Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

ConsumerLab.com as references for materials of nutritional supplement interest.

Source: ConsumerLab.com User Absander had been adding sections about supplement qualities into articles that is sourced around a source Consumerlab.com

Articles & diffs:

• green coffee
• milk thistle
• fish oil

Contents: It has been noted that one editor Absander exhibited a pattern of adding ConsumerLab.com as references serially and it is my suspicion that there's a conflict of interest. Based on edit pattern, I find that the edit is focused around disseminating ConsumerLab.com's visibility more so than improving encyclopedic value. Claims are such as Consumerlab.com found Consumerlab.com's own tests (based on their proprietary testing standards) "according to tests by" when it does not in fact do testing as established by a reliable source. The notability of the company was questioned for its existence on Wikipedia, however even if they're notable enough for Wiki article, its use as WP:RS is questionable. It may receive media attention has a company that takes leads, but there's no indication that it is a reliable source to be used as a reference. Access to many of their contents require subscription payment and the use of references are quite obviously for WP:PROMO to add contents that might allow for their use rather than supporting worthwhile contents. It may order tests on products it choose, but then the method of selection or questionable and ConsumerLab.com does not appear to have recognition as a provider of scientifically accepted research data. As their test results, pass/fail criteria are based on their own proprietary system that is not generally recognized as industry benchmark or regulatory standards, the source of data is not disclosed, I find the use of this source as supporting claims on supplements is improper. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. I don't have any problem with using a site that requires payment to acccess its information as a source, but in this case, ConsumerLab.com seems far from the best we could do. Their tests are indeed subject to their own criteria, which I doubt would stand up to scientific scrutiny, especially concerning claims made about herbal supplements and the like. Absander is obviously an SPA whose purpose here is to get puffery about ConsumerLab.com into our articles; seems very sketchy. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed Absander's edits and was first to post to that editor's talk page with a concern (see User talk:Absander), but I don't believe that one person's edits should influence decisions on whether ConsumerLab.com is a reliable source - there are Wikipedia articles not edited by Absander that also include references to ConsumerLab.com, and in general, one editor's behavior shouldn't change the perception of a source. The notability of the company (and Cantaloupe2's nomination of the company article for deletion) is also unrelated. In several discussions since noticing Absander's edits, including discussions with Cantaloupe2, I've been trying to determine whether ConsumerLab.com is useful as a source. See Talk:Fish oil#ConsumerLab.com for a detailed discussion where User:Epipelagic and I agreed that it was a useful source, and see Talk:ConsumerLab.com#Appropriate coverage of notable findings and Talk:ConsumerLab.com#Some additional sources I found for more of my work evaluating it. According to my research, ConsumerLab.com reports have been cited by medical journals, newspapers of record, and lawsuits as a source for information about the contents of dietary supplements, and I haven't found any notable disputes about the accuracy of their tests. The company maintains a brag page listing some examples, and you can find more by searching Google Scholar, searching Google Books, and searching the New York Times. It's best to cite freely-available material though, so citing secondary sources is more useful, but I believe that it's a reliable source for material on dietary supplements. We also cite newspapers and journals that require subscriptions to view their articles, because they're useful sources - this is a little different since those sources are often accessible via public libraries, but in general I believe that a source being paid shouldn't entirely disqualify it. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that WP:RS is quite clear that paid sources are allowed. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion has got off to a bad start. The heading suggests it is about whether ConsumerLab.com is a reliable source. But instead of dealing with that, Cantaloupe2 focuses on inappropriate entries made by Absander which appeared to promote ConsumerLab.com. That is a completely different issue. This thread should be withdrawn, and started afresh so the issue of whether ConsumerLab.com is a reliable source can be examined without prejudice. As can be seen in an earlier discussion (referred to above), Cantaloupe2 does not focus on the issue at hand, but persistently obscures things, kicking up dust as he is here, and failing to separate the issue of Absander's inappropriate edits with the status of ConsumerLab.com as a reliable source.

The facts are easy to demonstrate. ConsumerLab.com is extensively used as a source by publications that we accept on Wikipedia as reliable sources, such as the New York Times, a wide spectrum of established book publishers, and a large number of peer reviewed scientific articles. Even QuackWatch, that most skeptical of all organisations, recommends ConsumerLab (scroll down to "Links to Recommended Vendors" at the bottom).

There doesn't appear to be anything on the net suggesting that the reports published by ConsumerLab.com are anything other than reliable. In the US the government does not monitor the quality of nutritional supplements. It is important for Wikipedia articles on nutritional supplements that there is at least one watchdog organisation, independent from the nutritional supplement industry itself, that can offer reliable reports. ConsumerLab.com at present seems to be the only widely accepted organisation in that category. Wikipedia articles will be significantly compromised if Cantaloupe2 succeeds in his campaign to have ConsumerLab.com rejected as a reliable source. His relentless and unbalanced crusade against ConsumerLab.com is consistent with him having a COI himself. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 also canvassed Joefromrandb, presumably as an editor he thought he would support him. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

For the love of God, you can't be serious. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at WP:Canvassing, limited notification is acceptable; I think it's hard to detect bias from one notification. It'd probably be OK to notify other people who have participated in ConsumerLab.com discussions, if you'd like to do that. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked one editor who is somewhat familiar with whats going on and left a thorough edit comment; to please take a look at the discussion. I didn't ask the said editor to please take sides with me and make arguments in a way I like. Look on my talk page about 3 ph power. I was notified of something they thought I'm interested in, so I went in and comment. This is nothing sketchy about it. A proprietary paid-subscription source is obviously a problem as it hinders the ability to verify even if its not strictly forbidden. Contents that are added specifically to get wrapped around in certain gift-wrapper "reference" in mind is a cause of concern and so far pretty much all of prose added by Absander are like that. Now, if we have to pay to verify what was created around the paid contents, it would simply feed on what they're looking to get and that's a serious bait trap. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As for the pay-wall, half of the medical content here is supported by subscription journal articles. I have no problem with them being used in conformity with Wikipedia:Verifiability. I've emailed ConsumerLab.com, in case they want to add something to the discussion. If a company representative chimes in here let's ask them for a handful of free subscriptions for some of the regulars at Wikipedia:Resource exchange, so someone here can check our article content against cited reports. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"I've emailed ConsumerLab.com". Now, OFF WIKI solicitation. that might be inappropriate. Care to disclose the entirety of your email here, so we can keep track of whats going on? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It was surely a good idea to ask for their comments. Cantaloupe is right that in practice it is more difficult to verify a source that's behind a paywall: Anthonyhcole's initiative may help to solve that. Andrew Dalby 10:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

My email said

Hi.This discussion might interest you. It seems that your reports will be judged reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, but I thought you might like the opportunity to contribute to the discussion, if we've missed something. If the question arises again, this discussion will probably be referred to then. Discussions are automatically archived after 2 days of inactivity.

If you would like to join the discussion, just click the [edit] button next to the section heading "ConsumerLab.com as references for materials of nutritional supplement interest", and add your comment to the bottom of the "edit box" at the bottom of the page.

Regards

They have pointed me to summaries of all of their reports, including key general findings here and a description of their testing methodologies here. I have pointed them to the relevant contact here, should they wish to offer some free memberships.

Anyway, back on topic. They seem to me to be a reliable source for the quality of health and nutrition products. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you post the email it sent you sans email addresses? Unless of course it was a extremely long copy-paste canned email.

Yeah back on topic. I have not seen the full reports anywhere, but contents that are like what they have on JAMA like THIS is acceptable, but sources they have available on their public-page are not. The source of data ("third party lab" ) is not disclosed and integrity of this publisher's editorial is questionable on public sections of website where CL had sole and absolute editorial control over contents.

news this is what I would call their "brag page" as coined by another editor in article talk page. Much of the contents there shouldn't be used as sources.

• Wiki essay discussing about such sources
• discussion on use of PR on medicine topics
• policies addressing use of PR

So, I think with careful selection they could be used, but I don't think we should be allowed to link to any of their press release like essays. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No. I won't copy their reply here.

I've left a note at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#ConsumerLab.com, --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(Came here from above posting.) I have no prior knowledge of ConsumerLab, but for-profit companies tend to give me pause as an independent arbitrator, especially as a source for medical claims. It's probably my own bias showing here, but commercial companies that have a "Where to buy" prominent link raises serious doubts on my part as to how objective they can be. I would like to see what independent sourcing says about ConsumerLab; if multiple independent reliable (preferably MEDRS) sources say they are reliable, that would go a long way to showing them to be a reliable source for our purposes. Yobol (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Any input from those familiar with GLP? Someone who writes reports based on samples they provide to labs, but won't refuse to name the sources used to write an article breaks the chain of custody of sample. This deliberately obfuscates transparency. From my understanding, having a fairly solid chain of custody of samples is expected. As it stands, there is the "trust me, its correct" "trust me, our labs use GLP" "trust me they're accredited", etc. This makes their report scientifically dubious. One of the summary on notable findings written on Wiki by its alleged PR editor reported "found to have hundred fold difference" when the JAMA source read "0.10 to 10mg /tablet" using outlier min and max samples when STDev was something like 2.5mg. which I consider as misleading with data. secrecysecrecy2 So, there's a lot that can go within the black box "CL.com" that is not disclosed and not open to public auditing which makes the integrity of their finding highly questionable. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Just addressing the above: Regarding "breaking the chain of custody", I see no evidence of that. Do you have evidence that the chronological documentation demonstrating custody, control, transfer and analysis of the samples is broken? In the source (secrecy2) that you cite, their president, Tod Cooperman, says the reason that ConsumerLab.com does not publicly disclose the names of the labs is because he claims members of industry have threatened several with loss of business; and "before we publish a failing test result, our protocol requires us to confirm the results in a second independent laboratory."

I've never seen standard deviation expressed in mg. before – but I'm not a statistician. Can you provide a diff for what was "written on Wiki by its alleged PR editor" so I can try to better understand your point, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's the diff that I believe Cantaloupe2 is referring to. The relevant text: "Tests by ConsumerLab.com in 2008 of ten red yeast rice products showed a 100-fold range in amounts of total lovastatins. This finding was subsequently published in The Archives of Internal Medicine in a paper co-authored by Dr. Cooperman and William Obermeyer, PhD." Dreamyshade (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with evaluating MEDRS, but here are some individual sources that may be useful for this discussion:

• 2002 article in The Journal of Family Practice that cites a ConsumerLab.com web page.

It looks like CLs finding is mentioned in brief statement in conclusion, but does not validate the accuracy. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• 2003 article in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine that says "ConsumerLab.com LLC (White Plains, NY), an independent commercial testing company, evaluates the validity of the contents of selected BDS products and posts the results on the Web at http://www.consumerlab.com."

This then conflicts with another JAMA source that I referenced and HighBeam business' description and the common sense that there is no lab at a UPS Store mailbox. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• 2007 article in the journal Sleep that cites ConsumerLab.com web pages.
• 2008 review article in the journal Current Medical Research and Opinion that cites a ConsumerLab.com web page. It also mentions ConsumerLab.com's "CL Seal" program - not quite relevant to a discussion of ConsumerLab.com web pages as sources, but possibly interesting.
• 2010 article in the Journal of Ginseng Research that cites a Consumerlab.com web page.
• 2010 editorial article in The American Journal of Psychiatry that cites a ConsumerLab.com web page.
• A book published by the American Dietetic Association that cites ConsumerLab.com web pages.
• A book published by CRC press that cites a ConsumerLab.com web page.

I think that is a credible reference to say that CL fails or passes products based on its own proprietary criteria. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• NYT article from 2000: "In the meantime, tests by ConsumerLab.com and others are a useful effort to fill the information gap, said senior researchers at the United States Pharmacopeia and the institutes...ConsumerLab.com's results are consistent with those found by Good Housekeeping and Consumer Reports."
• NYT article from 2007: "Where, then, can you look for reliable, unbiased information? One place to start is ConsumerLab.com, an independent research organization that tests supplements."

I've done some digging on this. Phys-ed appears to be a column which means that its personalized with the author's opinion. This is not an endorsement of CL.com as credible reference by the NYTimes. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Dreamyshade (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears from the above sources that various medical sources have used it for determining the content of supplements. However, the ones presented here do not use it for the more MEDRS related information such as safety or efficacy. As such, it appears to be reliable for as a source for specific chemical composition of supplement, but not as a secondary source for material such as safety or efficacy (and should be probably be inline attributed to ConsumerLab.com rather than used in Wikipedia's voice). Thoughts? Yobol (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about the option of saying "independent laboratory testing showed" or similar when referring to ConsumerLab.com results in an article on a supplement? While attempting to fix some ConsumerLab.com-related material, I found that referring to "ConsumerLab.com" in the text was sometimes distracting due to the awkwardly self-promoting name. I'm not sure what's best here. I agree that it should be attributed in the text in some way at least. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much how it's being used [in our articles] now, I think. In the three articles I've looked at, they basically say, "ConsumerLab found that nine out of seventeen products tested contained less than the stated quantity of essential ingredient, one contained none of the essential ingredient" or similar. We certainly shouldn't rely on them for efficacy or safety claims. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Bracketted text added 07:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Some references also corroborates that "CL did this" but not if their findings are relevant beyond samples that were tested. In another JAMA article, it is noted that CLs severe limitation lies in its single batch test methods. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to that article, for anyone interested in checking it: 2010 article in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The milk thistle article mentions periodic testing of milk thistle supplements. Although single batch testing was a limitation in the JAMA article, are you sure single batch testing is CL's usual practice? That article also mentions currency: manufacturer practice may have improved (or deteriorated) since the batches were analysed. But, provided we mention the date of the report, and don't single out manufacturers, the thrust of the findings - that there is inconsistent quality in the self-regulated supplements industry - is worth reporting, I think. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe so. Noone will know. They're not transparent about this kind of thing. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I tried looking around to see what available sources had to say on the batch testing issue:

• This ABC News article includes manufacturers responding to ConsumerLab.com tests and mentioning batch issues: "In response, two manufacturers blamed the problem on a labeling mistake. One wrote, 'We simply goofed when the label was made for this batch.'" It seems important to avoid having labeling problems.
• This 2011 CNN article includes a comment from another challenged manufacturer on batch testing, with context: "The company routinely conducts its own tests, and some variation in electrolytes between batches (or lots) is normal, he added." It seems like the manufacturer decided to settle the suit instead of continuing to say that the ConsumerLab.com tests were flawed, but it sounds like there were other factors involved as well.
• This 2008 post by an athletic website columnist says: "ConsumerLab operates only on a secret-shopper basis, that is, the product to be tested is purchased from a retail outlet as a consumer would buy it. In this way, the manufacturer has no part in the testing process; however, there is no assurance that a reliable cross-section of production batches will be tested."
• This 2007 article in American Journal for Clinical Nutrition says "US regulations require that the amount of a vitamin or mineral is always equal to or greater than the label declaration after batch-to-batch variations and expected shelf life losses are taken into account." and later cites a ConsumerLab.com web page for the statement "However, underages have also been reported in US and Canadian products."

This sounds to me like more emphasis that we have to be careful to not exaggerate claims cited to ConsumerLab.com - to avoid saying "most x supplements are low in x" and citing it to them - but it doesn't seem to discourage citing ConsumerLab.com results as "an independent laboratory test in 2011 showed that 6 of 25 tested products didn't have the listed amounts of x" or other limited claims. The medical journal article acknowledged batch variations and still cited ConsumerLab.com for limited claims. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the first RS/N discussion I've participated in, and I'm not sure what happens at this point - have we arrived at consensus? Do we need to summarize the arguments so far and try to determine a verdict? Dreamyshade (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite done. This is not a insurance claim settlement. There's no urgency to close. Chill. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This was an honest question; I'm glad to hear that it's still considered an active discussion after a couple quiet days. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep. we keep talking, on and off, until some kind of consensus emerges. Presently, I'm in favour of using ConsumerLabs reports - and the summaries of their reports published on their website - for claims about the quality of the classes of products they test (without naming individual manufacturers) provided we don't say it in "Wikipedia's voice" but use language like that suggested by you above. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If the findings are notable enough, they'll probably be discussed in media sources. These could be ok in contextually appropriate places where references go around contents rather than contents built around refs in order to add them. In any case, we should not link to CLs press releases as sources as PRs are almost always unacceptable especially on claims that isn't about themselves. The raw report could of good quality, but the same can't be said about editorialized version that CL writes for its press release. For something like "fish oil" article, only a very limited amount is appropriate. Much of their US centric compare and contract and discussion of US regulations specifically for manufactured supplement product and et al are rather irrelevant to the subject of fish oil as a whole. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Propositions don't need to meet WP:GNG to be included in an article, they need to be relevant and supported by a reliable source. I understand your concerns about the press releases. I might pursue the membership thing with them and see if I can get one, to at least confirm that any claim we take from a press release reflects the original report. (I'm in Australia so they're not going to lose a potential paid member.) And I completely agree with what you say about relevance to an international readership – though the US does represent a large part of our readership, and US manufacturers do export. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Do any of you have access to university libraries? I wonder if some of them might have subscriptions to ConsumerLab.com, like they do for other subscription-only sources. Dreamyshade (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but mine doesn't subscribe. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. In an Afd discussion I was involved in, the dependability of a book source came into a question and I believe user DGG somehow checked what library carried the book in question. I know that ConsumerLab.com publishes print books as well and it would be worthwhile to see if the said ISBNs are carried by any public or educational libraries. Anthonyhcole, are you willing to follow up with CL and ask if they would name some universities which have subscribed to ConsumerLab.com? We can then visit said universities' library pages and verify that it is indeed a resource they subscribe to. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for reference, here's a prior discussion on RSN on CL SOURCE OR SPAM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've asked for a membership and asked whether any universities subscribe. If the membership is forthcoming I'll put a note on the talk page of articles that cite CL offering to confirm any claims. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've got access to the reports now, apparently (I haven't tried yet). I'll have a look at Amway; Swanson Health Products; Dietary supplement; Fish oil; Noni juice; Echinacea; Omega-3 fatty acid; S-Adenosyl methionine; & Selenomethionine some time soon and make sure what we say is confirmed by the actual reports. CL told me that a number of public libraries subscribe to their reports, as well as a lot of the more technically-oriented universities. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"some public libraries" such as? "a lot of technically oriented universities" such as? Without names, how are we going to validate their claim? Anything that goes on should be transparent to all editors. Whatever goes back and forth privately in email obscures it Are the sources available to editors via Resource Exchange? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked whether any libraries carry their reports, the answer was what I gave you. If you want more than that, email them yourself or check the catalog at your local libraries. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, thanks for doing the legwork on this! I'd suggest also posting on the talk page of ConsumerLab.com, since earlier we had some discussion about citing notable results on that page, and it's likely to come up again. And what should we do about articles that recently had ConsumerLab.com material but saw it removed due to concerns over promotion and the reliability of the source? Maybe move the material to the talk page for discussion and improvement? Ginkgo biloba diff, Dog health diff #1 and diff #2, Fish oil section with warning tags and Fish oil talk page discussion, Milk thistle diff and Milk thistle talk page discussion, Krill oil diff, Cod liver oil diff, Multivitamin diff. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah OK. I'll watchlist them too, and address any queries on their talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Close this?

I think this is nearing closure. We don't single out individual manufacturers based on CL's reports, we use the style of language suggested by Dreamyshade above, and I'll check what we say for accuracy against the full report. Have I missed something? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the factual accuracy between their glorified PR pieces vs the report, but also if the reports and claims they make are relevantly important to add to other articles. Another issue I addressed is not inaccurate but misleading claims such as saying "found one hundred fold variation!!!" rather than disclose read "0.01 to 10" for the wow effect. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that relevance is an important consideration, but it seems like that should be sorted out on each article's talk page, keeping in mind WP:PRESERVE ("As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies"). Also, I think we all agree that the test results should be cited carefully and accurately. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Faces of Goa

In a discussion I cited "Faces of Goa, it is written by a Fulbright scholar, and the project has been supported by the foundation.[1] Is the book non-reliable because it is published by Gyan? Diffs of the discussion are [2] and [3] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure who Gyan is, but if the publisher is a reputable book publisher, then that would have nothing to do with its Reliability. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Previous (a few quick examples) discussion on Gyan[4][5][6], Gyan Publishing isn't apparently very reliable, treat with caution is the disclaimer, is a book written by a Fulbright scholar, an unreliable source? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Was he a Fulbright Scholar? What is so special about being one? What was his specialism? How many others cite him? There have been several examples of seemingly reputable authors being published by Gyan where it is absolutely evident that plagiarism and copyright violation has gone on, eg: compare:

• Pandey, Aditya (2005). South Asia: Polity, Literacy and Conflict Resolution. Gyan Publishing House. p. 181. ISBN 988182053038. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)

with

• Jaffrelot, Christoph (2003). India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India (Reprinted ed.). C. Hurst & Co. p. 189. ISBN 9781850653981.

The problems with Gyan are numerous and it is not all about the manner in which they have mirrored Wikipedia stuff. I am not at all sure that we can be confident that the named authors even are the authors. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually the author is a female. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the claim. Might be an asexual alien for all I know. Gyan are a very weird outfit and I am astonished that they get away with publishing what they do. I'll try to do some digging on this specific book but, honestly, the omens are not good simply because of the publisher. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The book has been cited in a Georgia State University M. A. Thesis.[7] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Independent confirmation of Karin Larsen's status as Fulbright scholar.[8][9][10] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

So? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Almighty Vice Lord Nation

There is a disagreement at Talk:Almighty Vice Lord Nation, where a citation to the Chicago Crime Commission Gang Book [11] is being questions. A sentence that explains how a gang's founder named it is being called "dubious" by another editor. First, is the source reliable? Second, is pinpointing the exact page number that sentence appears on mandatory or is it ok to use one citation and simply provide the page range that encompasses the entry covering this gang? Third, is it ok to claim an entire source is dubious simply for lack of an exact page number? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Balph has misrepresented this. First of all, I put a dubious tag on it. I didn't remove it, only tagged it for discussion. The fact that it was tagged seems to piss Balph off. The book itself is not really being disputed. But what we have is a single source that makes a claim that no other reliable source makes and the claim doesn't make sense. The claim is that the "Vice Lords" used "vice" because the dictionary defines "vice" as a "tight hold"....except that's false. A "vise" is a tight hold. Again, no other source I can find makes this claim. I suppose it's possible that the founders of the Vice Lords were idiots and unable to understand the difference. Similarly, it is possible that some well-meaning person at the CCC took some urban legend to heart and published it as fact. When a single source makes a questionable claim and no other source backs it up, we are irresponsible to not at least question it. The notion that this non-profit has discovered the secret (and illiterate) origins of this name while no other government or scholarly text has done so should be questioned. As for requesting a page number, the book is being relied on too heavily anyway and Balph, who says he owns the book, is simply being obstinant by refusing to provide that simple request. The page thing, however, is beside the point. The point here is that this claim is bordering on WP:FRINGE. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

1. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vice vice (plural vices) A mechanical screw apparatus used for clamping or holding (also spelled vise). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vice?s=t vice or vise 2 (vaɪs) — n 1. an appliance for holding an object while work is done upon it, usually having a pair of jaws — vb 2. ( tr ) to grip (something) with or as if with a vice
2. http://chicagostreetgangs.webs.com/vicelords.html - As Dawley informs us in A Nation of Lords,... “At first, the name was Conservative Lads, then Imperial Vice Lords. But Pep didn’t like the Imperial part because they had iced him, so Conservative was added to Vice Lords. Calloway had thought of the Vice and the Lord because he had seen these words and looked them up in the dictionary. When he found that “vice” meant having a tight hold [. . .] that was it” (Dawley, 1992: pg. 11). http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Lords-Autobiography-Vice/dp/0881336289
3. http://books.google.com/books?id=TR9HAAAAMAAJ&q=%22tight+hold%22#search_anchor Google Books confirms the quote, from page 11.

Of course all that doesn't necessarily mean the CCC book ref is correct, but it does make it pretty likely. --GRuban (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• And you honestly think they used the Old French? Chicagoestreetgangs.com isn't a RS and I strongly suspect that the book is linked to the CCC. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• I know nothing about this topic personally, but would suspect, that, as the source says, they didn't care about the etymology, but were happy to find a dictionary word with a tough sounding double meaning. And David Dawley seems to be as good a source as anyone could hope for on a street gang, and seems to predate the CCC. http://www.dawleyhutchins.com/publication.html http://ivy50.com/blackhistory/story.aspx?sid=3/10/2009 --GRuban (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• So not one, but two reliable sources saying the same thing? Yet Niteshift continues to push his POV. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Here is the part you continue to miss (and misrepresent) while you post your ridiculous personal attacks on the talk page: The information wasn't removed. It was simply tagged as dubious and put up for discussion. But you got sand in your panties that someone would have the audacity to question anything. You finally did what I've asked all along, which was to quit being so lazy and provide a specific source. But instead of doing that in the first place, you whined, bitched, name-called, postured and generally contributed to the toxic environment that you complain about. Again, all while ignoring the fact that the info was never removed and was simply tagged. (Spare me the lecture on civility. After your last talk page response, it's clear you lack the ability to be civil and shouldn't expect it in return). At least this wasn't a loss. You learned how to actually cite something and I got to laugh at your hypocrisy. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Exaro

Exaro is a British investigative journalism website, apparently highly regarded - [12]. Is it a reliable source - for example in adding material to the article on Operation Fairbank? An IP is trying to add material to that page, claiming it's sourced from Exaro. Actually, it isn't - it goes way beyond what Exaro have published - but there is material freely available on the Exaro site which could be added to the article if it is deemed to be reliable. Is it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes because it is Exaro carries out genuine investigative journalism. No, because stories breaking on Exaro are just that: breaking news. Best to wait for the stories to be picked up by other media. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair enough, thanks. I'll copy your response to the article talk page for future reference, if that's OK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: The full text of articles on Exaro are only available through subscription. We have a current problem at the Operation Fairbank article of a new user adding material, claiming it to be based on the full version of the article. Is there a policy on the use of subscription-only websites like this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Subscription only sites are not a problem providing they are WP:RS. Consider using {{subscription required}} after the reference to alert readers to this fact (a subscription only site is just like a book in that an effort (in this case a cost) is required to access) --Senra (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want access you can try and ask at WP:RX--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Austrian School

1. Sources:

• Paul Krugman, "Varieties of Error"
• John Carney, "Krugman Isn't (Quite) Right About Austrian Economics"
• Krugman, "G.O.P. Monetary Madness"
• Daniel Hanson, *"Inflation fears, Ron Paul, and the big, bad Fed"
• "Where is Dr. Paul's Inflation?"
• Krugman, "Inflation Predictions"
• [13]
• [14]

1. Austrian School
2. diff

The content is being opposed by three editors: User:Byelf2007, User:Darkstar1st, and User:North8000. Byelf2007's most recent argument is that Krugman's post does not actually refer to the Austrian School of Economics (although we agree that Krugman explicitly and specifically calls it out several times by name), because since Byelf thinks that Krugman's account of the Austrian School's account of inflation is not accurate --- therefore, Krugman is not referring to the Austrian School, at all. Byelf contends that Krugman is talking about something else, even when Krugman specifically names the Austrian School. The basis for this argument appears to be that Byelf simply disagrees with Krugman's critique. Keep in mind that Paul Krugman is the recipient of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences[15].

This argument and edit war has been going on for 11 days now. I encourage other editors to join the discussion, which has been continually plagued by digressions, irrelevancies, and flights of fancy. Thank you for your help in clarifying this matter. — goethean ॐ 13:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Which exactly is the Source whose Reliability is being questioned? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st for further examples of such behaviour elsewhere by one of the editors involved here. RolandR (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Byelf2007 claims that the first Krugman source, "Varieties of Error", isn't really about the Austrian School because Byelf thinks that Krugman's account of the Austrian School is inaccurate, and therefore, Krugman isn't talking about the Austrian School, he's talking about something else. — goethean ॐ 17:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion about the correct interpretation of sources. Krugman's statements are reliable for Krugman's opinions. However, for detailed, complex and scholarly evaluation nothing beats a field review or a review article (multiple works reviewed simultaneously). Seek these out in orthodox and heterodox scholarly peer reviewed journals. When sources of good enough quality contend, seek better sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Fox News reliable?

Is Fox News a good secondary source for the content listed below?

Source: Workers Say Pilsen Wellness Center Director is Packing Payroll With Family Members

Article: Pilsen Wellness Center

Content:

In 2010 a Fox News investigation alleged that the Executive Director of Pilsen Wellness Center hired numerous family members to work at the agency. According to internal agency documents and interviews obtained by Fox News the director’s wife, mother, son, three brothers, four sisters and two nieces all have jobs at the agency. The investigation also revealed that two adult children of Illinois State Senator Martin Sandoval are also employed by the agency. Senator Sandoval is one of several lawmakers who have provided state funding to Pilsen Wellness Center.

Kausticgirl (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Fox news is reliable source, its mainstream news outlet that meets every criterion of WP:RS.So there no reason to doubt it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It is rs, but investigative journalism often poses neutrality issues. It is best to use sources that report on the story, rather than the original story itself. That way we can see what attention the stories have received and what responses there are. TFD (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Fox News is a reliable source, except where it's commentators are concerned; they may or may not have vetted the stuff they say. The investigative piece you cite above was undoubtedly checked and rechecked before it aired. Note: I disagree with The Four Deuces comment. Sources that report on a first-hand story should not be quoted unless the original account is unavailable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but notice that all original "investigative news" is technically a primary (and non-self-published) source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. You therefore need to use the source carefully, being careful not to exceed what it says or imply things beyond what it says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You could attribute it to Fox News investigative reporting, in order to let readers know that it comes from an investigative report.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Laying out the facts as reported in the paper presents bias, because it is an implicit accusation of nepotism. Attributing the facts to Fox does not help because there is no question that the facts are accurate. We need a source that analyzes these facts. OTOH, if no other source has picked up the story, then it lacks significance and it would be biased to report it. We are then promoting a story that otherwise had been ignored. TFD (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everyone but TFD here. The story is a reliable source; since it's controversial, we should attribute it, and make sure we don't say more than what they say. It's not secondary, it is primary, but that is all right; the Pilsen Wellness Center is not such an important place that we can demand that there be stories reporting on stories reporting about it, ad infinitum. It is not bias to report the results of investigative journalism by reliable sources. --GRuban (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• The question is whether or not Fox News is reliable. Unfortunately, most of you are falling into the trap of thinking that local Fox affiliates and the Fox News Channel are the same thing. They aren't really the same. Local affiliates operate separate from the FNC. Whereas FNC is typically conservative, my local Fox affiliate is often fairly liberal. In either case, yes, FNC and Fox affiliates are as reliable as ABC/NBC/CBS. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• The news item is perfectly reliable for use in the article about Pilsen. It's a prominent WP:SECONDARY source of the sort that Wikipedia accepts. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Irregular Freemasonry: Speech to UGLE

The question is whether this source:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071010130228/http://www.ugle.org.uk/news/gc-englefield120907.htm

in the the Continental Freemasonry article can backs up the use of the alternate term "Irregular Freemasonry". A diff showing it's usage is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Continental_Freemasonry&diff=528363537&oldid=528362558

The quotation that's provided with the source says

"At the same time in what was becoming an increasingly politicised world there was a growth of irregular Freemasonry with bodies springing up claiming to be Masonic but not accepting our Basic Principles, in particular the bar on Grand Lodges or brethren in their Masonic capacities making public statements on matters of religious, political or social policy."

The wider dispute is about the use of "Irregular Freemasonry" as an alternate term for "Continental Freemasonry". If you are interested in the wider dispute itself then I would suggest that you go to the Wikipedia:NPOV/N#Irregular_Freemasonry entry on the NPOV noticeboard, there have as yet been no outside views on this. However to avoid forum shopping, this is about the acceptability of this single citation and not the dispute on the term.

I don't believe that the quote (which is the only instance within the source that uses the term "Irregular Freemasonry") does actually make it clear that it is referring to the Liberal Masonic tradition. It says that one of the particular cases was that these lodges made "public statements on matters of religious, political or social policy". This could refer to Liberal Freemasonry - and this is one of the points of contention - but it could also apply to right wing, occultist or avowedly Christian groups - none of which are in the Continental tradition.

I've been told that the lack of a plain attribution of the term is not a problem by Blueboar and MSJapan as it must be Continental Freemasonry as the term is almost never used in any other way. No further evidence has been offered. There is also the claim that the meaning is clear for those who are Freemasons or have an understanding of it.

So is an inferred meaning understood by one party, but not by another, acceptable?

JASpencer (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To my mind the source clearly uses the term "Irregular Freemasonry" in the context of discussing the Continental branch of the fraternity. No other branch of European Freemasonry actively engages in politics, so I have a hard time seeing what else the author could be referring to? I have difficulty seeing how anyone familiar with the history of European Freemasonry in the last 50 years could see the reference any other way. Still, it would be nice to get a neutral third party on this. Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"No other branch of European Freemasonry actively engages in politics". Propaganda Due? I don't raise this to make you look silly, but just to point out that inference from a source is a dangerous game. The alternate term needs to be used and it needs to plainly and unmistakably refer to the phenomena of the article. I also notice that you didn't refer to religion as this is definately something that various jurisdictions get involved in. JASpencer (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

For it to apply to "right-wing, occultist, or avowedly Christian groups," those groups would need to have a Lodge/Grand Lodge structure, as otherwise the context of the quote would not be so specific as to form, as there are Masonic groups with other designatiions but the same function. I would further posit that under those requirements, groups such as may fall under the right-wing, etc. banner, should they indeed meet as a "Lodge", are not large enough to have a "Grand Lodge" - what is referred to as continental Freemasonry, however, does. As to it being "better understood by Masons" this is because this is a contextual issue; the audience is not the public, and therefore the tone is different that what one would expect for a general reader. This is no different than any other speech made to an organization. MSJapan (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

So the point that you are both making is this is what it implies and I'm saying that this is not what it is plainly saying. So by default you're both agreeing with my point that it's not what it is plainly saying. Can we please agree that first? It will make it easier for admins and third party editors to decide on this. JASpencer (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No quite... I am saying that to anyone knowledgeable about the history of Freemasonry since World War II, there is no "implication" involved. During the era that Englefield is talking about, there were numerous overtly political "Continental style" Masonic bodies "springing up" across Europe. What did not "spring up" during this era were lots of right-wing, occultist, or avowedly Christian groups... The source is obviously referring to the rise of those "Continental style" Masonic lodges. There is nothing else that he could be referring to. (Note... yes, the right-wing Propaganda Due (P2) did exist during the era that Englefield is discussing. However, P2 was a unique situation... a "one-off"... and Englefield is using the term Irregular Freemasonry the plural. Also, the adjective that Masons use when referring to P2 is "Clandestine", not "Irregular". This too, anyone familiar with the topic would know. Thus, we can be sure that Englefield is not referring to P2 in his comments.) Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's so cut and dried (which it's clearly not) why are you spending all your time trying to defend a citation that does not plainly equate the phenomena (Liberal Freemasonry) with the term "Irregular Freemasonry"? But that's not the question. The question that I'm posing to the third party editors is whether an alternate term should be shown to be used or whether we should infer it? You are saying that it's obvious but unlike all the other alternate terms it needs to be explained. JASpencer (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the other terms need explaining as well. For example "Continental Freemasonry" does not call itself "liberal" because it espouses left-wing political views... but because it takes a more liberal stance regarding who can be admitted (Atheists and Women)... as opposed to the more conservative stance of the Masonic majority. So if we are going to start excluding labels and terms because context is needed to understand usage, then we can probably remove all of the alternatives. Blueboar (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

With respect, this is not the point of this question. The point is whether whether a plain equation is needed or wheter an inference that may only be instantly clear to a minority of editors is sufficient. JASpencer (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if it is not explicitly stated, then it is inference, which runs afoul of WP:SYNTH, as I have stated before. Unfortunately, no one but the four of us is getting involved in the discussion, so there is little chance of getting a disinterested party to look at this. In short, I feel like giving up, as it seems perfectly clear to me that we haven't got a reliable source directly stating that continental masonry is commonly called irregular masonry, and, these articles are NOT supposed to be written with "to anyone knowledgeable about the history of Freemasonry" taken into account, but precisely the opposite, but it seems like this is going to get ignored again and again and again - in short, making it look like there is a UGLE cabal controlling Masonic wikipedia articles.--Vidkun (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

On the use of the alternate term "Liberal Freemasonry" which Blueboar claimed also needed explaining this is the quote that has been within the citation:

"This new concept of Freemasonry - of Absolute Freedom of Conscience which was born on the " Convent " (Annual General Meeting) of 1877 and whose gave birth to a new form of practise in Freemasonry which is called Liberal Freemasonry."

It's taken from the website of the Grand Orient of France refering to their type of (Continental) Freemasonry, and it plainly refers to Liberal Freemasonry. I've no idea why Blueboar thinks it's a bad quote. You don't need to understand the context in this quotation, they call their type of freemasonry "Liberal Freemasonry". Plain and simple. Now provide us with a plain and simple source. JASpencer (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I was actually referring, or intending to refer, to the use of the word irregular.--Vidkun (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

steve earle songs in films

Betrayed is a movie with debra winger released in 1988. The song devils right hand is in opening credits.

Politically Incorrect (blog) - can we use the website as a source about itself?

I've (twice now) added an edit to this article concerning items it sells on its online store - mugs and t-shirts saying "Islamophobic and proud of it". It's been removed twice by the same editor with the claim that we can't use the blog's website itself as a source for what it sells as it is a primary source. The editor gives other reasons at Talk:Politically Incorrect (blog) but if you read the talk page from the top it looks more like an argument over whether the blog is Islamophobic or not, with the editor who is deleting me saying " does not define itself as islamophobe and it does not share any categories with Islamophobia, actually". That's a different issue of course as are the other reasons he gives for deleting me, but his main reason still seems to be his claim that we can't use it as it is a primary source. Note that we not surprisingly are already using the website as a source in the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This a primary source so it better to use it in conjunction with secondary sources.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I've done that. Ironically, a source that the editor reverted me insists, rightly, is a reliable source, was part 2 of an article, and part 1 leads off with a statement about the mugs and t-shirts. But what is the difference between what I added and the two sentences in the lead "A condensed version of the weblog is available in English.[3] The blog's self-declared goal is to bring news to a wider public attention which it perceives to be ignored or suppressed in the mainstream media due to a pervading "leftist political correctness."[4]" which are both sourced to the website?

The problem is in using of primary sources its deciding what important and what is not i.e WP:UNDUE of course a stated goal of organisation is very relevant to the article but if the organisation notable enough the secondary sources should have discussed their goals but this goes beyond the scope of this board. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I would actually have to say no on its use as a primary source. It is a blog and really has no editorial oversite. Per WP:PRIMARY:"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.". I took a look and this really does not meet the criteria as reliably published, which is why blogs are generally not used as primary sourcing unless as part of the subject of another source. Sometimes an RS will not mention a primary source itself but just the facts from it, so a reliably published primary source would add value. If you were to find a secondary source that mentions this site, it probably still shouldn't be used as a primary source in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm lost now. Are you saying we can't use it as a source for what it sells in its online store? Are you saying we need to remove the sentences about its self-declared goal and that it has a condensed version available in English? Surely this is a misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY, and is actually covered by WP:SPS:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Doug. I have such huge respect for you and feel a little odd disagreeing with you, but stating what they sell and using the site as a primary source is unduly self-serving.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And I wouldn't normally do that, but given the context of a debate over whether it is Islamaphobic it seems reasonable. But, as I said, I found a reliable source stating that they sold the mugs and t-shirts. In the context, I don't think it is self-serving, and certainly not as self-serving as the frequent use of an organisation's website as a source for the organisation's beliefs. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Francis E. Dec

Francis E. Dec needs a complete overhaul in that it is built upon primary source material and other sources that are generally considered unreliable (i.e. blogs and personal websites). Given that this forum is supposed to address specific sources, I'll simply jump in.

Is http://home.pacifier.com/~dkossy/decvisit.html a reliable source for the following comments:

1. Dec apparently suffered a stroke in late 1992 and was transferred early 1993 to the St. Albans VA hospital in Queens, New York[15][32] by his brother Joseph I. Dec. He was still residing there in December 1995, at which time he was visited by Forrest Jackson, David Hanson and Ean Schuessler who had come across tape recordings of some of his rants at Dallas in 1993 (see Legacy section) and went to New York to ask him about their origin and meaning;[32] as far as is currently known, these individuals were the only fans of Dec ever to have met or spoken to him at any length, and videotaped the only documented encounter with Dec. Dec was entirely unresponsive to the presence or inquiries of his visitors, and the visit produced no answers whatsoever.
2. Francis E. Dec was dubbed... "the Gnostic God of these End Times"[32] by his 1995 interviewer Forrest Jackson,
3. Dec also entered the folklore of the Church of the SubGenius, which contributed[32] to his underground popularization since at least 1993:

Thanks! - Location (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source, period.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll likely be back with more. Location (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Is http://web.archive.org/web/19990117002658/http://www.cs.monash.edu.au/~acb/discordianism/saints.html a reliable source for the following comment:

1. Additionally, he was canonized as "St. Francis the Incoherent"[43][44] among Discordian Saints.

Thanks again! -Location (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Not RS. See the disclaimer at the bottum. Personal web page with no editorial oversite by the University.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

One link, http://web.archive.org/web/19990209200027/http://www.teleport.com/~dkossy/dec.html , appears to be a self-published source and is cited in the article as "Kossy, Donna (1999). "Francis E. Dec, Esquire: Your Only Hope for a Future!", Kooks Museum, Schizophrenic Wing, www.book-happy.com, copyright 1999 with a 2006 addendum, consulted February 2009 — Updated online summary of the Dec chapter in Kossy's book." As such, is it a reliable source for anything? Thanks again! Location (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly clear on the above, but it sounds like you are saying the non RS is being cited as a book on the article itself on Wikipedia?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I'll rephrase: Is http://web.archive.org/web/19990209200027/http://www.teleport.com/~dkossy/dec.html a reliable source for the Francis E. Dec article? I would say "no" since all available information suggests that it is self-published material. Location (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Not RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Far right

The topic of the article far right is groups such as neo-nazis and klansmen. There is a dispute about the statement "Far right politics commonly includes...racialism."[16] An editor says, "misuse of sources. book citation is about hate groups, not far-right politics per se". The source says the "far right" is "openly racist, anti-Semitic and anti-government". [Michael C. Keith, Waves of Rancor: Tuning in the Radical Right, M. E. Sharpe, 1999, p. 38] Clive Webb writes in Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era, University of Georgia Press, 2010, p. 10, "[T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists."[17]. Another editor says we cannot say that racialism is part of the ideology of klansmen and neonazis because there are racists among all political groups - the federal government for example held American citizens of Japanese ancestry in camps during the Second World War. TFD (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What are you asking?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it a reliable source for the article and is it accurately presented. (The issue crosses the RS, OR, and POV, but I have presented it here.) TFD (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• The book itself is a source for media and the radical right.
• The book appears to be reliably published from M E Sharpe Inc.
• The first author, Robert L. Hilliard appears to be qualified as an author in media arts which is the actual subject of the book.
• The second listed author, Michael Keith also appears to be a qualified expert on broadcast communication and media.

So, yes, this is a reliable source for the article. Give me a sec to read through it to see how it is being used.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The topic of the article seems to be "Far-right politics", not neo-Nazis and Klansmen. Neo-Nazis and Klansmen are certainly incidental to the topic, but they aren't definitive. You're trying to make a subset of the whole into the whole, which is at best a very elementary error of logic, and at worst is nakedly dishonest POV-pushing.

Regarding the revert you are complaining about... yes, you misused that source in the article and you're misrepresenting what it says here.

First off, the citation for Waves of Rancor: Tuning in the Radical Right that exists in the article refers to page 43, not page 38. Nevertheless, on page 38 the book says:

In this book we most often use three categories; right-wing, which encompasses the moderates; far-right, which includes those who are openly racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-government; and extremist right, which refers to those groups that advocate violence to accomplish the goals embraced by the far right and, in many cases by the moderate right wing.

This is not an authoritative definition. The authors are clearly setting their own definition of "far-right" for use in their own book. TFD is simply cherry-picking, without paying heed to the context.

Moving along to page 43, which is the citation actually used in the article. This is in a sub-section of the chapter labeled on page 42 "In the name of what's right", where Hilliard and Keith begin by saying:

Most designations of right-wing hate groups are limited to those that are easily identifiable as activist organizations that, in the judgment of society as a whole, are causing or intend to cause blatant physical or psychological harm to that society.

It should be obvious (to an honest person who exercises due diligence, that is) that what follows is focused on a specific subset of people: hate groups. And on page 43 (which is, again, the citation actually used in the article), they write:

Berlet and Quigley add to this "theocratic right" movement others as advocates of "regressive populism": patriot, armed militia, and white supremacy groups, the "overtly racist far right organizations" such as the "Ku Klux Klan, Chistian Patriots, racist skinheads, and neonazis and right-wing revolutionaries... promoting in various combinations and to varying degrees authoritarianism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories, nativism, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semism, demagoguery, and scapegoating,"

Clearly, obviously, the authors are talking about highly specific groups of people who are subsets of the far-right, NOT the entire far-right. Yet we have TFD here, cherry-picking the bits and pieces that support his ludicrous claim and trying to say that it makes a statement that the book simply does not support. Contrary to TFD's bogus claim, this book absolutely does NOT say "the "far right" is "openly racist, anti-Semitic and anti-government". What it says is that specific groups within the far-right hold those views. BIG difference. Belchfire-TALK 06:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I am afriad that I can't make any comment on the way it is being used as there is no current preview and would require an effort to locate the book through the public library system. Yes, the citation is for page 43 (its in the diff provided) but as far as the subject of the article on Wikipedia...Far-right politics it is simply an article on far right also known as the extreme right or radical right. I see no particular reason the book would not be used for this subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You should be able to see what you need to see at this link: [18]

I'm not disputing the reliability of the book; I'm pointing out that it doesn't say what TFD claims it says. At all. Belchfire-TALK 07:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, give me a sec. I was reading through what you posted above and now i will check that out as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, both of you are right. Not a cop out but makes me believe there is a compromise. Whats missing is the balance of opinion from JUST that page. That page actually says:

Dr. Jean V. Hardisty, Director of Political Research Associates, defines the principle goals of the far right politics as "white supremecy...(the rest is about wealth, capitalism, religion and family structure.)

However, the authors go on to say:

"It is important, however, not to stereotype all organizations or movements of the far right with identical aims, or to stereotype all members of those organizations with common motivations or goals.

So, my hope is the two of you can work together to find common ground here. Both have some clear concerns about the source being used. I will say one thing. The source is good and works for the article but the way it was originally written was poor and haphazard. I could make a suggestion here and advise some prose, but you two are the ones working on the article and should be able to do so with this in mind.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to a snippet view of page 38. As Clive Webb says, "[T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists." (Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era, University of Georgia Press, 2010, p. 10.)[19] That is the subject of the article. How do we describe militant white supremacists (klansmen and neo-nazis) without talking about their racial views? Could Belchfire would like to suggest a different title for the article? TFD (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Now you're going to a source that wasn't involved in the edit you are complaining about, but nevertheless, you're making my point for me. As is spelled out very clearly in your own quote... yes, there are "militant white supremacists" on the far-right. But it is flagrantly dishonest and just ridiculous to use that quote to try and say that the entire far right consists of militant white supremacists, which is the gist of the verbiage that I removed from the article. And since neither of your sources come close to saying such a thing, thus you were misusing the sources.

I don't have an issue with saying that such groups exist on the far-right, PROVIDED that we don't try to say that all such groups are far-right, or that such groups are only found on the far right. That being said, using the wording that I reverted from the article is a non-starter. Belchfire-TALK 07:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP inartfully describes the discussion on that article talk page. Which is -- should "racism" be listed as a "core principle" of the "far right." The OP on that talk page asserts that the "far right" is specifically fascist and neo-nazi, and that the far right "admires Hitler" etc.

He even says there If Collect wishes to continue his argument that racialism forms no part of the ideology of klansmen and neo-nazis then he may continue his defense there. and But one cannot be far right and not racist and Again since admiration for Adolf Hitler is a typical feature of the far right, it is difficult not to mention nazism which has absolutely no rational connection with what I post or with any of my opinions at all. In this Universe.

I would also note that the OPs "quotes" are taken freely out of context and misrepresent the discussion there, which I find a teensy bit dishonest as a debating tactic. My statement is that "racism" is not a "core principle" since it is found in all parts of the political spectrum (and presented 8 substantial cites thereon), and I pointed out the same sources he uses also make this clear -- in fact I cited quite a few sources that "racism" is not a "defining characteristic" of the right, and that some far right militias are, in fact, fully integrated. If one looks at the lead, there is no doubt that the lead ascribes to the "far right" precisely the same attributes as are found in other parts of the "political spectrum" which TFD seems quite unwilling to accept. Collect (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: TFD shows "white supremacists" may be considered "far right." He has not shown any source for the converse - that the far right, as an entire group, is "racist" with that source. In fact, that is the core of the argument -- is the fact that the far right includes racists sufficient to say that the far right is racist as a generalization? Collect (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The edit is consistent with the source. Obviously various groups have been called right-wing, but the term "far right" is normally applied to militant white supremacists, which is what this article is about. Typical examples include the Ku Klux Klan and the America Nazi Party in the US. If you have a source that the ideology of these groups has nothing to do with race, please provide them. If you believe that there is a better name for the article, then please provide one. If you can name any far right groups that have nothing to do with racial theory, please name one. Otherwise your argument is basically that since racism exists across the political spectrum, we cannot say anything about the racial theories of klansment and nazis. ~ TFD (talk)

Actually -- you are trying to make "argument by tautology" that is "Far right are racists, therefore racism is a core principle of the far right." The problem is that your own sources do not make that tautological argument. And since "far right" is not just "klansmen and nazis" per your own sources, your argument fails with a thud. BTW, your straw man argument of trying to get me to say that the Nazi party is not Nazi is absurd -- it is not really a proper type of debate tactic at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, TFD. The article is not about militant white supremacists. It mentions militant white supremacists. Do you maybe have a different straw man that you'd like to slap around a little? You've been bashing away at the same one for quite a while now. Belchfire-TALK 16:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Then can you please name a far right group that is not militantly racially supremacist? TFD (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Robin Hood's Barn? Your own sources make the statement that they are are not all "racially supremacist"! 'When one refuses to read one's own sources, it becomes "difficult" to discuss much - so I decline to further this game here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm done with this as well, but I will at least provide the example TFD is asking for. Here you go: [20] Try not to make a mess when your head explodes, OK? Belchfire-TALK 17:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, your link is to an article about Alan Keyes's PAC. Alan Keyes' PAC is not far right and your source does not say he is. Can you please name a far right group that is not militantly racially supremacist? TFD (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really an RS policy comment, but as a practical answer to your rhetorical question, in Europe the term "far right" is often applied to parties which advocate things like stricter migration rules, pledges of allegiance, economic protectionism, anti-burqa laws and so on. While such populist parochialism might (or might not) be driven by hidden racism, and is obviously open to notable accusations of racisms, it is obviously going one step to far to simply equate populist parochialism to racism.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll just be blunt. The source that TFD supplied simply does not support the claims that were made. End of story. Seriously. There seems to be a lot of "not seeing whats there" and cherry picking going on with that source.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Current Dermatology Reports published by Springer Links

Is Current Dermatology reports which is published by springer links is a relaible source? I used this source to make an edit and i want to make sure it is a reliable source.

This is the source - http://www.springer.com/medicine/dermatology/journal/13671

Thanks in advance. --CR.ROWAN (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Fragment view" in Google Books for short statements of fact

Someone objected to these sources in Astronomical naming conventions (I have added more sources):

A comet is named after up to its first independent discoverers, up to a maximum of three names, separated by hyphens.

References

• Comet 105P/Singer Brewster, discovered by Stephen Singer-Brewster, should by rights have been named "105P/Singer-Brewster", but this would have led most readers to believe it had been a joint discovery by two astronomers named Singer and Brewster, respectively, so the hyphen was replaced by a space.

References

I believe that they are adequate to source these short statements of fact. I coaxed these texts out of Google Books after many efforts. I can't find out the author and article title for some of these refs, but they are from journals and books that are reliable in the field of astronomy. Anyone willing to spend a few bucks can verify all the references.

They are not isolated sentences, I have fuller quotes in a list that I have been compiling for months, and all sources support these statements.

Should I remove the refs where I can only see fragments, or can they stay? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My objection was to the "title unknown" citations, especially the one with the made-up journal name "The Strolling astronomer" and no URL link. And why do we need these multiple sources for statement of fact that's largely irrelevant to our naming conventions? Your edit summary seemed to be trying to justify the cite as being copied from article space, but you had just added it there, too, where I removed it with similar objection. I just noticed that my questioned revert was in article space; I was thinking I was editing a page on WP naming conventions, which is not the case; in any case, my objections are the same. Dicklyon (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Fragments aren't sources. If you haven't read the source, you can't quote it. And the source is the minimal unit of comprehensive communication (the chapter, section, article, pamphlet). Fifelfoo (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not strictly the case though, since we do permit the use of archive services such as Wayback Machine and Highbeam. The question I suppose is whether Google snippets provides a valid archive utility? I see no reason to oppose it, since the use of Google Books preview is common, and the Google snippets seems to be an extension of that service i.e. it does seem to provide an accurate reproduction of the text. In the case of the "unknown title" source, ultimately Google snippets does provide enough bibliographic details (journal name, volume, year, publisher, and even a page number) to verify the RS status of the source and the veracity of the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case, the veracity is not so much at issue. We just don't need extra flaky cites for info that's already cited in accessible sources. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If the archive is not preserving the text in full invariant and complete it isn't an archive and you haven't read the source. Fragments are never acceptable as original research is required to interpret their meaning. Snippets are not texts Betty. They are incoherent ramblings of a capitalistic search engine. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Google Books Preview doesn't preserve the text in its entirety either, which is in prolific usage on Wikipedia, so common practice doesn't seem to require the full text to be verifiable. I don't have strong views either way, but I don't see why the snippets should be treated differently to other partial archives. They should be treated consistently. Betty Logan (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The consistent treatment is that if you haven't read the work in full, don't cite it. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if every book reference is attributed to a book the editor had read in its entirety. I think the key point here is that there needs to be enough context to be reasonably sure that the claim is supported by the source. Reading the whole book may be a good idea if you are quoting someone on climate change, but perhaps not necessary if you want last week's football score. I work on the snooker articles a lot and have a huge almanac of 80 years worth of scores at my disposal; however, if I want a particular score of a particular match I just look up the match, and a snippet of that book would serve the same purpose provided it were an accurate archive. The nature of the claim often places different demands on a source, so while I wouldn't go ahead and say you can use partial archives for everything, I don't think they should automatically be discounted either. Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't read it in its entirety you shouldn't cite it: basic principle. Obviously it doesn't apply to reference books. I could source an etymology to an etymological dictionary, but I haven't read the whole dictionary. Your snooker example is like that. In the astronomy case, cites should be to real documents, not fragments. If you know the document's contents well enough, cite it, if you don't, don't. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The full work in an otherwise citeable reference work is the article or item, "The" Oxford English Dictionary 3rd Ed.; Janedaughter, Robert, "Cult Agricultural Economics," Historian's dictionary of the American–Vietnam War AGE Scholarly Encyclopaedia; Brianson, Susan, "Object #445930a" Online Astronomers Compendium of Scholarly Star Observations; "Random versus Nobody (1997)" The Authoritative Dictionary of Men Punching Other Men For Money Boxing's Best Press. Correspondingly the article in a journal or newspaper, the chapter is a collection of chapters or coherently organised chapters of a single author book of considerable length. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I see the sense of at the very least having access to, skimming, and spot checking the majority of the source, in order to avoid citing a (long) embedded quote of somebody other than the author, a "bad example" example, or counterargument out of context. I've run into that sort of unintentionally bad source use before. And don't cite a source where full attribution (actual title, author, publication, page, publisher) is not available, because that rather badly impairs verification. Enric have you already tried Questia and (via library online) Ebsco and other whole-text book resources? Or WP:RX?
  As an aside: "Read it in full or don't cite it" - whose "basic principle" is that? Where did that notion came from? It's not in WP:RS, WP:V, WP:Citing sources or WP:REFB. It seems nuggety enough to merit its own shortcut. Do tell (rests chin on palm). --Lexein (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Read it in full or don't cite it" is a basic principle of research, and has been repeatedly referred to in the past regarding snippets on RS/N? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I asked, and it doesn't answer my question. Anybody else? --Lexein (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. --Jayron32 00:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool - doesn't say I have to read the whole source in full, thankfully. Whew. --Lexein (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe WP:NOR? Sources must "directly support the material being presented". If the snippet is too small, and the context is not clear, you might run into one of the problems listed by Lexein. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not seeking strictness here; I often look things up in books via Google books and cite them even though I can't always see all the pages. But making up a journal name and citing a snippet is silly. All the more so because his reason for doing so is to drag a dispute from WP space into article space, by piling on the evidence about the IAU calling for hyphens in official comet names, which is not really the disputed part of the dispute anyway... Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that using a source that does not have all the information seems odd....it isn't against policy as other editors can fill in the missing info. I will say that Betty Logan is right. Google snippets are acceptable as they (and Google previews) are only presented as a convenience and are not the actual source. If an editor admits that they only found a snippet and are using it it, as long as the snippet is enough to show the relevence there is not real issue. What would be an issue is if the snippet clearly does not support the claim. Then one would need to be clear that the snippet itself does not support the claim...and here is the odd part...if you don't have the source yourself...how can you claim the actual source doesn't?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I found the abstract for one of the quotes [21]. Now I know the author and title of the article, and I have most of page 116. But I still don't have access to the full article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: as per WP:VERIFY and in particular WP:NOENG, I suggest it would be a reasonable courtesy to provide links to English search results on English Wikipedia. Three ([22], [23] and [24]) of the six references originally provided in this section result from searches within the Spanish language version of Google Books. Would the original poster consider using the Google Books citation tool to both Anglicise the URL and, as an added benefit, provide citation consistency? --Senra (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. I fixed the URLs here, and now I'll fix the citations in the articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

www.un.org

Hi,

I have two questions related to the United Nations website :

1. Is this a reliable source to provide geographical and political data regarding a country, such as its borders, its capital, its population, ... ?

2. At worse, in case of controversy on the matter (let's think about Western Sahara claimed by a lot of people), is not the UN's point of view one of the highest due:weight regarding the way wikipedia must display information ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Per this board rules you should give specific case where you want to use it and in what article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shrike,

Well. I think it is more neutral if the case where it would be applied is not given but we may assume it is good for Western Sahara, Tibet, Israel/Palestine and South Ossetia/Georgia.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide the link to the website in question. The information you are seeking to find an answer to specifically and the articles you are edting that this is needed for. No assumptions please. If this is a broad and general question, it may not have an answer as we can't paint with a broad brush here.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

eg this one.

But the reliability of a source should not be considered for a given point. It would mean it is examine a source case by case, which is no sense. Pluto2012 (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"un.org" has been accused of simply following whatever the Generral Assembly deems to be the truth on any given subject -- and is citable as the "UN published position". This is not necessarily exactly the same as "fact" unfortunately. Where disputes exist, the UN is known occasionally to "take sides" in territorial disputes, names of capital cities, etc. Collect (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources for such a statement ? And why is "following whatever the GA deems to be the trunth" is not reliable ? Pluto2012 (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually -- one of the perennial fights on Wikipedia is "Palestine/Israel Anything" and thus anything the UN prints relating to that topic (among others) is instantly going to be opposed by someone. Need more examples? Collect (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Although "going to be opposed by someone" is not the same thing as "unreliable". On the assumption that this is about I/P, the UN does not necessarily get the last word on matters of fact, but information stated in WP articles as fact which is inconsistent with information available from the UN should probably not be there. Pluto: if you think this discussion is likely to help then good luck, but I disagree. Formerip (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It is reliable for the opinions of the UN. That is not the same as being a reliable source of disputed "facts." For example - "is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?" Would you use a UN publication as a source to make it a statement of "fact" to be placed in Wikipedia's voice? Collect (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are talking to me, Collect, but, if so, all I can say is re-read what I said above. Formerip (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

ResearchGate

It's my belief that parts of the ResearchGate Criticisms section do not meet WP:RS and other Wiki guidelines. Specifically, I am referring to the following statements:

Invitation policy ResearchGate has been criticised for sending spam.[10] If a user signs up to ResearchGate, it automatically sends emails to the coauthors of his publications inviting them to join. These emails have a fake sender name and give the misleading impression that they are a personal invitation triggered by the user.

User numbers The claimed user numbers (1.9 Million as of August 12, 2012) contrast to the number of followers for the top topics such as "Science, Engineering and Technology" that have less than 50,000 followers.[11] The official ResearchGate Twitter profile has less than 4000 followers.[12] The number of active users (20% active at least once a month) reported by company founder Ijad Madisch approximately equal the growth rate.

RG Score An experiment conducted by journalist Beatrice Lugger showed that with just a few interactions on ResearchGate, her "RG score" would grow to the top 5% percentile, indicating that the score as of now is barely indicative of scientific impact, and that the majority of users does interact even less.[13] Her ResearchGate profile lists 7 questions and answers posted on the platform and 43 followers as of December 03, 2012; two months after the article was published - a surprising low number to ever have been in the top 5%.[14].

In my opinion, the above statements either separately or together do not meet Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS, WP:OR, and WP:PSTS. There has been a dialogue about this on the ResearchGate talk page, but no clear consensus or resolution has emerged.

Any recommendations for resolving this within relevant Wiki guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. JNorman704 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide the sources we are expected to check against.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this is only one of at least four noticeboards on which JNorman704 has posted his grievance. My take on the situation is here. For simplicity and centralization, I recommend that further conversation simply take place at Talk:ResearchGate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

veteranstoday.com

Cited (see reflist) in Kathy Kelly to support

"Kelly stayed a week in solidarity with the arrested Greek captain until bail could be arranged, then attempted to reach Gaza by plane in the "Flytilla", but was denied entry to Israel and returned to Greece."

The citation was deleted with the edit summary "not RS". --Lexein (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A site that labels itself "the TRUE voice of the worldwide clandestine community" with articles like http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/30/breaking-exclusive-japan-attack-german-terror-intel-group-complicit/ and http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/01/secret-space-war/ means that that source has a steep uphill battle before I would treat it as a reliable source for anything. This appears to be of the same credibility as the Weekly World News.—Kww(talk) 05:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That is correct. Self proclaimed POV site: "..representing the position of members of the military and veteran community in areas of national security, geopolitical stability and domestic policy" as well as advocacy: "VT writers and editors are veterans or proven veterans’ advocates". Not reliably published: "Publishers: The men and women of the clandestine and special operations services".--Amadscientist (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, all. Just wanted it on the record. Too bad for them, and in this case citing one of Kelly's trips. --Lexein (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

National Catholic Reporter

ncronline.org - never discussed here before. I'm asking because, as above, the facts claimed seem unremarkable. Cited in Kathy Kelly to support this:

"A judge affirmed the fine in late 2004. In 2005, Kelly announced that Voices in the Wilderness disbanded, and the group Voices for Creative Nonviolence was formed to continue challenging U.S. military and economic warfare against Iraq and other countries."

--Lexein (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. One should be careful that we've had a case in the past where the NCR was cited spuriously, but it seems clear that we have an accurate report of the text in this case. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Are "poetic journals" a reliable source for encyclopedia articles?

The article Renku currently uses featured articles from twothree online "journals" of haiku and renku as sources. In fact, at least 10 of the 18 references are to these works.

My concern is that the journals are not scholarly in nature. The articles are almost without exception written by non-specialists in literary history (professional and amateur poets, for the most part) and are being used as sources for Japanese literary history. I am also concerned that articles written for poetic publications by the poets themselves are essentially primary sources, and do not therefore say anything about the notability of their subject-matter.

Almost all of these sources were added by one user, Bagworm, who has without explanation deleted accurate information from the article in the past[25][26], and has used these primary sources as justification for including some rather suspect material.[27]

elvenscout742 (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

iClarified.com and ihackintosh.com

Source: iClarified.com and ihackintosh.com

Discussion: Cydia Talk about use of iClarified.com in Cydia. I'm also wondering if these sources are appropriate anywhere else surrounding topics of Apple devices.

Content: "In addition to offering software to install, in September 2009 Cydia was improved to help users have the option to downgrade (or upgrade) their device to versions of iOS not currently allowed by Apple"

ihackintosh is a blog by a group of three students. iClarified.com does not even have an about page, but WHOIS page indicates its a personal website. Another editor argues that these sources should be admissible, because a few authors of books published through O'Reilley Media suggested these as good sources in their opinion.

It was just that "here are some good sources to check out" and the like. According to WP:SPS, it reads that "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."

Evidence presented me is that possibly reliable sources simply issued opinions as they're "good places" to visit, but the persons behind the sites or the sites themselves have not met the criteria above. So far, it looks like they fall under personal webpage and personal blog category. I'm looking for interpretation on if these sources could generally mean more than such.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this for more opinions! Just to note, I'm only interested in using iClarified, not iHackintosh; iHackintosh just happened to be mentioned along with iClarified in one of the books I was looking at. I also don't think that iClarified would be a reliable source for Apple information in general, just useful as a secondary source for a piece of uncontroversial technical material about jailbreaking when only a self-published primary source is otherwise available. (This feature wasn't immediately notable when it was released; it became more important later, so there are better sources available for later details but not much for the initial release.) Also, for transparency: I work for the company that makes this software, although I'm not paid to edit. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this thread is to evaluate what these sources are suitable for, if at all in general. iClarified, a site that does not provide an about page, a proper business mailing address or the author and its WHOIS inquiry appears to support my evaluation of this source as a glorified personal website. Though it has sourced information, it looks like an aggregation site with one-man job editorial. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Al-Arabiya and the Syrian civil war

I would like to get an answer weather is the Saudi Al Arabiya, owned by the kings relatives, reliable source regarding the Syrian civil war (English-language Al Arabiya; Arbaic-language Al Arabiya).

Saudi Arabia is involved in the Syrian civil war (as you can see in the infobox) as it supports the Free Syrian Army and the jihadists; and since the Al Arabiya is a media controled by the king's relatives, it is logical that it can not be reliable source regarding the Syrian civil war.

--Wüstenfuchs 01:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch's best friend is David Cameron. I guess that means the British Prime Minister controls Fox News. We must cease the use of Fox News for editing British current events at once. Sopher99 (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You are comparing Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom? In Saudi Arabia you have a nepotist government where king's relatives do every government duty... --Wüstenfuchs 06:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A Texan Looks At Lyndon (A Study in Illegitimate Power)

I am wondering if A Texan Looks At Lyndon (A Study in Illegitimate Power) by J. Evetts Haley is a reliable source for an uncontroversial statement in John Douglas Kinser: "He owned Butler Park, located across the Colorado River in Austin.[2]" According to a September 1987 issue of Texas Monthly (a reliable source) discussing the book: 1) "It was the most controversial book ever written about a Texan, and although it fell quickly into obscurity, it became a cause célèbre of the 1964 election." 2) "At almost 7.5 million copies, A Texan Looks at Lyndon had become the best-selling book of any kind in the country and the most successful political book of all time." 3) It was self-published... "Haley says no publishing house would touch it". 4) Haley carried a vendetta against Johnson and "Historians today dismiss the polemic as a venomous propaganda piece..." I'm not sure how to reconcile this with WP:SPS. Given the book's relative notability, it this something that can be used in other sources, too? Should in-text attribution be required? -Location (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Nazi claim on online talk show

Article on Johannes Letzmann currently claims that one was a "Nazi sympathizer". I removed the claim due to poor sourcing with the reason given on comment line. Historical overview about meteorology at Graz can be found here. Now the claim has been restored without much of explanation. I'll ask one who added the claim to provide exact context where the claim is taken from. Even if the claim is there on the talk show, this is likely a rumor related to the fact that Letzmann moved from Estonia to Germany during the time when Nazis were in charge, but escaping from war and having a job in a German university during that time yet doesn't make one a "Nazi sympathizer". I find this claim being a serious attack which can't be in a biography without a reliable source (where the claim was taken by one who mentioned it in a talk show). 88.196.241.249 (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)