 16:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have deleted unreliable sources Dougweller. Kartvelian history is my Profession and i am really insulted that you showed me as unserious perso.n I made 7 reliable sources one of them was copy of discovered scripts, in Nekresi. Really, i have read many disinformation and propaganda in wikipedia and when i corrected something, about what i know everything and from the sphere of my Profession, you called me unreliable. I must remember you that Wikipedia is encyclopedia not the note book of peoples view. I am ready to discuss anything from Kartvelian history with anyone on this planet. I spent 6 years of my life in studying Kartvelian history and i think i deserve to be a little bit praised in this sphere.--ChelseaFCG (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Good Morning America
Is Good Morning America a reliable source? I'm sure it must depend...but my memory from having seen GMA in the states is that it's not a serous news show--more of a series of human interest stories prone to editorializing and dramatizing. The specific article in question is [27], being used to verify the statement,
has been described as "the largest bat rescue center on the planet".
on Bat World Sanctuary. A COI editor has pointed out that this is very unlikely to be true, given the relatively small size of this location and a site that she claims is listed in Guineess as having 10,000 times more bats. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your characterization of Good Morning America is accurate. However, GMA can be used to support that Bat World "has been described as" this or that, because "has been described as" is a very low bar--it means somebody said something once, whether or not it is true. Whether that is notable enough to include in an encyclopedia article is another question, to me it sounds like ad copy.
Zad68
00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)- It does not sound like the sourcing is bad enough to justify deleting the material. There are many cases where a better source would be preferable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- True...this seems to be more a matter of WP:WEIGHT than sourcing, since it is written essentially as a sourced opinion. The article's currently at AfD, so I'll wait and see what happens there and then bring up the matter if it survives. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- It does not sound like the sourcing is bad enough to justify deleting the material. There are many cases where a better source would be preferable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is not from Good Morning America, which is an ABC show. This is from the CBS equivalent, The Early Show. All of the comments applied to GMA apply equally to TES, but I want to make sure that the actual source is discussed, not something similar from another network.
- As for what's in the source, a read of the article seems to say that Bat World is different from others not because of the number of bats it houses, but because the bats are unable to feed themselves--they lack the ability to hunt insects like bats in the wild or are unable to fly. That is unusual, and having 120 bats who need to be hand-fed every day is not the same thing as the 300,000 bats who live on the University of Florida campus (http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/bats/facts.htm), who feed themselves every night, or of other sanctuaries where they house bats who are self-sufficient. Horologium (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Sherry Chayat & The Shimano Archive
A dispute is going on at Talk:Sherry Chayat whether or not The Shimano Archive can be used as a reliable source.
2. Aricle: Sherry Chayat - see also Talk:Sherry Chayat
3. Content:
On August 20th, 2012, Sherry Chayat wrote to Jeff Shore, a Professor at Hanazono University, the Rinzai Zen university associated with the Rinzai head temple, Myoshin-ji, asking him to find out whether the rumors that her teacher, Eido Shimano, was not listed as a successor to Soen Nakagawa Roshi, were true. Professor Shore researched her question, and wrote to Ms. Chayat on October 6th, 2012, saying, "I have checked into it here in Japan. Eido Shimano is indeed not listed as a successor to Soen Nakagawa. I trust this answers your question." Professor Shore added, in response to another email from Ms. Chayat on October 7th, 2012, that, "If so, then you realize that there are no legitimate "successors" to Eido, and that their role as teachers of Rinzai Zen is null and void."
4. Additional info:
- The Shimano Archive started as the online publication of the Robert Aitken archive. Additional info has added by Kobutsu Malone:
The first group of documents in the Eido Roku™ files became available on August 21, 2008 and they were distributed to a number of scholars, investigators, Zen clerics and students worldwide. These documents were a part of the Aitken Archives in the University of Hawai'i and have been authenticated by University archivist Lynn Ann Davis. With the permission of Aitken Rōdaishi, Kobutsu Malone published these Aiken-Shimano archives on the Internet in March 2010. Subsequently, many more documents have been added to the collection.(source: The Shimano Archive
- Kobutsu Malone has explained his reasons for publishing this archive:
SZ: Yeah, what has been your, let’s call it ethical approach, towards maintaining the Shimano archives? Do you strive for a level of neutrality in your work?
KM: I can tell you one thing, I have struggled mightily not to editorialize in the Archives. But it’s a failing in some respects, because, I mean I do choose what goes up there and what doesn’t, and you know, when you look at it, you know, there’s some snide comments here and there, and there are some unflattering photographs, and so on, and so forth. Yes…
But I try to minimize that, and, yet again, I also need to be able to speak somewhat freely; but I’ve tried to keep myself out of it. It’s a difficult balancing act because I’m so, so incredibly personally involved, and I, you know, I’ve been hurt through the damage that has been done to my family members, to myself, to my friends, to other students, and to people that I’ve witnessed over many, many years of damage that resulted from ‘Shimano-ism’ – the personality culture that he, uh, perpetuated. And I see it as incredibly damaging, and I think it’s done far more damage than it has good. I can unreservedly state: that I think Shimano has damaged far more people than he has, uh, assisted. Yes…
SZ: What’s your main concern in all this? Do you worry that he will reassert himself as a teacher somehow again, or be reinstalled again at Zen Studies Society ?
KM: I see that as a concrete possibility, yes.
SZ: What do you think the reaction would be to that?
KM: Well, given the reaction of the Buddhist community, I mean, everybody wants to be so, quote, “Buddhist,” unquote, that nobody’s going to stand up and say, “Hey, what the fuck is going on here?” I mean, the initial offering on the Shimano Archive was distributed to all three of the Buddhist glossies. I think it was distributed twice to individual magazines. And there was a deafening silence. No response. No one did anything. No one followed up on it. They ignored it.
SZ: So you feel they didn’t want to touch it?
KM: They didn’t want to touch it. It was handed, I handed it to the New York Times, and not just myself, but in the past others approached various publications and tried to expose the situation. One in particular was Robin Westen …
SZ: In the “Village Voice”, is that right?
KM: Well, I think there was another… I think ‘The New Yorker’ was approached, and I think, finally, it was the ‘Village Voice,’ and they were afraid of a lawsuit. And that was understandable, because basically, she was coming in with a very specific set of allegations; and the thing with specific allegations is that you can always deny them.
SZ: Sure. Especially if it happened years ago, you know?
KM: Yeah: “These are just allegations, these people are crazy, this is revenge, this is whatever, blah, blah, blah…” That can go on; but the one thing that I have managed to do with the Archive, and it wasn’t just Robert Aitken, his material was really the seed that started of the Archive; … on his suggestion that I go totally public with it, initially I had reservations, and people said “ Oh, you’re gonna get sued!”
And, you know, I pointed out ”Well, be that as it may, I have no assets.” You know, given my health situation, I live off a Social Security Disability check, and I have no savings, zero, nothing. I’ve got a few books and some tools, and my dog Harley and a fourteen-year-old car. What are you gonna do, take that away from me?
Um, actually, you can. But there are certain things you can sue people for…to file a lawsuit against somebody it’s got to be worth your while…
SZ: Sure. You have to have some validity to your case; otherwise, you might just end up paying the person you tried to sue.
KM: The thing is with Shimano and with the Zen Studies Society, given the amount of information that I had, and the fact that I made it public immediately pretty much, it was no longer just a set of allegations: it was a mountain of allegations. And, you know, allegation after allegation after allegation; and pretty soon, when you read it all, and you begin to get the picture and it comes through loud and clear. And that’s what’s happened with it; people have recognized the volume is just enormous! (source: Kobutsu Malone interview at SweepingZen)
- The Shimano Archive has been accepted and used as a source by Vladimir K., publisher of thezensite and Stuart Lachs, a well-known author on Zen, in an article on The Aitken-Shimano Letters.
- An extensive thread on this topic started at Zen Forum International started on 23 november 2012.
- 28 november 2010 Kobutsu Malone send a letter to Eizan Goto, abbot of Ryutaku-ji, to find answers to these same questions. Attached to the letter are Japanese lineage-charts.
- The Shimano Archive started as the online publication of the Robert Aitken archive. Additional info has added by Kobutsu Malone:
Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to Joshua for opening a request here. I'm the admin who fully protected Sherry Chayat as the result of a complaint at WP:AN3, until such time as this matter can be resolved. The literal wording of WP:BLP seems to prevent us from taking information about Chayat or about Eido Shimano from a website that does not have a reliable publication process nor a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The documents which are said to be emails would, if legitimate, show that Shimano was not properly designated in his Buddhist lineage by his own teacher. Shimano was a major figure in American Buddhism for some time, but was forced to resign from his post, as you can see from his article. One assumes that shimanoarchive.com is part of a desire to tell the tale about Shimano, but it has no named author or publisher and the ownership of the domain is hidden. Since the emails tell such a neat story and are obviously retyped in a nice format, I am concerned they may not be legitimate or may have been altered from their originals. I am setting aside the question of whether primary sources such as emails ought to be used per WP:PSTS, whether the site has copyright permission for the emails, and whether the emails were leaked inappropriately. If Shimano does in fact have a defective lineage, and if this is important, this fact ought to be available from a WP:Reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree that the website is anonymous; it is maintained by Kobutsu Malone, as is stated at the website, and as he has stated himself in the interview published at sweepingZen. But I see the point of possible alterations (though personally I doubt that, but that's not relevant). Nevertheless, it is also clear that the concerns about Shimano's lineage have been raised before, and are a matter of concern to other dharma heirs of him, and a lot of Zen-practitioners, as well. I understand the Wikipedia-policies at this point, but I do find it unsatisfying that those policies may be interpreted in such a way that information which is widely available, and highly relevant, is prevented from being included at a Wikipedia-article. I'm not convinced yet it should be excluded - but I'm also not convinced that it should be included. So, I'm looking forward to other opinions. And I'm curious what more is goiing to happen with this information: is it just going to be confined to internet, or will it also be picked up by "real" publications? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think Ed is right. The site contains primary sources whose authenticity we can't always be sure of. The fact that these articles are BLP makes using the material even less of a good idea; a copyright issue may also arise. We would need to get the information from a reliably published secondary source. Andrew Dalby 14:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- WP:ABOUTSELF may apply here:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- I think Ed is right. The site contains primary sources whose authenticity we can't always be sure of. The fact that these articles are BLP makes using the material even less of a good idea; a copyright issue may also arise. We would need to get the information from a reliably published secondary source. Andrew Dalby 14:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree that the website is anonymous; it is maintained by Kobutsu Malone, as is stated at the website, and as he has stated himself in the interview published at sweepingZen. But I see the point of possible alterations (though personally I doubt that, but that's not relevant). Nevertheless, it is also clear that the concerns about Shimano's lineage have been raised before, and are a matter of concern to other dharma heirs of him, and a lot of Zen-practitioners, as well. I understand the Wikipedia-policies at this point, but I do find it unsatisfying that those policies may be interpreted in such a way that information which is widely available, and highly relevant, is prevented from being included at a Wikipedia-article. I'm not convinced yet it should be excluded - but I'm also not convinced that it should be included. So, I'm looking forward to other opinions. And I'm curious what more is goiing to happen with this information: is it just going to be confined to internet, or will it also be picked up by "real" publications? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
- Ad1: The question about Shimano's lineage is not exceptional; it has been raise before, and here-after.
- Ad2: This is a complicated one: is it about Shimano in the first place, or about the consequences?
- Ad3: No problem here.
- Ad4: This is also complicated: what is reasonable? Considereing the email-exchange to be fake is not reasonable; asking if it is entirely unredacted is reasonable. So far, the Shimano-archives seem to be accepted by many people involved in American zen-Buddhism, including dharma-heirs of Shimano.
- Ad5: The source is being used for one section, not the whole article.
- Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, my two cents. As Kobutsu Malone says above, The New York Times reports this incident. It is surely a reliable source. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding WP:ABOUTSELF. This does not apply, because this is not a website owned by Shimano, purporting to be his work, making claims about Shimano. This is somebody else making negative statements about Shimano. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was asked to weigh in, as a previous editor on the Shimano article I suppose. While I fought tooth and nail to simply have info from the New York Times on Shimano's misdeeds included, I would never have argued that the Shimano Archive is a valid source here - at least not primary. I think an argument could be made to include it in support of more valid sources. But that site was created for one reason only, by a highly disgruntled former student: nail Eido Shimano to the wall, shame him, get him fired, and leave him in disgrace. I happen to be generally sympathetic to those aims, but I would never consider that site to be a valid source here. Especially not some emails posted there. Furthermore, I would not consider Sweeping Zen reliable for news or verification, much less so Zen Forum Int'l. The former is a highly biased and unreliable site run by one not-very-knowledgable guy, the other is a chat room. Stuart Lachs at Zen Site is likewise sort of a crank.Tao2911 (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Shimano Archive is a reliable secondary source containing primary sources. Nothing impermissible about that - that is the very definition of a reliable source. Further, Malone is an established public figure in the Zen world. A website maintained by him is certainly a legitimate source of information. As far as him being disgruntled goes, nowhere does wikipedia require reliable sources to be unbiased or without any agenda. The argument against its inclusion--aside from the points that have already been shown to be untrue--seems to be based on the possibility that a reputable secondary source would fabricate primary sources, possibly criminally--and that is too far-fetched to prevail.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sylvain, where's the evidence that Shimano Archive is a "reliable secondary source"?
- The evidence is that it is the publication of a respected and well-known public figure with stature in the Zen world.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Shimanoarchive.com is simply a clearing house of random information devoid of any organization or sense compiled by Malone, who is not "highly respected" at all. In fact, he's something of the crazy uncle of the Zen world who people sort of tolerate at the holidays, but steer clear the rest of the time. Just look at it! Emails, chat forum posts, comments copied from article chat threads on other people's blogs... Used as a Wikipedia source? You've got to be kidding me.Tao2911 (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The evidence is that it is the publication of a respected and well-known public figure with stature in the Zen world.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's good that the New York Times reports the events: that is a reliable secondary source. There may be an argument for listing Shimano Archive under external links. Doing so might raise BLP issues, but not reliable sources issues. Andrew Dalby 09:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- As it is now, I think there is no concensus on using the Shimano Archive, so I think it might be better not to use it as a source - though I find this unsatisfactory. Listing the Shimano Archive under "external links" might be an option, but then it should be clear why. It might be better to mention in the article that concerns are being raised about the "legitimacy" of Shimano's lineage. Since this is an issue at the moment, it will pop-up again anyway, so maybe we better wait until that moment, hoping there's a better source available by then. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- PS: thanks to everyone for responding! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- As it is now, I think there is no concensus on using the Shimano Archive, so I think it might be better not to use it as a source - though I find this unsatisfactory. Listing the Shimano Archive under "external links" might be an option, but then it should be clear why. It might be better to mention in the article that concerns are being raised about the "legitimacy" of Shimano's lineage. Since this is an issue at the moment, it will pop-up again anyway, so maybe we better wait until that moment, hoping there's a better source available by then. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sylvain, where's the evidence that Shimano Archive is a "reliable secondary source"?
Hello all, my post is here regarding some of the links highlighted in the External links section of the above article here. I have added them here one by one.
- Adams, Cecil (May 15, 1993). "What is Don McLean's song "American Pie" all about?". The Straight Dope. Chicago Reader, Inc. Retrieved June 8, 2009.
- Roteman, Jeff (August 10, 2002). "Bob Dearborn's Original Analysis of Don McLean's 1971 Classic "American Pie"".
- Bob Dearborn's American Pie Analysis original broadcast February 28, 1972
- Fann, Jim. "Understanding American Pie".
- Full "See the USA in Your Chevrolet" lyrics for Dinah Shore on the "The Dinah Shore Chevy Show" (1956–1961).
- Kulawiec, Rich (August 26, 2001). "FAQ: The Annotated "American Pie"". Retrieved September 19, 2007. FAQ maintained by Rich Kulawiec, started in 1992 and essentially completed in 1997.
- "American Pie—A Rock Epic" A multi-media presentation of Rich Kulawiec's The Annotated "American Pie".
- Levitt, Saul. "The Ultimate American Pie Website".
- Levitt, Saul (May 26, 1971). "Interpretation of American Pie – analysis, news, Don McLean, Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, Rock & Roll". Missamericanpie.co.uk. Retrieved May 20, 2010.
- O'Brien, P. (March 3, 1999). "Understanding the lyrics of American Pie". The Octopus's Garden. Archived from the original on October 12, 2002. Retrieved September 19, 2007.
My question is that how reliable are these so called websites? They look like fan-sites with their varied interpretations of the song, so just asking my fellow editors to guide me in their reliability. Thanks —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The Straight Dope would probably be OK, Cecil Adams is a regularly and widely published columnist answering people's odd questions - it would probably be better to incorporate into the article as a regular reference, though. the others as you suggest appear to be inappropriate fansites. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Since these are used as external links and not sources for writing the article, a slightly different set of criteria apply: WP:EXT. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your inputs TPoD and Odie5533. To the later user, I was wondering whether any of those sources in the EL could be incorporated in the article hence I had asked the question, not that whether they are valid ELS. :) —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia was a regional offshoot of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. The latter might be a decent source on non-political subjects, but in general it was a Soviet propaganda source. I would like to ask whether the sources like Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia or Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia could be considered reliable in history related articles. ASE was used in many articles in en:wiki: [28] I feel that the use of this source in controversial articles about the history is not justified, and more recent and neutral propaganda free sources are preferable. I would appreciate opinions about this source. Grandmaster 20:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just because a text has been used in an article does not mean that text has been used as a source. However—generalist encyclopaedia should not be used as sources in history articles as they fail to represent the account of history constructed by appropriate experts. Generalist encyclopaedia have a purpose other than the best representation possible of the current scholarly account, and do not employ as a matter of course persons who can appropriately represent the current scholarly account. See WP:HISTRS for the kinds of sources you should be using in history articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would just like to mention that the editors of the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia placed their primary emphasis on articles on Armenia and the Armenians. Most of the contributors in the field were prominent and internationally recognized scholars and thus the authoritative figures on topics relating to Armenia's history and culture. I wouldn't use the encyclopedia's article on the United States as a source on its counterpart on Wikipedia, but these guys were the head honchos of the topics they studied. A number of scholars outside Armenia have consulted and cited the encyclopedia as a reliable source numerous times in their studies.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- The example I typically give there is Kropotkin's article on Anarchism for EB. I would suggest going through an SPS evaluation (in your head, or on the Talk: page of the article) of expertise in relation to such articles by such persons. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just wanted to add few things. Viktor Hambardzumyan, an internationally recognized scientist so is considered on the founders of the Astrophysics, was the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia's head editor. Most of the historical articles were written, obviously, from the Armenian point of view and the modern history, especially the era concerning the First Republic of Armenia was mostly from the communist standpoint and was anti-Dashnak, but its reliability cannot be argued, in my opinion. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 01:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think there's a contradiction in what you say, because you admit that the ASE's historical articles were written from the communist standpoint, but then you say that its reliability cannot be argued. Grandmaster 06:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just wanted to add few things. Viktor Hambardzumyan, an internationally recognized scientist so is considered on the founders of the Astrophysics, was the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia's head editor. Most of the historical articles were written, obviously, from the Armenian point of view and the modern history, especially the era concerning the First Republic of Armenia was mostly from the communist standpoint and was anti-Dashnak, but its reliability cannot be argued, in my opinion. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 01:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- The example I typically give there is Kropotkin's article on Anarchism for EB. I would suggest going through an SPS evaluation (in your head, or on the Talk: page of the article) of expertise in relation to such articles by such persons. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia should be avoided only in cases when it criticized people and events that were considered anti-Soviet in action or spirit. It is, however, a top source for research on non-modern historical topics. It has been widely quoted internationally and edited by the top internationally-recognized scholars of the time. User Grandmaster who posted this dubious request has been trying to cast doubt and discredit good sources in order to open way to push Azerbaijani nationalist propaganda. His actions should be curbed as he is acting in bad faith. As for the Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia, it should be avoided both as a source for modern and ancent historical information since it was edited and managed by the Soviet era's most infamous plagiarists and revisionists such as Ziya_Bunyadov#Critics, who were widely criticized in the West for egregious violations of academic ethics and racist attacks . Sprutt (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- ASE cannot be considered reliable for a number of reasons. First, it is tainted by Soviet propaganda. Second, it is quite outdated. There are dated sources that have not lost their value to this day, for example Vladimir Minorsky who is widely referred to in the international scholarly community, but ASE is not a source of similar international acclaim. Third, ASE authors like Bagrat Ulubabyan are criticized for promoting nationalist agenda by experts on nationalism such as Victor Schnirelmann. And it is very difficult for people outside of Armenia to verify what ASE actually says, since as far as I know it is available only in Armenian. Also, I find the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions by Sprutt to be in violation of a number of wiki rules. Please comment on content, not the contributor. Grandmaster 06:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- One more reason why Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia can't be used as reliable source: Anti-turkism was one of the directions of USSR propaganda and it is one of the directions of Armenian propaganda as well, therefore USSR supported all efforts of Armenians on this issue. Best, Konullu (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- ASE cannot be considered reliable for a number of reasons. First, it is tainted by Soviet propaganda. Second, it is quite outdated. There are dated sources that have not lost their value to this day, for example Vladimir Minorsky who is widely referred to in the international scholarly community, but ASE is not a source of similar international acclaim. Third, ASE authors like Bagrat Ulubabyan are criticized for promoting nationalist agenda by experts on nationalism such as Victor Schnirelmann. And it is very difficult for people outside of Armenia to verify what ASE actually says, since as far as I know it is available only in Armenian. Also, I find the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions by Sprutt to be in violation of a number of wiki rules. Please comment on content, not the contributor. Grandmaster 06:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would just like to mention that the editors of the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia placed their primary emphasis on articles on Armenia and the Armenians. Most of the contributors in the field were prominent and internationally recognized scholars and thus the authoritative figures on topics relating to Armenia's history and culture. I wouldn't use the encyclopedia's article on the United States as a source on its counterpart on Wikipedia, but these guys were the head honchos of the topics they studied. A number of scholars outside Armenia have consulted and cited the encyclopedia as a reliable source numerous times in their studies.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The influence of Soviet propaganda is only seen in an article relating to the modern period (topics on the economy, the Cold War, the advent of Bolshevism in the Caucasus, etc.). What propaganda value can be attributed to a district belonging to a kingdom established two thousand years before the USSR was created? (Am I'm not talking here about Marxist interpretations of history and society). The ASE is found to be used in dozens of Western sources, as a Google search yields hundreds of results either as Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia or Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia. Third, the fact that some mild criticism at Ulubabyan does not condemn the rest of the contributors of the encyclopedia, many of whose works have been published in peer-reviewed journals. These include Aram Ter-Ghevondyan, Hrach Bartikyan, Karen Yuzbashyan, Suren Yeremyan, etc., with none of the opprobrium that has accompanied scholars from Azerbaijan.
So what is all this hoopla about if not simple disgruntlement that the history the world accepts as part of Armenia's history does not quite fit with narrative of lies and falsifications fabricated in Azerbaijan? And Konullu's comment deserves a huge "LOL".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Shnirelman is quite critical of Yeremian's articles in ASE. He critically mentions at least 2 of Yeremian's articles in ASE, "Armenians" and "Greater Armenia". According to Schnirelman, Soviet propaganda forced all the ethnicities declare themselves to be autochthons in the areas they inhabited, and Armenian Soviet scholars were actively involved in this process as well. And that includes ancient history. Grandmaster 18:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- As demonstrated by Arsen Melik-Shahnazarov in his book, Schnirelman, who directed his criticism mainly against Azerbaijani pseudo-scientists, reluctantly extended his criticism to some Armenian scholars as well in order to fight accusations of one-sided analysis. As mentioned before, you can therefore safely discount Schnirelman's discussion of Armenian scholars as an awkward attempt at false balance. All this ASE thing is just one big bad faith hoopla. Sprutt (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- The opinion of an Armenian politolgist Arsen Melik-Shahnazarov is not sufficient to discount criticism of Schnirelman, who dedicated large chapters in his book to the criticism of the Armenian historical revisionism, substantial part of which related to Soviet times. Plus, Schnirelman is not alone. You can read about Armenian nationalist scholarship in the book by professor Philip Kohl, for instance: [29] Grandmaster 19:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- As demonstrated by Arsen Melik-Shahnazarov in his book, Schnirelman, who directed his criticism mainly against Azerbaijani pseudo-scientists, reluctantly extended his criticism to some Armenian scholars as well in order to fight accusations of one-sided analysis. As mentioned before, you can therefore safely discount Schnirelman's discussion of Armenian scholars as an awkward attempt at false balance. All this ASE thing is just one big bad faith hoopla. Sprutt (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This is from an article by Ronald Suny, an ethnic Armenian US historian. He cannot be accused of anti-Armenian bias:
While from one angle historical writing in Soviet Armenia can be seen as part of a general marxisant narrative of progress upward from class and imperial oppression to socialist liberation, in the post‐Stalin years scholars promoted insistently national themes. Occasionally the regime would discipline the bolder voices, but Soviet Armenian historians waged an effective guerrilla war against denationalization of their history. The story of the republic of Armenia was told as a story of ethnic Armenians, with the Azerbaijanis and Kurds largely left out, just as the histories of neighboring republics were reproduced as narratives of the titular nationalities. Because the first “civilization” within the territory of the Soviet Union was considered to have been the Urartian, located in historic Armenia, the ancient roots of Armenian history were planted in the first millennium b.c. Urartian sites and objects of material culture were featured prominently in museums, and late in the Soviet period Erevantsis celebrated the 2700th anniversary of the founding of their city (originally the Urartian Erebuni or Arin Berd). Although the link between Urartu and Armenians took hold in the popular mind, most scholars believe Urartu to have been a distinct pre‐Armenian culture and language and, following Herodotus, argue that the original proto‐Armenians were probably a Thraco‐Phryian branch of the Indo‐European‐speaking tribes. Nevertheless, a revisionist school of historians in the 1980s proposed that, rather than being migrants into the region, Armenians were the aboriginal inhabitants, identified with the region Hayasa in northern Armenia. For them Armenians have lived continuously on the Armenian plateau since the fourth millennium b.c., and Urartu was an Armenian state. A rather esoteric controversy over ethnogenesis soon became a weapon in the cultural wars with Azerbaijan, as Azerbaijani scholars tried to establish a pre‐Turkic (earlier than the eleventh century) origin for their nation.
Ronald Grigor Suny. Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations. The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 73, No. 4 (December 2001), pp. 862-896
Grandmaster 19:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Soviet Armenian scholars, Yeremyan especially, never claimed that Armenians were autochthons. Up until the late 1980s, they still adhered to the belief that Armenians had migrated to the Armenian Highlands during the second millennium B.C. (see vol. 1 of the History of the Armenian People series). It was only with the publication of Ivanov's and Gamkrelidze's book that there was a noticeable shift in thinking among the academic community, and this in the twilight years of the Soviet Union. Sprutt makes a good point in remarking that Schnirelman's "criticism" comes off as an attempt at false balance than any real, substantive condemnation of Armenian scholars, who having countless Armenian and non-Armenian primary sources on the Armenians during the ancient and medieval periods, never had any reason to exaggerate or distort history (barring one or two exceptions).
Suny was, by the way, trained as a scholar of the Soviet Union, not of Armenian history and culture. His works are not above reproach and have been criticized by more than a few scholars.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- And Yeremian wrote such works as "Проблема этногенеза армян в свете учения И.В. Сталина о языке // Изв. АН АрмССР. Сер. обществ, наук. 1951. N 6.". Translates as "Problem of ethnogenesis of Armenians in the light of the teaching of I.V.Stalin about the language". And you say that this author was free from communist influence while he tried to introduce it into ancient history? You might know that the communist ideology treated history as that of the class struggle. As for Suny, as a scholar of the Soviet Union he is well aware of what was going on in the historical science of the USSR. Again, Suny is not an ideal author either, but at least he is capable of impartial assessment of certain periods of Armenian history. Grandmaster 20:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Our discussion of course is after the Soviet state stopped micromanaging so heavily the interpretation of history, i.e., following Stalin's death. I don't have to mention the Japhetic theory, do I?
- Again, this conversation is largely derivative. It spawned from the recent edits done on the Goghtn article, for which I have yet to see any significant objections to in the the sources consulted and cited.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeremian did claim that Armenians were autochthons. According to Schnirelman:
В своем подходе к этногенезу армянского народа Еремян исходил из автохтонистской концепции, начинал историю армян с Хайасы и доказывал, что их предки не имели никакого отношения к Фригии. С этой точки зрения, мушки не представляли для него никакой ценности, и он щедро отдавал их грузинам.
...
Иными словами, по концепции Еремяна, армяне являлись безусловными автохтонами на Армянском нагорье; они были носителями государственного начала с рубежа VII-VI вв. до н.э. и являлись как бы прямыми преемниками Урарту; к этому времени они ассимилировали все остальное население бывшего Урарту, которое перешло на армянский язык. Тем самым, формирование армянского народа и возникновение армянской государственности резко отодвигалось в глубь веков и предшествовало возникновению Персидской державы. С этой точки зрения, персы оказывались захватчиками, нарушившими естественный ход этнополитической истории армян. Положение улучшилось лишь во II в. до н.э., когда арменизация продолжилась, охватив Араратскую долину и более северные территории. Еремян настаивал на том, что к II - I вв. до н.э. процесс этногенеза завершился и сложилась Великая Армения с одним народом и одним языком (Еремян, 1951. С. 49-50).
- Note that Yeremian made those claims before 1980s. Grandmaster 20:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I would have made this request regardless of Goghtn. We discussed ASE a lot at various articles, and never reached any consensus. This is why I want the community to express their opinion about this source. Grandmaster 20:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- What I see is that Grandmaster is reluctant to follow wiki rules and reach a consensus in Goghtn, and instead has decided to discredit an entire range of valuable sources in this post through demagoguery and needless hoopla. Sprutt (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please mind WP:AGF and WP:NPA. This is a board for discussion of reliability of the sources. I have every right to ask the community opinion about questionable sources. Please comment on the subject, not the contributor. Grandmaster 07:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- What I see is that Grandmaster is reluctant to follow wiki rules and reach a consensus in Goghtn, and instead has decided to discredit an entire range of valuable sources in this post through demagoguery and needless hoopla. Sprutt (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Use of Census-Designated Places as geographical authorities
Once again I've come up against the use of a CDP map as an authority for saying that some location is within a certain town. In this case, the claim is that the Howard County Public School System is located in Columbia, Maryland (see this edit for an example). The truth is that the board of education buildings sit on a state road just outside Columbia and are not part of the "new town" land (i.e., they aren't taken from land that the Rouse Company owned and applied it CA covenants to). The post office gives the offices an Ellicott City, Maryland zip code, which is equally misleading.
Howard County, Maryland has no incorporated areas, so truly definitive boundaries for any community are impossible—except in the case of Columbia, because its boundaries are generally bounded by what land the Columbia Association controls through covenants. The Columbia CDP is much larger than that area, and incorporates large areas which anyone who actually lives there never considered part of Columbia (e.g. they simply ignore the town of Clarksville, Maryland and assign all of that area to Columbia). This has led to a lot of implication, particularly in the article on the town itself, that various things are in the town of Columbia proper when they actually are not. All of the former Simpsonville, Maryland surroundings were given Columbia zip codes, but that area lies outside of and preexisted the new town. Clarksville is a somewhat distinct place with its own zip code.
CDPs are lines drawn for statistical collection convenience, because the census has to say that everyone is somewhere. They shouldn't be treated as if they were municipal boundaries. My parents' house appears, from the CDP maps, to lie in Scaggsville, Maryland, but that is incorrect; in fact as far back as I can recall there's never even been a post office for the town. The post office calls the area Laurel, Maryland although it lies outside that city's incorporated limits. I would like to see this use of the CDP maps deprecated. Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think you make an excellent point and would agree that CDP maps aren't reliable for this use. TimidGuy (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
School of Advanced Military Studies use of PhD dissertation
In a recent A-Clase review, the article School of Advanced Military Studies was denied an A rating because of use of a PhD dissertation. The final comments in the discussion, which can found here, were:
- I understand the concern about the citations from the 25-year history of the school. If those passages were replaced with similar (but probably not exactly the same) passages sourced from Kevin Benson's dissertation (the same author, but oversight by a dissertation committee from the University of Kansas), would that be acceptable as a source? --Airborne84 (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, as there's no getting around the problems with the former director of this institution writing a history of it (I'm surprised that the University of Kansas permitted him to write a PhD thesis on this topic). Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I understand the concern about the citations from the 25-year history of the school. If those passages were replaced with similar (but probably not exactly the same) passages sourced from Kevin Benson's dissertation (the same author, but oversight by a dissertation committee from the University of Kansas), would that be acceptable as a source? --Airborne84 (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
To me, that logic would seem to run against WP:SCHOLARSHIP which states "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community", and "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable."
I am trying to get a non-copyrighted version of the dissertation and upload it to wikisource so that the community can better judge the work. However, I wanted to start a discussion concerning the use of the dissertation in the article. I asked for a WP:GA review, so I am hoping to come to a consensus on the use of the dissertation and how that should effect the articles quality rating. Thanks. Casprings (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- As I understand that the issue is not that the source is not scholarly enough, but that is may have a conflict of interest regarding the subject. Whether such an conflict of interest matters depends on the particular context. As general rule of thumb: The more controversial or disputed a topic/piece of content is, the more important it becomes, that sources are from a reliable/reputable 3rd parties without a conflict of interest.
- Another thing to consider, is that various reviews & rating processes might apply a higher set of standards than the one we ideally expect from normal articles and codify the our policies, which are the ideal minimal standards an article should adhere to.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Rather that one of my comments being posted slightly out of context (I think), I'd suggest that other people read my full review and the comments left by other editors. My overall concern was that the article was highly sympathetic to this institution, and was largely referenced to works which were either published by the institution or written by people closely associated with it. Given that the source in question here was a history of the institution written by its former director, my concern was that it contained a significant conflict of interest which had probably contributed to the tone of the article (which other editors raised concerns about). As I noted in the above quote, I'm amazed that the university allowed the former head of the institution to submit a history of it as a PhD dissertation (particularly as the University of Kansas is a well regarded university). Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would agree with your overall concern, at least concerning the text of the article. I think a recent copy edit has reduced that a great deal. On the topic of the PhD dissertation, I am not surprised that the university of Kansas allowed that. Most committees judge the work, not ones connection or lack of connection to the subject of the work. Casprings (talk)
- The general topic isn't that controversial. SOme aspects, war planning for the Iraqi war for example, might be controversial. Casprings (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree at first glance i confused it with another (controversial) school.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The general topic isn't that controversial. SOme aspects, war planning for the Iraqi war for example, might be controversial. Casprings (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Good day, I hope this is the right place to ask, but I would like to verify whether YouTube videos of this old TV show (posted by apparently anonymous individuals and not an official broadcaster's account) can be: 1) citations for a table of episode casting and 2) listed as a channel listing in the External Links section? Most of these videos are of entire episodes of the show. I was of the opinion that such is a copyright violation (regardless of the fact that the copyright owner has clearly not taken efforts to enforce their copyright)? I'm sorry if this has been asked/resolved before; I was unable to find any policy that directly speaks to this. DP76764 (Talk) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're right: these are copyright violations (almost certainly) and for that and other reasons we should not cite copies of TV shows found on YouTube. I am sure this has been discussed before. I haven't looked back, but I don't believe there was any serious opposition to this conclusion. Andrew Dalby 14:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Are Frontpage Magazine and Steven Plaut reliable sources on Bolshevik?
On the article Bolshevik, two editors (one subsequently blocked as a sock of the persistent Runtshit vandal) have repeatedly to the lead added a questionable assertion, sourced to an article by Steven Plaut in Frontpage Magazine. The assertion is "Some authors have claimed that Bolshevism was actually a theology", subsequently amended to "Some authors have claimed that Bolshevism had strong features of theology"; the source cited states "Bolshevik thinking in the early days carried strong features of theology" There are several problems with this. In the first place, the source does not actually described Bolshevism as "an ideology"; rather that, in the early days, it "carried strong features of theology". Second, this is not "some authors", but one highly conservative and notoriously POV polemicist (Steven Plaut). Frontpage Magazine has been discussed several times on this board, and the consensus has been that it is not reliable, and certainly not withpout attribution. Eg: "On the simplest possible grounds FrontPageMag.com fails the WP:RS test. It's self-published & it's making an exceptional claim while being an "extremist" source (extremist in WP:RS's terms)"; "FrontPage magazine is essentially one big editorial that pushes a conservative political agenda"; "FrontPage is never reliable for news purposes. Some of its columnists may, if they are established experts in a given field, be useful for analysis or commentary. As a whole, FrontPage may be useful sometimes for criticisms or commentary, but given its highly dubious reputation I would recommend a "ten-foot pole" rule, ie, don't report lurid details or uncorroborated allegations, and certainly not about living people.". To my considerable surprise, Plaut himself has never been discussed here, though there have been several discussions about use of his opinions at WP:BLPN, where the consensus appears to be not to use him: "Plaut appears to have a reputation as an extremist and a defamer."; "Judging by the articles by Steven Plaut turned up by a Google search, it's hard to believe that any publication with aspirations to be a mainstream reliable source would, approvingly, publish any of his politically-oriented work. It's very difficult to see any reason why his opinions on anything apart from himself should be quoted in Wikipedia.".
My question is, should we allow the inclusion in this article of such an extraordinary claim, linked to a highly unreliable source which does not even support the claim? RolandR (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- RolandR, "Some authors have claimed that Bolshevism was actually a theology" is an extraordinary claim for you personally since you are a self-declared Marxist. As an article by me and Steven Plaut was published on the FrontPage Magazine, I cannot impartially argue about its reliability. As for keeping the claim in the article, more sources can be found to support the claim. Anna Geifman, a leading Historian of Russia, has a whole chapter in her book Death Orders: The Vanguard of Modern Terrorism in Revolutionary Russia about how Marxism is actually a pagan theology. I will cite the book after I find it in my university's library. Nataev (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what the hell you're talking about, except that your first sentence is an inappropriate ad-hominem characterization that should be struck-out or removed. 24.177.121.29 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- It says "This user identifies as a Marxist." on RolandR's user page. So, don't accuse me of an ad-hominem characterization. Nataev (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Even if you're correct (I haven't checked, and I don't really care one way or the other), your statement is still an ad-hominem characterization. RolandR's beliefs have no relevance to this discussion. 24.177.121.29 (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- It says "This user identifies as a Marxist." on RolandR's user page. So, don't accuse me of an ad-hominem characterization. Nataev (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what the hell you're talking about, except that your first sentence is an inappropriate ad-hominem characterization that should be struck-out or removed. 24.177.121.29 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't understand you: if consensus appeared not to use this source, what is the reason to return to this issue again? Just delete this source, and if someone will try to re-insert it, go to AN/I.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Because the consensus related to other articles, and a source's reliability depends on the use that is made of it. I raised the issue of the particular source's validity in this particular article. Also, because the editors re-adding the text (including another blocked sock whose comment on the talk page has been revdelled) were responding in a very hostile manner, and I had no intention of allowing them to lead me into a 3RR trap. RolandR (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- 3RR is not a dogma. You may report them even without that. It seems to me that the consensus was about the source as whole, therefore, if it is being used as a sole source to support some non-obvious claim, you may freely remove it, and, if someone will try to re-insert it once or twice (despite your explanations on the talk page), go to AN/I.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- This board and can't be used for blanket exclusion of sources.Each case should be examined separately.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- 3RR is not a dogma. You may report them even without that. It seems to me that the consensus was about the source as whole, therefore, if it is being used as a sole source to support some non-obvious claim, you may freely remove it, and, if someone will try to re-insert it once or twice (despite your explanations on the talk page), go to AN/I.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Because the consensus related to other articles, and a source's reliability depends on the use that is made of it. I raised the issue of the particular source's validity in this particular article. Also, because the editors re-adding the text (including another blocked sock whose comment on the talk page has been revdelled) were responding in a very hostile manner, and I had no intention of allowing them to lead me into a 3RR trap. RolandR (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Material in FrontPage magazine is not generally regarded as an RS, so everything depends on the author's credentials, and to what extent he can be regarded as an expert on Bolshevism. Has Steven Plaut been published elsewhere on this issue before? If we treat FrontPage mag as self-published, WP:SPS says: "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."
- If Plaut's opinions or research on Bolshevism (or very closely related issues) has been published by third-parties, and if commentators would generally regard him as having expertise in this area, I would consider using his article as a source on it (note: I haven't read the article). If not, then no. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
ISM and Palestinian News Agency as source on Israeli settler violence
Is it not blatantly obvious that the International Solidarity Movement and the Palestinian News Agency aren't reliable for claims of fact regarding occurrences of vandalism in the West Bank? See, for example, this press release, which is currently citation #48 in said article.
24.177.121.29 (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why is it blatantly obvious that the Palestinian News Agency is not reliable for this? nableezy - 19:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Does it government agency?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's obviously not a reliable source for claims of fact because, as an organization, it clearly has an axe to grind. Does the list of martyrs to the Palestinian cause they maintain on their Arabic (but not English) web-site convince you? Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Lulu-published sources
I have a recurring problem with certain users insisting on the inclusion of references to works published by "Modern English Tanka Press" through Lulu Press on several articles related to tanka, haibun and tanka in English. My pointing out that they are effectively "self-published" has been met with rather irrelevant arguments that Lulu is a "print-on-demand service" rather than a self-publishing resource. I clearly expressed my concern here and here that since the books and "journals" have not actually been printed and hard copies do not actually exist until after a customer has paid, then they are effectively self-published. The "publisher"/"editor" for most of the works is Denis Garrison, but I have seen no evidence that he screens works or tries to insure that the information presented is factual -- and why should he? He doesn't actually pay to print them, unless they have already been sold to customers. However, when I pointed this out, the users claimed this is "my opinion" and should not affect article content. But it seems to me that that is the reason Lulu's website is blocked from Wikipedia is for this exact reason... elvenscout742 (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Off the top of my head, it seems to me that it's irrelevant where a book is printed. I'd leave Lulu out of the discussion and focus on MET Press. TimidGuy (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Lulu publishes (nearly?) whatever anyone wants to have published. It's effectively not a publisher, but a press. It does no confer reliability. The "real" publisher in this case is MET Press. They also have an agreement that looks more like a self-publishing house, and they specialise in poetry, so I don't think they confer any reliability. In short, unless the author is a recognized specialist, the books in question are not a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Stephan, I misread your comment and noticed after posting my general response below. My question is whether their being a self-publishing house that specializes in poetry (i.e., not academic literature) confers unreliability. I know that that is not necessarily the case, but it still seems inappropriate for encyclopedia articles to be citing those kinds of works in general. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yup - I've just come to the same conclusion. Books from MET Press are self-published by any reasonable definition. As Stephan Schulz says though, the key issue is the credibility of the author, not the publisher, and without recognition from credible secondary sources, or evidence that the author is a recognised expert in the subject, it matters little who publishes a work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agree about focusing on the author, not the publication. WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS say that reliability can rest with the author. WP:SPS says we can use self-published sources if the author is an expert in the field who has previously been published in that field by independent publishers. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have tried to focus of METPress, but I have faced the problem that no matter how many faults I find in works they publish, and no matter how many reliable sources I find that contradict them, it still doesn't seem like absolute evidence that material published by METPress is not reliable in general. My argument has traditionally been that since they do not actually print the books and magazines that they claim to "publish", and do not therefore incur costs of production until after they have received payment (because they publish through Lulu), they seem to generally be lacking in editorial standards. This method of publishing gives them a motivation to put out as much stuff as they can, in the hope that some of it sells.
- The authors of most of the questionable material are Jeffrey Woodward and "M.Kei", neither of whom are academics, and both of them are writing in fields that seem to be unqualified in. They generally do not cite sources, and have on numerous occasions made ridiculous assertions about classical Japanese literature despite neither of them understanding Japanese.
- However, my problem remains -- is pointing out 100, or 1,000 inaccuracies in a particular author's work enough to discredit him/her as a source on Wikipedia? The reason I went with Lulu was that these authors' refusal to go through mainstream academic publishers seemed to be a decent indicator that they are not reliable academic sources for an encyclopedia. Any thoughts?
- elvenscout742 (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Have the authors been published on this issue before in independent mainstream publications? That is, can they be regarded as authoritative in the field? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, they have not. METPress's Author pages for them[30][31] seem to indicate that neither of them has a strong academic background in the field of classical Japanese literature). They both appear to be career-poets, and have never published scholarly articles in mainstream academic publications. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
What kind of sources do we need for simple dictionary-style definitions?
Sorry to post here again, but I've seen another problem come up a few times, where a simple definition or etymology of a word is tagged as needing a source. I know Wikipedia is supposed to rely primarily on secondary sources, but for simple dictionary definitions is a literal dictionary definition not enough? elvenscout742 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It would be useful to know what you are talking about exactly. Generally, a well-regarded etymological dictionary or an academic paper will be the best sources for etymological information. For definitions, dictionaries are generally reliable but (1) the circumstances in which they are useful is limited and (2) the community has rejected the use of dictionaries as imprecise in the past. But there is no way of saying for sure without knowing what the particular issue is. Formerip (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- The article is tanka, and the specific issue was highlighted in my recent edit here. That the word waka (poetry in Japanese) is used as a distinguisher from kanshi (poetry in Chinese) is given most Japanese dictionaries; it isn't even really an etymological issue, since it is a core part of the definition. (I will probably be removing the statement, with its source, to Waka (poetry), where a similar statement already exists, sometime soon anyway, though. I'm asking here for clarification.) elvenscout742 (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)