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

mako.org.au

Is the website mako.org.au ever a reliable source? It is a kind of public list of convicted (or not) criminals (" 98+% of offenders listed in the MAKO/Files Online and MAKO/Files Online- (WTC) have been convicted by a court of law."), without any kind of official backing, reputation for fact-checking, ... As this is used for extremely sensitive information (identifying paedophiles, murderers, ...), I don't believe that this source is good enough. It is currently used on 36 pages.[1] Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of entries I looked at appeared to be reprints of reliable news sources, but the rest does not seem suitable for biographies. Kevin (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis Reboot

The issue of the reliability of the website Venezuelanalysis, which has long passed too long, didn't read status above, merits a reboot in an attempt to actually resolve the issue. The site now has its own entry - Venezuelanalysis.com. It is argued that Venezuelanalysis is widely considered reliable, and that it "offers useful detail and analysis on pivotal issues that is unavailable from other media sources," and as such is a necessary complement to other media sources. Any present overuse of VA should be fixed by adding more sources, not removing VA sources.

• Widely referred to in Google Books (200+ hits) [2] and Google Scholar (300+ hits) [3]
• Specific academic views: Analyzing Venezuelan media, Darrell Moen calls it "A major source of non-corporate controlled information regarding the process of social transformation that is occurring in Venezuela ... This website offers critical analyses by dissident scholars and grassroots-based accounts by social activists involved in the various social movements in Venezuela as well as links to a number of alternative media sites and access to documentary videos that depict recent events in Venezuela.". Writing in New Political Science, Walt Vanderbush calls it "a valuable resource for Venezuelan news and analysis."
• Endorsed by 4 academics on Venezuelanalysis' "donate" page: [4]. Links to their homepages: Anderson, Grandin, Hellinger. (Ellner's page I can't find; Venezuelan university websites are generally not great.) Ellner and Hellinger are Venezuela specialists (political science); Grandin and Anderson have broader Latin America interests. A book Hellinger and Ellner co-edited (Venezuelan Politics in the Chávez Era: Class, Polarization and Conflict, 2003) was described by Foreign Affairs as "An extremely valuable and balanced overview of Venezuela".[5].
• Ellner's endorsement ("In short, Venezuelanalysis offers useful detail and analysis on pivotal issues that is unavailable from other media sources."[6]) is particularly significant, being a (if not the) leading English-language academic on Venezuelan left politics. Ellner's 1988 book was described by Foreign Affairs as "A well-researched analysis of Venezuela's small but innovative third party..."[7]. In the foreword to that book, Michael Conniff described Ellner as "a leading analyst of Venezuela's left politics"[8] That was in 1988; "Steve Ellner"+Venezuela gets 150+ hits on Google News [9], many from the New York Times and Christian Science Monitor asking Ellner for his opinion on events of the day. He is described in neutral terms such as "a political analyst at Venezuela's Oriente University"[10] Even Fox News described him neutrally as "a political science professor at Venezuela's University of the East."[11]
• Used by Human Rights Watch as a source in its 2008 report [12], and multiple times by UNHCR Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, eg here.
• Lonely Planet: Venezuela deems it "the best English language news site" to "keep track of the country's political and economic affairs."

In the face of this evidence that Venezuelanalysis is widely considered a reliable source, some Wikipedia editors wish to substitute their personal opinion that it is unreliable, because links they allege between the website (the alleged links are weak and the sourcing generally unreliable) and the Venezuelan government allegedly render it unreliable. They also argue that in their opinion the website editors' political views, which differ dramatically from their own, render it unreliable. In addition they argue that those wishing to use VA as a source must prove the site's 8 editors have "journalistic credentials" (whatever that means). (It was generally ignored that I had noted - to suggest that "journalistic credentials" are not everything - that Venezuelan media, formerly one of the most respected presses in Latin America, had after the election of Hugo Chavez become part of the opposition: "media owners and their editors used the news - print and broadcast - to spearhead an opposition movement against Chavez... Editors [...] began routinely winking at copy containing unfounded speculation, rumor, and unchecked facts." Dinges, John. Columbia Journalism Review (July 2005). "Soul Search", Vol. 44 Issue 2, July-August 2005, pp52-8. US media reporting on Venezuela has also been critiqued [13] [14])

In discussing this issue in the RSN thread above, the editors opposing use of VA have introduced irrelevant sources; complained about Wikipedia's Venezuela articles not matching their POV; and made many accusations of bad faith. Since the old thread remains open for any more accusations of bad faith that may be required, as well as any more detours into complaints not relevant to the issue, hopefully this thread can focus on resolving the question: can VA be considered a reliable source? Rd232 ^talk 14:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the additional data. I stick with what I said earlier: the site easily meets the minimum threshold of RS, it had best be used for attributed opinion, and where it is used for contentious facts, these facts should also be attributed. (That last point, of course, also applies to other sources.) --JN466 21:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I will also stick with what I said earlier. Venezuelanalysis meets the minimum threshold of RS, but it is a highly partisan source and opinion site. Since pro-Chavez opinion is a significant viewpoint in Venezuelan politics, we should include the pro-Chavez opinion with attribution. This source must attributed if used, and should not be used for contentious information in BLPs. --Defender of torch (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I dislike things that begin to seem like WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT issues after a while. It's a reliable source, my comments from the last thread on this (a week ago) have not changed. I have better things to do than debate this ad-nauseum. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks like "ask the other parent" to an issue that was already well debated; I suggest that anyone weighing in here not take Rd232's summary at face value, rather re-read the entire previous thread. Venezuelanalysis is funded by Chavez, media in Venezuela is state-controlled, the writers for Venezuelanalysis are highly partisan and affiliated with the Chavez regime, have no journalist credentials, and VenAnalysis is largely cited by the extreme radical left. It has been used on Wiki to source an egregious BLP violation, and its reporting is rarely comprehensive or neutral; the people responsible for it are funded by Chavez and associated with him. VA has a very limited place on Wiki, if any, and people willing to use it as a source often do so to the exclusion of more reliable sources. It rarely covers info that is not available in non-biased mainstream reliable sources, and because it is affiliated with Chavez, should never be used to the exclusion of more reliable sources. I also notice Rd232's several distortions and one-sided presentation of the issues in his new thread here, and am concerned about his tendentious editing in Chavez/Venezuela articles. He states that media owners spearheaded opposition to Chavez, but fails to mention the serious press freedom issues in Venezuela and that the media is state-controlled, by Chavez, and you can be jailed or shut down if you criticize Chavez; if Wiki allows VenAnalysis a larger role here as a source, we become one more arm of Chavez's very successful Venezuela Information Office. We already see Rd232 writing entire articles sourced to the highly partisan VA website, and excluding mainstream views (that alone speaks to the bias of VA as a source). We also now have an unbalanced article venezuelanalysis.com that uses a tour guide to prop up this partisan website. And I strongly object to this "ask the other parent" reboot, since most people are probably tired of this discussion and considered it settled. WP:V is a pillar of Wiki; overreliance on VA turns Wiki into another arm of the Chavez PR and propaganda machine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I understand your concern. But at this point, we are helpless because we are yet to find reliable sources which document the Chavista connection of this site, even though we know the persons associated with this site are lackeys of Chavez. This is why I said this site should be used with attribution as an opinion site, and should not be used for sensitive information in BLPs. I agree the article Venezuelanalysis.com is horribly biased and will try to add some information to make it NPOV. --Defender of torch (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is yet another example of Sandy attempting to derail or shut down dispute resolution (she virtually accuses me of forum shopping on the same forum). She repeats the unsourced and/or irrelevant claims made ad nauseam in the TL:DR thread, which had driven away external input and made an actual resolution of the issue this dispute resolution board is actually for impossible. This summary of the issue is an opportunity to actually settle the question asked. Rd232 ^talk 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also it appears that the above comment, insofar as it has any actual relevance to the question, boils down to the argument that Wikipedia should counter the alleged press freedom issues in Venezuela by excluding a source widely considered reliable - as some sort of political counter-balance. This has the merit at least of being the closest Sandy has come to expressing her motivation on this issue. Rd232 ^talk 17:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that Venezuelanalysis has a reputation of poor fact checking so it can be used to source uncontroversial facts; uncontroversial understood as not being in conflict with the facts reported by other reliable sources, any conflict with WP editors' opinions is irrelevant. JRSP (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the article venezuelanalysis.com to make it clear that the site is left wing and pro-Chavez. However I am not sure if my edit will stay. --Defender of torch (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like its reliable and biased. Use attribution, and don't use it for super controversial stuff related to Chavez. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. We need to put enough restrictions on the use of this partisan website, with ties to Chavez, to stop Rd232 from writing entire articles sourced to it to the exclusion of mainstream non-partisan sources, and it should never be used in BLPs or to source contentious claims. It should only be used to support non-contentious information that is not available in other sources (and that means, rarely, since most of anything they report on is available in other sources or highly contentious and dubious). Rd232's editing in Venezuela articles has evidenced extreme tendentiousness, and he has written entire articles sourced largely to VenAnalysis, excluding mainstream sources and a preponderance of reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I was asked to comment here. [15] I don't think venezuelanalysis.com can be regarded as a reliable source within the sourcing policy, WP:V. It's what the policy calls a "questionable source": "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves." See WP:V#Questionable sources.

  It is also a self-published source within the meaning of the policy, in the sense that it seems to have no employees, no bosses, no office, and no formal editorial oversight. It describes itself as "an independent website produced by individuals ... its contributors are all working on the site from their homes in various places in Venezuela, the U.S., and elsewhere in the world." [16]

  The reliability of individual articles on the site therefore boils down to whether the person who wrote the article is a reliable source within the meaning of the policy. The policy says: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." See WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). So each article on the website that's being proposed as a source will have to be examined individually to decide whether the author has previously been published in that field by an independent publication. Then that article could be used with a link to the site as a source. But I would caution against using self-published material for anything contentious, and it can never be used as a source of information about a living person, per V and BLP. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In view of the range of sources noted at the top of this thread citing it or endorsing it, I do not think it should be considered "self-published"; and I would say that the fact that other sources rely on it matters more than a debatable interpretation of "self-published". It has editorial oversight at least insofar as the 8 individuals listed here [17] are just some of its many contributors. Rd232 ^talk 19:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You've added "widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." from policy, in support of it being a "questionable source". Citing policy is not enough, it needs to be shown that it applies. The fact that it is relied upon by others (as noted at the top of the thread) suggests that it is not "widely acknowledged as extremist"; and claims that any other part of the policy applies need to be evidenced. Rd232 ^talk 19:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter who relies on it, Rd. What matters is our sourcing policy. The eight people who have may editorial responsibility are unpaid individuals working from home. They're not providing professional editorial and legal oversight, or any kind of fact-checking process. They make this almost a point of pride: we are not professionals, we are just volunteers working from home. Are any of them known experts, do you know? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilpert is a professor of political science. It is endorsed by Steve Ellner, whose credentials are noted above, as well as VA being widely cited in academic sources. And what matters is not just the nature of sourcing policy, but arguments on how it applies here. Rd232 ^talk 19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If Gregory Wilpert has previously been published in this field by an independent publication, then self-published articles by him on this website would be allowable within reason, but not for use about living persons. It doesn't matter who endorsed it or who else cites it. We care only about our policies. The point of the sourcing policy is this: if push comes to shove, and we publish some terrible, false and libellous thing, and a court comes to us and says, "Wikipedia, show us your due diligence. Why did you publish this dreadful lie?", we have to be able to point to The New York Times or to Cambridge University Press or to Routledge. We don't want to be pointing to a website that's suddenly disappeared, published from home by eight volunteers, now untraceable. That's not due diligence. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wot? Legal liability has nothing to do with this (only comes into play for failure to remove specific information). And given the falsehoods published by the NYT (as acknowledged by themselves), as well as by Venezuelan media which despite the Columbia Journalism Review information we're still happy to use, the value of "editorial oversight" and "journalistic credentials" is a lot less than it appears (as evidenced by the external citation of VA). Rd232 ^talk 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"a website that's suddenly disappeared" applies to a vast proportion of WP sources, actually or potentially. It's mitigated by archive.org and use of WebCite. Rd232 ^talk 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal liability is only part of the story. I am talking about due diligence—morally, legally, intellectually, editorially. And when I talked about the website disappearing, I didn't mean where we couldn't find the article. I meant in a "ships that pass in the night" sense, not a source that has a history, a reputation, that we could rely upon. The bottom line is that you're trying to reinvent the wheel to some extent, because the policy is pretty clear about sources like this. I'm sorry. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Rd232 will also find that if he begins to use more enduring, high-quality reliable sources, he won't have to keep chunking up citation templates with that obnoxious WebCite info, or resorting to archive.org. We don't have to archive The New York Times (Disembrangler=Rd232); I tend to use high-quality enduring sources rather than websites operated out of people's homes that will disappear in a few years, under regime change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"We don't have to archive NYT" - I told you in relation to the linked edit that NYT unlimited free access is disappearing in a year, as a result of which some efforts are underway to WebCite key uses of NYT. Do you have a problem with this? And by the by, talking about citation templates as something I "chunk up" suggests you're really not paying attention to my edits: I hate citation templates with a fiery passion and avoid them wherever possible. Rd232 ^talk 02:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

On-line links are not required for a printed source like The New York Times. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have been asked to comment about this. You got to love the moral ambiguity and circularity of argumentation of Rd232. Venezuelanalysis is reliable, among other things, because HRW mentioned it in a report the very spinmeister of the site, a.k.a. Gregory Wilpert, protested for allegedly not having followed academic standards. But Rd232, as far as it remains known, lacking any credentials on Venezuelan studies or indeed international law, called the report he now uses as proof as "biased and manipulative". Worth of note also, the fact that said HRW report also quoted me, to which Wilpert et al reacted by saying, without providing a shred of academic evidence, that I was a mentally unstable opposition blogger. My exchange with Chomsky demonstratetd that none of them had any evidence to support such spurious arguments. Rd232 calls tenuous the Gaceta Oficial de Venezuela, for those ignorant on the topic the official gazette where all legislation, appointments, etc, need be published BEFORE reaching legal and official status. This debate is a joke. Rd232, his alter ego and JRSP, have a notorious track record of utterly biased and tendentious editing in pages relates to Chavez and Venezuela. They give far too much weight to the radical left, to obscure academics that lack peer reviewed publications related to Venezuela, while ignoring reputed left sources, such as NYT, BBC, etc., or indeed, HRW, when these report on the horrendous crisis Venezuela is undergoing. I declare myself out of this, there is no good faith here. Venezuela/Chavez related entries are nothing but a crude exercise in propaganda, and I will go as far as stating my belief that there is a connection between the editors in question and chavista propaganda efforts. Otherwise, how else can their attitude be explained?--Alekboyd (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • • Also, obviously and unsurprisingly misleading. For example the criticism of HRW's report involved 118 academics. And I did not specifically call the Gaceta tenuous, I called the whole argument which relies on Gaceta as source for part of it tenuous. And if Alek thinks it is not significant that HRW cited VenezuelanRd232 ^talk 20:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I did actually say in the opening post of this thread that "the old thread remains open for any more accusations of bad faith that may be required". Obviously, anyone who disagrees with you must be a paid propagandist! Only possible explanation! For the record, I joined WP in October 2004, becoming an admin in October 2005. I made a few edits to Hugo Chavez (the centre of the Venezuela disputes, so I've checked the history for that article) for the first time in summer 2005; 3 in 2006 (including a vandalism rollback), zero in 2007 and 2008 (OK, I was mostly absent from mid-2006 to early 2009 - but it's a hell of a way to collect a paycheck, doncha think??). In any case, as Soxred's tool and some careful thumbing through my history shows (especially pre-2009, when I seemed to get a lot more involved with Venezuela), Venezuela is just one of many topics I've edited, and only a relatively small proportion of my edits (especially on the edit side rather than the talking - reams of talking here). Rd232 ^talk 20:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's a deep plot :) But the circular reasoning employed by Rd232 is utterly astounding, but not apparent to other editors who might not be as familiar with Venezuela and its issues with lack of press freedom and control of the judiciary. He's virtually begging us to let him use VenAnalysis (why the urgency, I wonder?), while decrying other mainstream reliable sources as "corporate" or "US" or "UK" biased, and making claims about the Venezuelan press-- which has been severely muzzled by Chavez. From what I've seen of his editing-- creating quite a few POV articles-- Rd232 seems to think VA is the only reliable source on Venezuela. Considering its connections to Chavez, that is very interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 7 Februay 2010 (UTC)

• One last comment: It is not true that UNHCR has used Venezuelanalysis as a source in multiple ocassions, as RD232 misleading and deceitfully argues. Rather it has posted reports from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which has cited Venezuelanalysis in some of its writings. This is a quintessential example of the quality of editing, objectivity and fact checking that Rd232 brings to Wikipedia. In said report the Venezuela Information Office, and the International Journal of Socialist Renewal (in reference to comments from the Australian-Venezuela Solidarity Network) can also be seen. Does that mean that VIO and clueless Australian activists from the 'solidarity network' meet WP:RS standards? I think not. Same goes for Rd232 statement about Ellner being the leading English-language leftist academic of Venezuela, because some obscure and totally unrelated to Venezuela academic had said so once.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• , My bad. It so much weakens the case for it as a source that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, "Canada's largest independent administrative tribunal",[18] used it as a source. As for your comments about Ellner - you clearly read my post enough to dismiss Michael Conniff's view of him, so why do you ignore 150+ cites in Google News, many from sources like NYT quoting him? Rd232 ^talk 20:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Cheap shot to mention the VIO citation when it is relied on purely for the number of people elected in the 2008 elections. Even you can't find something objectionable about that. Rd232 ^talk 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• 99.9999% of the comments on this topic here have absolutely no relationship the question of whether this source meets our reliable source guideline. Please stop cluttering up this page with this off-topic ideological dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This is exactly why I started a new section (and complained at ANI when the same thing happened as before). Rd232 ^talk 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Um, but that didn't prevent you from starting this very thread with your ideological distortion, did it ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Case in point. Don't address the content issue with relevant sources or arguments, just attack other contributors with vague accusations. It's a surefire way to make sure nobody else will want to comment on the content issue. Rd232 ^talk 02:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is the quid pro quo here? If we agree that a Chavez-biased source can be used, why can't the Washington Post or NY Times, normally recognized as left-wing biased publications, be used? Only because they publish what is accurate about Venezuela?

BTW, WP:AGF also says, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." We have seen a lot of "contrary evidence IMO." Student7 (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Where does the claim come from that these sources cannot be used? The issue is treating these (indeed, any) sources as Gospel. Different sources should be used - the issue here is the attempt to suppress VA - the repeated and unfounded claims that criticisms of other sources imply a blanket unwillingness to ever use them are ludicrous. Rd232 ^talk 02:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Post/NYT "normally recognized as left-wing biased publications"? Even by US standards, that just isn't true. Of course rightwingers would, and do claim this (and they point mostly to op-eds, which is irrelevant - it's the news reporting that's the issue). Rd232 ^talk 02:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's analysis is correct, and I appreciate her more thorough review. The website is essentially a WP:SPS, and has to be treated as such. Its political views, and whether or not various professors write a laudatory paragraph for the website, are both irrelevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with SlimVirgin's analysis. I see little basis for classifying it as a questionable source. The website could be considered a WP:SPS, though this is not perfectly clear, but that does not preclude it from being considered a reliable source, even if it is not published by well-known experts. Frequently enough sites even more clearly self published, by obscurer individuals, have been judged to be RS's here at WP:RS/N based mainly on their citation by and reputation described in definitely reliable sources. This is more important and has more to do with interpretation of the WP:V policy and the WP:RS guideline than with this particular source. Some of the issues were just inconclusively debated here; I didn't have the time to contribute before that was archived, I think the subject should be reopened at WT:V.John Z (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Which parts of WP:V and WP:RS are you using to make that assessment? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is WP:SPS – although a number of the people involved are previously published experts, and they are exercising informal editorial control over contributions from others. --JN466 22:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Replying to Jayjg: Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Usage_by_other_sources and WP:SPS. This usage by other sources section was written precisely to cover the situation of often self-published sources widely quoted, cited, reviewed or used by clearly reliable sources, but which may be difficult to analyze in other ways. It was (re)inserted in the guideline after the case of boxofficeindia.com at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Boxofficeindia.com which was such a source on the Indian film industry. Since then, other such websites have had a clear consensus on their reliability here based (mainly) on such evidence, most frequently in the case of military history sites often run by amateurs - if such sites are so good that dozens of academic or reputably published books cite them, it can be arbitrary and artificial for Wikipedia to exclude them.John Z (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with WP:RS is that it is a guideline, and people have a bad habit of editing it so that it no longer conforms with WP:V (a policy), specifically for the purpose of allowing them to use non-reliable sources. And because it is watched less closely, these changes often stick for a while. That's why the RS guideline has a bold statement in the first paragraph: In the event of a contradiction between this page and the policy, the policy takes priority, and this page should be updated to reflect it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Reboot the reboot: Exhibit I

Exhibit I, since people have been asking for examples, which I just happened across while looking into the curiously orphaned article, Corruption in Venezuela, whose original content seems to have gone desaparecido and orphaned. This VenAnalysis report is used to source a completely biased accounting there of the cases of Manuel Rosales and Raul Baduel (and others). Since I have cleaned up Rosales, and done a wee bit of work on Baduel, I invite those participating in this discussion to compare this VA article with the reliable sources listed at Rosales and Baduel, see if they think VenAnalysis has presented both sides of the story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I went and checked the original article and copied two paragraphs not moved when Corruption in Venezuela was spun off. One mentions corruption in a general context of crime; the other based solely on ...er... Venezuelanalysis.[19] Well anyway there it is. I can still userfy if you want to check anything else. And do you not agree that it's more useful to the reader to have the content in Corruption in Venezuela than hidden away in a subsection of Criticism of Hugo Chavez? Rd232 ^talk 15:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How typical of Sandy to insinuate instead of clearly stating the supposed problem. The only substantive difference I can see between the current version and the old version, in terms of the paragraph where Venezuelanalysis is used as a source is that Sandy has added "He is in prison, for an investigation ordered by Chavez, awaiting trial" sourced to a newspaper source which [20] relies heavily on opposition journalist Roberto Giusti's opinion (find-in-page here about his take on journalistic ethics). Despite that, the source doesn't obviously support the specific claim that "Chavez ordered the investigation", which is ironic in view of Sandy's crusade to strengthen policy requirements to provide foreign language quotes in articles to back up their use. Elsewhere Sandy for some reason is deleting content sourced to Venezuelanalysis with nothing more than a claim of "bias"[21]. Rd232 ^talk 08:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two camps in Venezuela. Similar to what we see in the States. As Wikipedia is more liberal it is not surprising that it has a liberal bent as apposed to a conservative one. I think Venezuela analysis is a sufficiently reliable source to use of Wikipedia. The fact that it is released under a creative commons license is a plus. If there are other sources that disagree add them to provide balance. On Wikipedia we are not attempting to match this paper but create something better. Hopefully no page will be based on a single source / single opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two, and more, camps everywhere. At stake in this discussion, is not whether to turn Wikipedia into National Review Online, but rather to stop using a source that beyond reference by some radicals, has been given far too much weight by Rd232, his alter ego Disembrangler and JRSP over the years. Take for instance the entry Human Rights Venezuela, and how the opinion of Gregory Wilpert, editor in chief of Venezuelanalysis, sociologist, married to Hugo Chavez's Consul in NY, funded by Venezuelan taxpayer money, is provided as balance to a 230 page odd report produced by one of the world's most respected, and liberal BTW, human rights NGOs: Human Rights Watch. Now to some around here that seems perfectly kosher, to those of us who know who Wilpert is, it is crystal clear that his opinion, as much as he's entitled to publish it in his propaganda rag, carries no weight whatsoever in the debate about whether or not human rights are systematically violated in Venezuela. Wilpert has no credentials to participate in such debate, and has been described by HRW, rightly so, as "unhelpful critics who opt instead to disseminate baseless allegations" link. The Inter American Court of Human Rights has ruled against the Chavez regime in a number of occasions, Amnesty International keeps warning the regime about the dangers of disrespecting supra constitutional and inalienable rights, yet Wikipedia visitors of the entry are meant to take the opinion of an utterly discredited propagandist on an equal footing as that of HRW. So I'll go with SlimVirgin, Jayjg, SandyGeorgia, Defender of Torch, Student7 opinions and stress that Venezuelanalysis should only be used for stuff that can't be found anywhere else, and has to be properly identified as a propaganda rag of Hugo Chavez's ever growing media empire.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so one does not get to carried away one can say the exact same thing about Fox News / Rupert Murdock. His media empire is even a little bit larger :-) I remember seeing this clip [22] were Fox had on someone who called for Chavez to be murdered. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparing a military putschist cum president of a nation to a businessman, however much hated, does your position no good whatsoever. This debate is not about whether Murdoch has a bigger media empire, but about using as trustworthy a source riddled with conflicts of interest, and with far too many connections to a military regime.--Alekboyd (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Stepping over the red herring of Murdoch, I'd have to say I agree with Alekboyd. VA is a reliable, but biased, source. It can be used as a source for simple questions of positive fact if no other source is available, but should be avoided entirely if other sources (such as HRW) address a question. It is also not reliable for negative facts (did not, never, etc.) Note that even in cases where laying out a he-said-she-said debate is appropriate, the pro-Chavez position should be sourced to something more official. Homunq (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Use as required reading in university courses

I've noticed that the site is included in required reading lists and bibliographies for courses at a number of universities. The following list (by no means exhaustive) provides some examples:

• Harvard University: Required reading.
• University of California, Santa Barbara. Listed in course bibliography. Quote: "http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/. This website is dedicated to critical news coverage and analyses of events in Venezuela and in particular regarding the Bolivarian revolution."
• University of Pittsburgh: Reading list (twice)
• University of Colorado, Boulder: Reading list
• De Paul University: Reading list
• Cornell University: Reading list
• Evergreen State College: listed 18 times in course reading list

I would think that tends to affirm RS status. At any rate, it clearly has some considerable academic standing. --JN466 22:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends what we want to use it for. Are we agreed that it's a self-published source? If yes, it can't be used as a source about living people. As for using it elsewhere, the dichotomy is this: if we want to use it to support material that's published somewhere else too, why not use that other source? But if we use it for something that doesn't appear elsewhere, then we have to ask ourselves why that website is the sole source. So either way, I can't think of a situation where I'd feel happy using it, unless the issue was so uncontentious that it barely needed a source at all. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am doubtful. Your argument could be made to exclude any source: "If it's only in this book, then why should we use it?" If it is a book that is widely cited by scholars (as venezuelanalysis is), and it has enough standing to be used as a means of instruction in universities, then excluding it from Wikipedia seems to me to result in a different standard for inclusion than the one the most reputable actors in the real world are applying. Cf. Wikipedia:Rs#Usage_by_other_sources. --JN466 11:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My argument is indeed often used to exclude self-published sources. If something appears only in an SPS, and it's a contentious point, what does that tell us? We have no way of knowing how to proceed. Do you agree that it's an SPS, or are you also challenging that? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as a general point, there is no way that the use of something as required reading automatically makes it a reliable source. For instance, there are courses on cult archaeology that have some dreadful stuff as required reading -- there must be lots of courses in other fields that ask students to read what we would call unreliable sources to demonstrate the way such sources mislead/misrepresent etc. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As a general point, you are of course quite right. You can find university courses asking students to read all kinds of unreliable sources for illustrative purposes. But I looked at the course outlines in that light. I've read the papers included in the Harvard reading list; their messages broadly match each other (and the official analysis of the referendum by the Carter Center). So it's not like one paper is set off against the other. In the Evergreen State College case, a full third of the entire reading list is articles on venezuelanalysis.com. The University of California course outline simply includes the site in its supplemental bibliography; no qualifier. --JN466 13:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Rs#Usage_by_other_sources and WP:SPS we accept even self-published sources as reliable sources if they are routinely cited for fact by reliable sources, or if they are published by previously published experts. Both of these apply here.

Jay, sorry to interrupt your post, but the first part of your sentence is a misreading of both those sections. Bear in mind too that V is the policy, so even if RS did say that about self-published sources, it should be removed, but it doesn't. We accept self-published sources if they are acknowledged experts on the topic of the article, who have been previously published in that field by independent reliable sources. None of that applies to the people who run that website, as I recall. And we never accept them, expert or not, as sources about living people. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As for whether the site is a SPS in the first place, I was swayed earlier by your argument about it being SPS. Looking into it more closely, I confess I now tend to lean the other way. It is clearly not a private website or blog. The site itself says "Venezuelanalysis.com is a project of Venezuela Analysis, Inc., which is registered as a non-profit organization in New York State and of the Fundación para la Justicia Económica Global, which is a foundation that is registered in Caracas, Venezuela." It is the joint website of these research foundations, and employs an editorial team of internationally published scholars. That, combined with its scholarly reception, makes me think it's okay. --JN466 14:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

When I last looked at it, it said it was run by a group of people from their homes. They were named, and they weren't scholars that I recall. And it has no employees. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The editorial team work for these foundations. I'll research all the editors and put up what I find here.

• Gregory Wilpert is "a former US Fulbright scholar in Venezuela, and is currently [2002] doing independent research on the sociology of development". Books by Gregory Wilpert, google scholar. As "Greg Wilpert: [23], [24], [25].
• Eva Golinger is a widely published Venezuelan-American writer and attorney and the author of several books on Chavez: google news, google scholar, google books, books by her. --JN466 14:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• According to this book which he co-wrote, Michael Fox is not a scholar, but "a journalist, a reporter, and a documentary filmmaker based in South America." Here it says he is a "former staff-writer for Venezuelanalysis.com". --JN466 15:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Federico Fuentes is described as an "author, journalist and political activist". The article also says he "is actively involved in the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network, of which he was a national co-convenor (2008-9), and has organized several solidarity delegations to Venezuela. He is also a member of the Socialist Alliance (Australia)." Elsewhere it is said he is "a frequent writer for the Australian socialist newspaper, Green Left Weekly, and maintains the blog Bolivia Rising". Google News: [26], Google Scholar: [27] --JN466 16:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Jan Kühn appears to be a German student of history and sociology, studying in Berlin and Caracas, as well as working as a translator and in "independent media". Not anyone with any academic track record. --JN466 15:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Same for Tamara Pearson: "Tamara Pearson is an Australian activist and writer as well as a member of the Australian-Venezuela Solidarity Network. She currently lives in Venezuela." --JN466 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• No evidence that James Suggett is significantly published outside VA.com: [28]. --JN466 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Kiraz Janicke is described as "a member of the Green Left Weekly Caracas bureau", "a Resistance member who has been based in Venezuela for the last 12 months", "a participant in the first Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Brigade" etc. --JN466 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So the editorial team looks like 2 or 3 people with a notable track record (albeit decidedly left-leaning/alternative, judging by their publishers), and some minor players. Golinger's two main books are held by 419 and 221 libraries respectively; which is sort of respectable, but there are definitely more widely held bios on Chavez. --JN466 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Even just looking at the Harvard page I get the impression that the site is being presented not as a reliable source from which students are expected to derive facts, but as one of a number of competing analyses that students are going to be comparing. Also, note that the very next reading on the list is a Wikipedia article. Clearly, being on a course syllabus like this does not imply that a source is reliable in the Wikipedia sense. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Addressed above. Note that the paper's conclusions about the 2004 referendum match those of the Carter Center and the US government. --JN466 14:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why this one website has been getting so much attention. Can someone point to an example of an edit that relies on it that couldn't otherwise be made? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs}

It's been getting so much attention because it is apparently broadly pro-Chavez. The people on it are seen by conservative commentators as propagandists for Chavez. There have been several attempts here on WP to link people on the site to the Venezuelan state-funded Venezuela Information Office (for example, there was an edit war in our article on the site about inserting the – tenuous – info that VIO once wrote to Golinger asking her for help). Clearly, some or all of the people writing on Venezuelanalysis.com are socialists or at least liberals. At the same time, some of the editors arguing forcefully against any use of Venezuelanalysis.com have proposed the inclusion of material sourced to sources like discoverthenetworks.org. I am concerned about throwing out sources that have scholarly credibility because the authors may have socialist or liberal leanings. --JN466 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there, but it's not clear there are scholars involved. The volunteers who run the site are Federico Fuentes, Michael Fox, Eva Golinger, Kiraz Janicke, Jan Kühn, Tamara Pearson, James Suggett, Gregory Wilpert. [29] Are any of them academics? And can you give an example of the kind of edits it has been used to support? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've posted what details I found on the editorial team above. Of course the site hosts articles by other writers as well. In the Evergreen State College course, which makes most use of the site (and describes it as "Good writing about contemporary Venezuelan developments, links to other good sources. Extensive archive. Co-founded by Greg Wilpert."), about half the articles are by members of the editorial team, and the other half by outside authors. The one that they include at Harvard is co-authored by Mark Weisbrot, who is a notable economist and columnist for The Guardian. I'll have a look how and where the site has been used. --JN466 16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the list, it doesn't appear that they are generally what Wikipedia would consider to be experts in the subject; that is, they're lawyers, activists, filmmakers, etc. A university may have many reasons why it would want its students to read the views of these people, but university courses aren't encyclopedia articles, nor do their curricula have our sourcing requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Having researched the team's credentials, I was less impressed than I thought I was going to be. ;) The site is currently cited on 200+ WP pages: [30]. About 115 of those are articles in mainspace. --JN466 16:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Having gone through this exercise, I can't fault SlimVirgin's analysis above, posted at 19:11, 7 February 2010. In particular, it seems more than likely from the affiliations of the people involved that the site does have a promotional agenda. That does not mean everything on it is bad or invalid; as SlimVirgin said earlier, we should look at the credentials of each individual author whose writings are hosted there, and base our decision on that. Thanks for your input. --JN466 17:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that self-published articles by the two published authors, Wilpert and Golinger, can be used, though according to V and BLP, they can't be used as sources on living people, and that includes Chavez, even though he's one of the issues it seems they specialize in. But for general political issues in that country, articles with their byline on that website could be used as sources. Fox, I'm not so sure of—his contributions to that book probably don't amount to an acknowledged expertise. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. :) Where their guest authors are reputable, like Weisbrot etc., those articles could be used as well. And Wilpert and Golinger have written books on Chavez; these would obviously fine to use (in moderation, given that they are somewhat left of mainstream) if someone wanted to use them as sources on him. --JN466 20:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Having expended more than enough energy on this issue, I'm staying out of it. However I will correct the error introduced above by relying on the Harvard reading list: the source given for the Mark Weisbrot contribution is "Black swans..." [31], which is a straight re-publication of the CEPR paper here: [32]. Weisbrot hasn't written for VA, as far as I know; but seemingly is quite liberal in allowing republication by anyone that wants. Rd232 ^talk 22:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Was busy and did not see this continued discussion. I disagree very strongly with some statements above on the principles of reliability, something much more important than their particular application here. WP:SPS does not clearly restrict usage of self-published sources only to those written by previously published experts. This is reading an "only when" in WP:SPS where there is only a "when". It would be the natural idiomatic reading if there were no other general means of establishing reliability, but there are - usage by and statements in clearly reliable sources. Here is a recent discussion at WT:V. The policy has varied on this point, sometimes making it clear that "previously published expert" is only one example, sometimes as discussed last month, explicitly including a "usage by other sources" section. Citation and reputation has often enough been considered decisive evidence for reliability here at WP:RSN.

Of course we must define reliability here, as best we can. But we should try to keep our definition of "reliable source" as close as possible to the ordinary meaning in the relevant intellectual community. I wrote the "usage by other sources" section in WP:RS, with the support of and following the lead of User:Relata refero, and with Jayen466's and others' constructive criticism. The clear intent and consensus at the time was indeed to recognize sources, including self-published ones, as reliable sources, if that is what the relevant intellectual community considers them, and no real conflict with WP:SPS was perceived.

As I said, the impetus behind this section in WP:RS was the case of boxofficeindia.com. After a long debate at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Boxofficeindia.com there was a consensus it was a reliable SPS. One redoubtable editor put it back then as "if it's being used as a source by the mainstream media, it should be okay for us" and felt that the meaning of WP:SPS "could be stretched in this case to include being used as a source for other publications, because the material isn't contentious."[33]John Z (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.thekingshighway.ca

Before we begin, yes I know it is a self-published website, and that nothing on the website itself establishes notability. Cameron Bevers, the writer, is a regional planner for the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. However, he is certainly considered an expert on the topic, as the city of Toronto archives uses this website as the source for its description of the Highway 401 archive category. I can't link directly to the archives but if someone wants to see it before commenting.

I'm fairly certain I could find a recent newspaper article from a major newspaper that discusses him as well if the archives is not enough. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of other sources using this website as a source? Where does the city of Toronto archives use this, for example? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

On the online toronto archives, many pictures have been digitized. Amongst these are pictures along the highway, and construction pics. When you go into a picture, they are organized by categories, such as "Highway 401" or "Road construction". When you click the 401 category, it brings up a synopsis of the history available from thekingshighway.ca (I'd provide a link to this, but it expires quickly. If you want a screenshot or step by step directions to get to it, I can do that).

He is also practically the subject of a Toronto Star article on cottage country highway traffic,[34] (The article essentially "stars" him) as well as a brief mention in an article in the Hamilton Spectator.[35] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are the online Toronto archives? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you step-by-step instructions to get to the description of Highway 401:

First, go to this page, and click on "Search the Archives' Database". This will open up a new window. In this new window, search for Highway 401. The first result should be "File 1 - Oblique aerial photograph showing Labatt's Brewery at Highway 401 and Islington Ave. - October 19, 1970". Click on it, and it opens in the right frame. Click on Subseries 5; Etobicoke Clerk's Dept. aerial photographs, and another new window will open. In this window, you should see Highway 401. Click it, and a new window will open with the description from Cameron Bevers website. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Does the City of Toronto website use Bevers' site for other material? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that I can find, unfortunately, but they don't have a Highway 404 or Highway 400 (the other two highways within Toronto) category as they do a Highway 401. Just the one instance that I can find, as well as those two newspaper articles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you want to use the website as a source for? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mostly as a secondary source to back up primary statistics (items which can be verified by going to the subject yourself and measuring, for example, or items which are verifiable through Google satellite/street maps), and to fill in the occasional missing piece of history. I just don't want to be hassled when one of my 45 references is to a self-published source at WP:FAC... Though it would be nice to use it as a source in general for histories and routing, as the Ontario Ministry of Transportation kind of gave away its archives to its employees 10 years ago, and keeps sparse current records. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The mentions in a couple of newspapers aren't a strong indication of reliability, and the single use on a specific municipal website isn't strong either. I wish I could say it was reliable, but so far it's pretty weak. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget though that that municipal reference is from the 4th largest city in North America, through which the highway that his website is used as a reference for travels. I believe it qualifies as an established professional (both articles mention him being a highway historian) who is covered in third party publications. There certainly isn't anything out there that hampers the reliability of the site. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that a city that large would have many websites, though, maintained by many different individuals, departments, etc. This isn't a ringing endorsement by "the 4th largest city in North America", this is a single use on a specific website. And regarding the newspaper articles, one is from a relatively small newspaper that briefly mentions him, while the other is from a short article in an admittedly high circulation newspaper. I think that if you tried to create an article on Cameron Bevers it would quickly be deleted by AfD. I wish it were otherwise, as he seems to have an interesting website that he obviously does his best to maintain accurately, but he's still effectively a WP:SPS, and there's no real indication he's an "expert" in the Wikipedia sense (an academic who has published on the subject in various reliable sources). Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think being a planner for the province where the highway is, is enough expertise for basic facts. This isn't an academic topic, and we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot with academic standards. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You can think whatever you like, but the source fails WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A government highway planner writing about a highway certainly meets SPS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A "a regional planner for the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario" does not qualify as "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." And, no, being cited once on a municipal website does not count as "being published". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yea... Thats what this board is for, sources that don't meet the generalized criteria of WP:RS to be discussed to see if consensus overrides the criteria. Also, the Hamilton Spectator is on par with the Toronto Star (it's the leading paper in Hamilton, which at 850000 people isn't just a dot on the map). Also keep in mind its being mentioned by the Toronto Archives, which is a government run ministry that deals with historical facts (as Cameron Bevers site does), not the personal blog of the mayors assistant. He is a regional planner for Central Ontario (established expert) who has been published in multiple reputable sources with regards to his expertise. It's not just a mention in an editorial in the Scarborough mirror, its an article devoted to him in the most published newspaper in the country. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Hamilton Spectator has a circulation of 105,000. If it were an American newspaper, that would put it 78th on the List of newspapers in the United States by circulation - just behind the The Providence Journal, and just ahead of The Toledo Blade. Being cited once on one of a number of municipal website does not qualify as "being published", and being a regional planner for the Ministry of Transportation does not qualify one as "an established expert". Being a medical doctor does not make someone an "established expert" on, for example, various diseases, drugs, etc. Working in a government transportation office doesn't make someone an expert on the history of highways. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, are you suggesting that a doctor, who is trusted to make life and death decisions every day, cannot be cited on the subject of medicine, while a grad student who happened to publish in a couple of academic journals could? Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Hamilton Spectator is published by the same media company as the Toronto Star, and both say he is a highway historian. Also, to compare to America with Canada doesn't make sense, as America has 10 times the population of Canada. Likewise comparing medicine, which is a rigorous and strict science with above average sourcing requirements, to history, which is the opposite. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the Hamilton Spectator is undoubtedly a reliable source, but its article doesn't identify Bevers himself as an expert - and as his own Website acknowledges he only graduated in a field of transportation studies last year. Having said that, to echo Squidfryerchef, if the facts are basic and non-contentious, he'll probably do. Where he wouldn't suffice as a RS is, for example, in providing interpretation of the history of highway development in Ontario. Barnabypage (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable as a secondary source summarizing the history when I use reliable primary sources to cover all the detailed facts that someone would actually challenge? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the ideal way for you to proceed would be to - by all means - use Bevers as a basis for research, but then find more authoritative sources for each assertion. If they are useful points and not controversial, but you can't find a source, it does (IMHO) no harm to put them in the article with a "citation needed" tag - another editor may come along who does have access to/knowledge of a good source. Barnabypage (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is this; he is a WP:SPS. Even if The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal described him as a "highway historian", it still wouldn't satisfy the requirements of WP:SPS, specifically that he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The wording is explicit for a reason. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We really have to get on that WP:SPS section and add something that professional as well as academic qualifications can qualify someone to be cited on their area of expertise. But in this particular case, there are elements of a primary source here as well. The author's job is to plan highways in the same jurisdiction where the road being cited is. It's his job to know the facts about that road. It's a little like saying that in an article about a skyscraper, we can't cite the architect who designed it because he didn't publish in any academic journals about skyscrapers, he only built one. His web page being linked to by other government agencies may only weakly count towards being "published", but it does make the web site take on the color of a semi-official source, as well as authenticating who is behind the web site. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to cite that, when first attributing something to the author, you can work in one of the pages that say who he is. i.e. "Mr So-and-So, a regional planner for XYZ( cite Toronto Star, Hamilton Spectator, City of Toronto) says LMN(cite selfpub)" Or, if these are only inline cites for facts and figures, you can work those pages who confirm who he is into the first footnote. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Schoolbook map(s)

These maps, File:Serbia_ethnic_6_8_century.png , File:Romania ethnic 6 8 century.png, File:Albania kosovo macedonia 6 8 century.png are based on "historical atlas for schools, published in Belgrade in 1970, representing a view of Yugoslav historians from that time". They claim that ethnic(Albanians the 1 and the 3) groups that were not present in the location shown some 500 years before they are considered to have made their appearance (See Origin of the Albanians). This has been pointed out, they have been discussed (Talk:Albanians#RfC:_RS_use_.28encyclopedia_of_6th_century_and_map_from_school_atlas.29) and the maps have been removed many times. But the creator (that does not deny that the source is a schoolbook from 1970's Yugoslavia) has readded them repeatedly and may have even used Sockpuppets to do so. diff, diff sock, diff, diff, sock diff. Despite being a prolific map maker in general he still seems to ignore WP:RS. Here he uses a random googled site(Remember Sarajevo) to compare his map with talk diff.Megistias (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As you are an opponent of the inclusion of these maps, it strikes me that it is only fair to hear from a proponent before opining. Megistias, would you mind notifying the person who offers these maps of this discussion?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have , i was actually looking for a tag to put there but i did not find it.Megistias (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here he random googles websites again diff Megistias (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Take note that 1970's Yugoslavia was a Totalitarian state,in which the only legal political party was the League of Communists of SerbiaMegistias (talk)

General view among most World historians is that Albanians are descendants of Illyrians and that they always lived in Albania and maps that I made reflect exactly that. User:Megistias is an Greek nationalist who have very negative ethnic attitude towards Albanians and he push here his POV that Albanians came from somewhere else and that they did not lived in Albania in 6th century. It is a minority view among historians and one that is not generally accepted and he attacking my work and want to discredit my maps simply because I made them in accordance with generally accepted historical view. Also, I do not see why an official historical atlas for schools should not be reliable source, especially when it only reflect generally accepted view, not minority one that user:Megistias trying to push. As for maps, I made them few days ago, and it was user:Megistias who was removing them because of his claim that they are wrong. I made many maps for Wikipedia related to various countries and recently when I made few maps related to Albanian history (note that I am not Albanian, but Serb from Novi Sad), user:Megistias started to attack my work, first in Wikimedia Commons, and now here, simply because my maps are not in accordance with his nationalistic anti-Albanian views. PANONIAN 16:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As for Yugoslavia, it was not Soviet-type totalitarian state, but a country with its own more liberal form of socialism. I, however, fail to see how form of the state government of Yugoslavia would affect opinion of historians from that country, especially about subject (ethnic Albanians) that is unrelated to politics of Yugoslavia. Finally, does user:Megistias want to claim that all sources that come from China are unreliable because of the Chinese form of government? PANONIAN 16:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

All 3 maps are based on schoolbooks by a Totalitarian state.(No need to comment the rest as they are irrelevant and Panonian's personal viewpoint)Megistias (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Are all school books from China unreliable source then? PANONIAN 16:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I do not see that user:Megistias presented here any reliable (or even unreliable)source that would support his claim that Albanians migrated to Albania in year 1300. As I see it, we have only his word for it. PANONIAN 16:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for chit-chat so stay on topic ,Reliable Sources. Since you completely ignore the Albanian origin issue (only Albanian ultranationalists claim that they were always there and old theorists).

• Basic fact from a secondary source,Imagining frontiers, contesting identities by Steven G. Ellis,Lud'a Klusáková, "The Albanians arrived in Epirus from the north, but also from Thessaly where some clan had settled in the first decade of the 14th century,..."Megistias (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • You obviously do not understand this source - term "Epirus" in this case means modern Epirus in Greece, not medieval despotate of Epirus, your source clearly say that "in 1337, the Albanians of Epirus Nova" "apperared for the first time in Epirus" (clearly, not in modern-day Albania, but in modern-day Epirus in Greece). PANONIAN 16:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Albanians arrived in the region in 14th century AD.Epirus Nova is the term used for the Roman province that was most of Albania, Epirus Vetus was the Old Epirus, the one in Greece. I perfectly understand my source.Megistias (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I know what "Epirus Nova" means, but your source does not mention that Albanians settled in Epirus Nova - it mention that "Albanians from Epirus Nova (Albania) settled in Epirus (Greece) in the 14th century". It does not mention that they settled in Epirus Nova - in fact it confirming sources from my atlas that they already were there. PANONIAN 16:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

American journal of philology, Tomes 98-99‎ -page 263,Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, Tenney Frank, Harold Fredrik Cherniss, JSTOR (Organization), Project Muse - 1977,"It seems that the original home of the Albanians was in Northern Albania (Illyricum) rather than in the partly Hellenic and partly Hellenized Epirus Nova."Megistias (talk)

Original home from which century? There is difference between Albanian presence in different regions in different centuries. This source also does not contradict to my sources. PANONIAN 17:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You have no sources, you have a book from a Totalitarian state. All secondary sources contradict you.Megistias (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That is just empty rhetorical claim - it is obvious that you do not have sources and that two sources that you presented here are not contradicting to my original source. Can you present to us something else or not? PANONIAN 17:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As always you ignore what Reliable sources are which is the issue at hand. You "source" is a schoolbook by a Totalitarian state, that even makes an unreal claim, thus no WP:RS.Megistias (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot ignore something that you never presented: you first have to present a source here and then I can say my opinion about that source. Also, how many times you will repeat words "totalitarian state" without answering my question are all sources from China then unreliable according to you? (and Yugoslavia was certainly more liberal country than China). Finally, you only objected here to presence of Albanians in south Albania, but why you removing from the articles my maps of Romania or Serbia? PANONIAN 17:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you avoid to give an answer to my question are all sources from China unreliable, you will show that you in fact do not have an opinion about sources from "totalitarian states", but that you simply trying to find all possible ways to discredit my sources (and my sources only) only because info presented in such sources do not confirm your personal POV. PANONIAN 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

China? Take it to a forum.Stay on topic, your source is unreliable, Schoolbooks are for children.Since the beginning it has been noted that all 3 maps are rejectable as their source is unreliable.Megistias (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Schoolbooks are for children, but were not written by children. Schoolbooks are written by their school professors and if you claim that school professors are not reliable source then, according to your idea, all children would leave schools as ignorants and idiots (and then you will come to enlight them, I presume?). You can act like a parrot, repeating over and over that my sources are not reliable, but I fail to see any proof for that. PANONIAN 19:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Collected Studies: Studies in Greek literature and history, excluding Epirus ... by Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond,page 499,"The Byzantine theme or province of Epirus Nova had in the extreme north Albanians, but the rest of the are had probably a mixed, mainly Greek-speaking people in the 11th and twelfth centuries. The first movement of the Albanians comes after the fall of Constantinople to the Latins in 1204."

• You are 600 years offMegistias (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Had probably"? Obviously, what you presenting here is just an theory whose author use word probably since he himself is not sure that it is correct. Also, as far as I know, Epirus Nova was not an administrative unit of Byzantine Empire in the 11th century, so your source obviously contains errors regarding historical timeline. Even if we forget these errors and fact that it is only assumption of that author, claims about Albanians from that source are only one theory about their origin and my map show another theory. I clearly noted on map page that it is a view of Yugoslav historians and I did not claimed that it is a "divine truth". If there are different theories about one subject, then I do not see why we cannot have several files illustrating each theory. Wikipedia is created as a project that is open for various ideas and points of view and it is not a church-type dogmatic project where only certain ideas and theories are forced and other are forbidden. PANONIAN 20:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Photobucket? Hammond is world-class scholar and you waste my time with answers like this? Read what Reliable sources areMegistias (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you perhaps quoted him in wrong way - how else could Epirus Nova province appear in the 11th century? PANONIAN 22:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pannonian, names of themes,provinces the such are used in convention by scholars to define relevant regions.It is just like using familiar vs non-familiar toponyms for the sake of necessity.Megistias (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if he used name of Epirus Nova for wrong time period, he still refer to 11th century, not to 6th century (i.e. to the time after Slavic conquest of the Balkans). 11th century Greeks from that area could be settled there after Byzantine empire reconquered that area from Slavic/Bulgarian states in that century. Your source does not say anything about origin of these Greeks and it is hard to assume that they lived in Albania during Slavic rule. PANONIAN 22:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the source. What it states.Megistias (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Maps in 1970s Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia schoolbooks are not reliable sources. They're old and unscholarly, and come from a source not noted for factual accuracy or editorial oversight. Well, actually, yes for editorial oversight, but of a particular political kind. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What is a base for such conclusion, Jayjg? Do you have any background on which you would claim that schoolbook sources published in Yugoslavia in 1970 are not reliable? And where is proof that such source is "not noted for factual accuracy"? Finally, what political motive Yugoslav authors would have to falsify data about presence of Albanians in Albania or Romanians in Romania? These questions should be answered before final conclusion about accuracy of this source. PANONIAN 22:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, what is a point of a claim that source is old? See this category full of old ethnic maps: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Historical_maps_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_Balkans - the map from 1970 is no different from these maps, but since it is not old enough to be used as a file free for usage in Wikipedia, I made new maps based on it and included them with a description that it is "according to Yugoslav historians from 1970". In similar way this Megali Idea article have a map made by the pro-Greek cartographer E. Stanford from 1878, illustrating his point of view (and this map is proved to be unreliable and contradict to other sources, while such contradictions were not proved when 1970 Yugoslav atlas is in question). PANONIAN 22:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Very old maps are like primary sources. That category in the commons is for actual old maps. From 100 years ago and more.Megistias (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Why cant you simply accept the simple fact, that a schoolbook is not RS and a schoolbook from Communist Yugoslavia is even more not RS?Megistias (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I will accept any opinion that come from reliable person with good faith and good knowledge about the subject. You do not have good faith in this question and you are known nationalist and POV pusher, and therefore your opinion means nothing to me. However, this issue is to be discussed further with other users. PANONIAN 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You have insulted me many times and you used Sockpuppets as indicated in the beggining of the section. Megistias (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And now you remove my map based on Hammond with no reason at all....[36],[37] Megistias (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I do not have sockpuppets - I am not much active in English Wikipedia in recent times, so I do not logg in every time I edit some article. IP number of user who is not logged in is not an sockpuppet. Second, you are the one who harrasing me in various Wiki projects and you are one who disrupting my good-faith work, so how you excpect that I react to that? You expect that I love you or something? As for your map, info presented in it is different from what Hammond claims according to you, so I suspect that you did not based that map on Hammond, but on your own POV. PANONIAN 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

STOP NOW - this is not the location for the two of you to continue an endless argument. My suggestion... place two maps side by side, so that both POVs are visually represented. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me - placing two maps side by side is a good solution and I agree with it 100% PANONIAN 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hammond is not POV, the 70's schoollbook is. This is a simple issue and Pannonian has made it big for no reason.Megistias (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It was Pannonians old browser. diffMegistias (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your maps are based on unreliable sources thus they cannot be used. Its that simple.Megistias (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that according to Origin of the Albanians the claim of Albanians as autochthonus is highly disputed, not to mention that before 11th century they were never recorded. Moreover the Albanian-Ilyrian link is also something historically questionable. As far I see the map isn't historically correct even with the presence of Vlachs, not to mention other minor issues.

The main point is that the map avoids the entire western bibliography and can't be explained by any academic historical means. Alexikoua (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is western bibliography for you: http://books.google.com/books?id=ORSMBFwjAKcC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA5&vq=maps&output=html - I do not see why I cannot made maps based on this source. PANONIAN 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with placing highly pov material. Placing to pov is even worst, but Hammond is an expert in this field and I hardly believe its pov. @Megistias: You need to provide the specific pages with the relevant texts&maps, I remember that somewhere on the net I found a similar map directly scanned from Hammond's work.Alexikoua (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hammond's map is here [[38]], it's identical to the one Megistias proposes. So it seems that is is quite reliable. On the other hand the 6th-8th century map is still of questionable value.Alexikoua (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As was proposed on this page, both maps can be used, mine based on this and one made by Megistias, so that readers can see both points of view about the subject. PANONIAN 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Another source confirming data from my map

Here is an Internet source with similar map showing Albanian presence in the 8th century: http://books.google.com/books?id=ORSMBFwjAKcC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA5&vq=maps&output=html - I do not think that even Megistias can claim that this source is unreliable and not good enough to be used in Wikipedia. PANONIAN 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As far I see this book, which is completely contradicting the entire western bibliography in this part, does not explain why the ancestors of today's Albanians, should been placed there. No descriptions, no explanations, no prove, no nothing. Moreover this book is focused on modern post 1800 history. If the authors believe this it's not our problem. Typical wp:fringe.

For example this: [[39]], is not enough to claim that Columbus was Greek. Alexikoua (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That is false analogy. I provided links to other sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#Schoolbook_map - you may claim that my souce is wrong because of two reasons: 1. if there are no other sources that confirming data presented there (and I presented several other sources with similar data), and 2. if it contradict to most other sources (but, contrary to your rhaethorical claim that my source "contradicting the entire western bibliography", you failed to provide any quotation from that bibliography that would really contradict to my sources. In fact those quotations provided by user:Megistias are not contradicting to my sources). PANONIAN 21:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't presented a single reliable work that confirms this. You still need to show this, and please do not post again questionable school atlases of past decades. Existing articles like Origin of Albanians, which are sourced, are in favor of Hammond's version.Alexikoua (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I presented two reliable sources, if you think that these sources are not reliable, it is your problem and your problem only. I have no time for your childish games. Get life, man... PANONIAN 02:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What you presented here: [[40]] doesn't meet wp:rs. Moreover I see that in this discussion you are not convincing the rest of the editors.Alexikoua (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am convinced about the validity of the maps made by PANONIAN and so are a lot of other editors that the maps are wp:rs, but the Greek editors (Athenean, Megistias, Alexikoua) work to prove that the Albanians have no connections with the Illyrians. Their theory can be summarized as follows: Illyrians have disappeared. Thracians have disappeared. Albanians? We don't know where they came from: they are mentioned only in the 11th century. Probably moesians? Probably Thracians? Probably this or that? No theory is plausible because they are strange and no one knows who they really are. We just don't know and no one can. Casting a shadow of mystery seems like a very good plan to make today's Albanians seem as if they are foreigners in their own land, not autochtonous, which in the Balkans would be only the Greek population. No other population in the Balkans can enjoy the autochtonous status but the Greeks, according to these three editors. This is the standard that these three editors are following in all the history articles especially in the Illyrian Albanian articles that have been usurpated by them and that no Albanian editor dares to edit anymore because they will be provoked to edit-warring and then reported by any of the above three editors (most likely athenean) who work full time to assert the above ideas, and then an admin who will see the reaction of who took the bait will inevitably block the daring editor. Take a look at the cemetery of editors that this war has produced (Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Log_of_blocks_and_bans). It's full of Albanians and it's the biggest graveyard of truth you'll find in Wikipedia concerning the Balkan topics. The Greek editors above by working in tandem will make every edit possible to "forget" their own sources (read Ptolemy, Polibus and Stephanus of Bysantium - all Greeks), that the Albanoi Illyrian tribe has been mentioned by Ptolemy in the 2nd century BC as Arbon, in the 2nd century AD by Polibus as Albanoi, and in the 6th century as Albonios by Stephanus of Bysantium as, see Origin_of_the_Albanians. That is proof of the continuity of the Illyrian-Albanian population and the world's historiography has already accepted it. It's the way it's studied in Albania, Russia, Germany, France, USA. In Greece there are other orders, I am affraid, but this is not the Greek Wikipedia. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 22:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not read all the above stuff, but here is what makes those maps unreliable: the source is an old schoolbook published during the Serbian communist period — a regime known for it's propaganda — while there are a lot of modern sources to follow. Another strange thing is that PANONIAN inserted those maps across all Wikipedias, making me sceptically.—Sebitalk 11:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I expanded my reference list on map pages and provided new sources in which similar maps can be found. There are some slight differences compared to the map from 1970 history atlas, but basic info about presence of ethnic groups is same in all these references. One of these references is The Times Atlas of World History published in 1984 (or more precisely its Yugoslav translation from 1986). I hope there is no objections to reliability of that source. Also, I do not see what propaganda Yugoslav regime might have regarding origin of Romanians or Albanians? Historical propaganda of Yugoslav regime from that time was mainly based on World War II liberation struggle and criticism of pre-war Yugoslav regime. 6th century ethnic relations in the Balkans were simply too unrelated subject to the political ideology of Yugoslavia. As for observation that I "inserted those maps across all Wikipedias", I always insert all my maps across all Wikipedias, so what is a problem with that? PANONIAN 17:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To repeat what should not need repeating, maps in 1970s Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia schoolbooks are not reliable sources. They're old and unscholarly, and come from a source not noted for factual accuracy or editorial oversight. They cannot be used in Wikipedia articles, or as sources in Wikipedia articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I expanded reference lists on map pages and added some "newer" sources that are confirming data from 1970 history atlas, so maps are not based on that atlas only. I also did not asked that you repeat your claim but to provide an explanation why you consider 1970 atlas to be "unscholarly" and "not noted for factual accuracy or editorial oversight". PANONIAN 10:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources you initially used as well as those you later used did not change the fact that what you claimed, is not substantiated. Hxseek has at the lower part of this discussion Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#Proposal elaborated to you, again these facts. You have been told this by admin(the admin told you the same thing i did) & user level editors. Please just comply with the consensus of the community and stop blindly denying.Megistias (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Megistias, please do not interrupt my discussion with another user. Your stance about this is well known and you have no reason to repeat yourself over and over. I asked User:Jayjg for explanation of his view and he is the one who should answer to that question, not you, Megistias. And what "consensus of the community" you speak about? You and user:Hxseek are both politically motived and you are not valid persons to judge my work or my sources. Of course, I hope I can have constructive discussion about this with user:Jayjg. PANONIAN 09:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding reliable sources (if you have indeed found reliable sources) does not magically make unreliable sources reliable. The issue is not content, but editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. Maps in 1970s Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia schoolbooks do not qualify. They're old and unscholarly, and come from a source not noted for factual accuracy or editorial oversight. They cannot be used in Wikipedia articles, or as sources in Wikipedia articles. I won't be repeating that a fourth time. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, can we have a resonable constructive discussion here or not? No matter if you are an admin or not, you still have to elaborate why you think that sources from Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are unreliable. Who exactly said (and where) that these sources are unreliable? As for "editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking", source could be checked in the National Library in Belgrade in any time and it is a source from official educational system of Yugoslavia, so how exactly it can lack an "editorial oversight"? PANONIAN 10:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If your map is reliable, please find it in a book that wasn't published at gunpoint. Any historian will tell you that socialists more often than not rewrote history in their favour, and to make themselves into martyrs. Would I trust a map made by the communist party of China that shows the history of China? No, I wouldn't. I would trust one made by an independent map maker, however. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I did found that map in other sources (for example in The Times Atlas of World History, Times Books Limited, London, 1984, see reference list on map page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albania_kosovo_macedonia_6_8_century.png ). Maps in both books are almost same. There are some minnor differences in them but basic info regarding presence of Albanians (which was a disputed subject here) is same in both sources, Yugoslav atlas from 1970 and in The Times Atlas of World History from 1984. Also, I agree that Yugoslav socialist historians did to certain point wrote history in their favour, but, as I already pointed out, this was related to WW2 occupation of Yugoslavia and pre-war Yugoslav regime, but these historians did not had interest or motive to write medieval history in their favor, especially if we speak about map that show autochtonic origin of the Albanians in the Balkans (an historical opinion which certainly would not be in favor of any Yugoslav state since Yugoslavia ruled parts of Albanian-inhabited territories and Yugoslav historians did not had any interest to write history in favor of Albanians). The only problem here is that some Wiki users are trying to use all possible ways in attempt to discredit my map which show historical opinion about autochtonic origin of Albanians in the Balkans. User:Megistias already tried to use similar tactics in Wikimedia Commons trying to discredit and delete some of my maps. He first claimed that maps are not accurate, then claimed that my sources are not reliable and then he even claimed that I forged sources, so I had to upload scaned pages from two books to show that same map is published in these books. That is an dirty POV campain against my good-faith work. PANONIAN 20:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

KavkazCenter

Is this a reliable source? In my eyes of-course not if you look at the header of this website you will see some of the most cruel terrorist of the world who committed a lot of terroristic acts around the world. http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/ But a lot of wikipedia articles rely on this source.
A short quote of an article:
"At least 3 US invaders were killed and another 3 injured during gun battles in which the enemy coalition forces were forced to retreat, said the report, adding a bomb tore apart a US invaders tank while trying to flee from the certain areas, killing the US invaders who were on board."
And Headlines such: "Clarification of the invaders propaganda in Afghanistan" http://www.kavkaz.org.uk/eng/content/2010/01/31/11329.shtml

well, from an Afghani POV, the US forces are "invaders"... and to the Taliban they are definitely the "enemy". Just as a US source might call the taliban the "enemy". The question is... rhetoric asside, does the source have a reputation for accuracy on the underlying facts? If not, then it should probably be limited to statements as to what the Taliban POV is. Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a page about this site, Kavkaz Center. It published numerous statements by Chechen rebels during Chechen wars and still publishes interview with people like Doku Umarov. It is reliable in the sense that interviews with Doku Umarov (or earlier with people like Aslan Maskhadov or Basayev) are indeed their interviews. It can be used as a WP:RS in this regard. During wars, they also reported losses on the Chechen side, and such reports can be regarded as official reports of losses by the Chechen side (which does not mean that their numbers are the "truth", just as numbers by any other combatants). However, any claims by the Kavkaz Center about their "sworn enemies" like Russians are hardy reliable and should be used with care.Biophys (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Apart from Islamist press releases and as a gauge of ISlamist thinking, no YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no indication of significant editorial oversight or a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Regarding the content, here's a story I picked off their front page just now:

2 apostate policemen eliminated in Caucasus Emirate's Dagestan Province
Publication time: 20 February 2010, 12:54

Puppet officials say two apostate police officers were fatally shot in attacks in Dagestan Province, Caucasus Emirate.

Regional "Interior Ministry" gang's spokesman Mark Tolchinsky said Saturday that "a group of unidentified assailants fatally wounded the two officers at a roadside police station in the Gergebil district of Dagestan province late Friday".

Kavkaz Center

I think that pretty much sums it up. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But the people have indeed been killed, and it does not matter if one calls them "puppets", "munafiqs" or how.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well and an other article of this page

Mujahideen released a summary of military operations against Anglo-American invaders and Karzai puppets in Helmand for Saturday, February 13. According to these data, more than 50 US invaders have been killed or injured and 16 US have been tanks destroyed on Saturday in separate incidents in Marjah, Garmsir, Nad Ali and Now Zad districts of the Helmand province. Kavkaz Center

Sure ... --Saiga 14:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Kavkazcenter is a mouthpiece for extremists in the North Caucasus. As far as facts and figures go, there is no editorial oversight or fact checking whatsoever, and for good reason since their intention is not to report an accurate and unbiased depiction of events, but to promote a cause. LokiiT (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

They certainly have an editorial oversight, but it matters who was the editor. The site was popular and much better in 1999-2002, but it is in the state of decline right now. To summarize, this is site of Chechen rebels, and it can be used as RS only about Chechen rebels.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• More important, if BBC uses this site as source [41], why we can not? Biophys (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it has no reputation for editorial oversight or fact checking. The BBC's policies for inclusion are not Wikipedia's. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

John Birch Society

Are the following reliable sources for the statement in the John Birch Society (JBS) article that it "has been described as far right":

Danielson, Chris (Feb 2009). ""Lily White and Hard Right": The Mississippi Republican Party and Black Voting, 1965-1980". The Journal of Southern History (Athens) 75 (1): 83.[42]

Lee, Martha F (Fall 2005). "NESTA WEBSTER: The Voice of Conspiracy". Journal of Women's History (Baltimore) 17 (3): 81.[43]

My objections to these sources are that 1) they are being used as primary sources for the conclusion that the JBS has been described as far right and 2) the articles are not about the JBS or the far right and therefore not relevant to the topic. It is not as if there is a lack of relevant sources for this article.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed at great length in talk:John Birch Society. The Four Deuces omitted the third source being used:

• Oshinsky, David (January 27, 2008). "In the Heart of the Heart of Conspiracy". New York Times Book Review: p. 23.

And those are just three of 44 sources that call the group "far right". See ]]. We're already bending considerably by not simply saying that the JBS is far right and by simply saying that it has been described that way instead.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that an editor is using a laundry list of adjectives for the JBS, each of which is "sourced" but which concatenated would be the equivalent of having a sentence "Hitler is claimed to have been 'insane,' a 'nut case' an 'extremist', a 'killer'" and so on ... Once you establish that critics frequently call it "far right" that is sufficient. Adding more stuff does not improve the article, and actually harms any image of articles as being written for reference. The tendency for citation overkill (Ossa on Pelion) is quite regrettable indeed. Collect (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

With 44 sources perhaps we should alter the article. With that much unanimity between sources from all over the political spectrum we can flatly declare the JBS to be "far right" rather than just saying it's described that way.   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Let us leave all that discussion to the talk page and let other editors reply to the question posted. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the preponderance of reliable sources describing the John Birch Society as "far right", there is no issue with Wikipedia describing it that way too. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue goes beyond one adjectival phrase - the issue is one of a laundry list of such phrases in the article, concatenated in a single sentence. Collect (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not really a reliable sources issue. Do you have any comments about the sources, either the two listed here or the 44 listed on the talk page?   Will Beback  talk  11:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a strong potential for cherry-picking here. There's tens of thousands of writings about the JBS out there, and whether a few op-ed pieces use a certain label doesn't mean a whole lot. Far-right isn't the most accurate label we could use; some authors use the term "hard right" to avoid lumping political groups that might be slightly to the right of Reagan with radical groups. Other adjectives that come to mind would be "anticommunist" or "ultraconservative".

The part of the article in question is basically an attempt to put the criticism section in the lead paragraph. For the lead paragraph, we should be using only the most general and top tier of sources, such as a book about conservative politics in the US that comes from an academic press. I could also go for tertiary sources such as dictionaries or political science textbooks.

Some of the other adjectives used in that part of the lead are distortions, such as "radical right" and "extremist". This group certainly doesn't advocate radical change or political extremism, and the sources are cherry-picked from old newspaper articles that don't discuss the JBS in depth. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a potential for cherry-picking, but that hasn't been demonstrated. The newspaper sources are mostly quite recent and include very few op-ed pieces. Most are straight reporting. Also included are articles from scholarly journals, regarded as among the best sources for topics like this. I don't see a signifcant diffrence between "far right" and "ultraconservative", but both terms have been used commonly for th JBS and both are included in the article. If someone has a good source for the difference between them we could include that. OTOH, if there are sources saying they are the same thing then we can probably drop the less -used term. But basically, if we have over three dozen reliable sources saying "X is Y" then our article should probably say "X is Y", unless there are equally good sources that dispute it. Otherwise we're replacing the mainstream views of reliable sources with our own judgements, which we all know is a form of orignal research.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is getting off topic and fails to discuss whether the two sources, which are from articles in academic journals, are reliable sources for the an article about the John Birch Society (JBS). They are in fact the only academic sources presented that describe the JBS as far right. My objection is that the articles are not about the JBS or the far right and the JBS is not described as far right in academic articles about the JBS or about the far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My problem is more with characterizations like "radical right" or "extremist" being in the lead, when there's nothing radical about the JBS and there's nothing extremist about being opposed to communism. "Far right" isn't terrible, but it shouldn't be the leading adjective. You can find plenty of other sources that use terms like "anticommunist", which is pretty much the whole raison d'etre of the organization. The problem with "far right" is that to some people it includes extreme groups who use violence, and some authors use the term "hard right" to distinguish from the "extreme right". While nobody doubts that the sources cited meet the minimum standards for RS, we should have a higher standard for the lead. If 10,000 articles were written about JBS over the years, and if only 30 use a certain adjective, that's not too compelling. We have to abide by WP:NPOV and not put the criticism section in the lead. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Genetic Genealogy

JOGG seems to be a zine for genealogy hobbyists, albeit with upmarket "academic" aspirations. As has been pointed out (JOGG was mentioned once before on this board, but not discussed), JOGG is an outlet for non-geneticists, and even non-scientists, to publish research that may not be acceptable to established scientific journals. (quote: "The main emphasis of this journal will be to present a forum for articles that may not be appropriate for other established genetics journals since they may be based on datasets in which a statistically random sample cannot be guaranteed (i.e. surname studies).") Further, only one person in their entire staff (Editor, Associate Editors and Editorial Board) has credentials in genetics. So, even though there is a "peer-review" system, JOGG is clearly a journal for hobbyists.

The quesion therefore is to what extent, and for what kind of material, could JOGG be considered a reliable source in subjects pertaining to genetics? What is acceptable to cite, or to quote, or to incorporate?

In particular, is the content of a research paper -- a primary source -- suitable for inclusion in a WP article when it is clearly original, i.e. not treated in any of the usual reliable academic sources, such as articles in high-impact journals by established experts? This goes beyond cases of WP:REDFLAG to apparently "reasonable" ideas which may not have been covered yet in the regular outlets, i.e. are in the nature of WP:OR with respect to the established literature. rudra (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is in no way a reliable source. The current editor is "a student at the Syracuse University College of Law where he is studying intellectual property law", with no background in genetics. The past editor was "a retired physicist" with the F.D.A.

The editorial board consists of

• "a retired engineering manager who earned his MBA in mid-career",
• "an attorney in private practice specializing in family law",
• "a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Illinois"
• a "Coordinator of Reference Services at the University of Houston M.D. Anderson Library" with a degree in law, and
• and someone who "received her undergraduate degree in biology in 1964 and her M.D. from Stanford University in 1970".

The associate editors are

• an economist with the World Health Organization with "a Ph.D and M.A. in economics from Clark University, MA, and a License-Doctorandus degree in economics from the Catholic University in Leuven (KUL, Belgium)."
• an "Associate Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science at Memorial University of Newfoundland", and
• a retired "research geneticist", the only person with a genetics education or profession.

It is a hobby journal, for non-geneticists who like to play geneticist on the internet. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So, citing (an article in) JOGG cannot save material from being WP:OR, because the requirements of proper attribution are not being met. That's basically what I wanted to confirm. Thanks. rudra (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I depends on the JOGG article. Some are really quite poor, while a few have been noted by geneticists. In all likelihood the current complaint somehow involves the recent pair of articles by Klyosov, which though of some value are overreaching and unreliable. It's fine to cite most JOGG articles for their samples and basic results, and ignore their conclusions. We do the same thing with many properly 'academic' conclusions/speculations in multi-authored peer-reviewed studies. Professional geneticists themselves tend to make uninformed conclusions on language spread, archaeological cultures, and peoples. DinDraithou (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right, and people put those uninformed conclusions in our articles and then argue that the journal article is a reliable source - which is true only to the extent the author is working within their area of expertise. I was waiting for someone to say that it depends on the article, that's what I've been told when I asked. User:Dougweller (talk)

Just to make sure it is not ignored, I have asked Doug below for examples of the JOGG being involved in such cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't just bad, it's worse. They do it for the attention (and possibly for the funding that attention might garner). This is an open secret. The effects have been singularly disastrous for the noxious mess posing as research on what R-M17 might have to do with Indo-European languages and/or "peoples". It has seriously compromised the integrity of academic research in India (where the barely concealed agenda now of all ostensible "research" is actually the seriously political business of "proving" that all Indians have been in India since time out of mind.) In fact, this entire "deep ancestry" field is a crock, a cottage industry founded on and sustained by geneticists pronouncing on subjects outside their competence (linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, sociology, ancient history, whatever.) None of this has been critiqued, because no secondary, evaluative literature exists. It's all primary source, and it's all blather. All the more reason to apply WP policies strictly and disallow marginal sources. rudra (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

JOGG really can't be cited for anything, not even "their samples and basic results". I suppose, if pushed, one could treat articles on it as self-published sources; that is to say, if a real geneticist published an article there, one could treat it as if he or she had published it on his or her blog. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's an extreme position. Personally I trust what they publish at JOGG more than I trust anyone associated with Oxford, e.g. Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes, also Spencer Wells. Their sort are the real problem. DinDraithou (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In a scientific context, a reliable source would have to show its contributors are established experts in that area, with appropriate academic publications and credentials, and/or citations by other scientific publications. They could also be journalists reviewing published scientific work. But in general, a source which consists of amateurs could not be used to present scientific information. Crum375 (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

While you may personally trust JOGG, that doesn't make it qualify in any way as a reliable source. That's not "extreme", it's just the way the WP:V policy works. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the WP:SPS exception, but it needs to be used sensibly. Klyosov has already been mentioned; that's a good case. He is a biochemist/molecular biologist, so depending on his specializations he could know plenty about genetics, but still he is not an established geneticist (i.e., it is not what he is known and noted for in the academic literature). Therefore, in JOGG he is jut another hobbyist, and to cite or use his material (on time depths of haplotype diversity) is some combination of WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and perhaps WP:REDFLAG. rudra (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not say I trust 'it', just not Oxford at the moment. Of course what you say about policy is right but you also need to need to have read an article or two from the journal to make sure 'they' are actually contradicting whatever it happens to be. I'm not getting that sense regularly. In fact many of the articles they publish are in unexplored areas, and can derive from the results of legitimate haplogroup projects under FTDNA and other companies, of which the authors are sometimes the managers and leaders. This is why we can generally trust their results but are safest ignoring any speculative conclusions, which again can be found anywhere. DinDraithou (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, you don't need to read any articles on the site, in order to ensure they are "contradicting" something. It is a hobby website produced by non-geneticists. Therefore we cannot "generally trust their results" regarding genetics; not their samples, results, conclusions, or anything else found on their website. WP:V and WP:RS are very clear about this. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason you do in fact need to look at and understand the specifics of cases like this is contained in your use of the words "non geneticists" and "genetics" as if these are clearly defined as the subject here. They aren't. The subject was nominally whether JOGG could be used in some specific passage rudra deleted. Are all aspects of all Wikipedia articles citing JOGG "genetics" and are the JOGG citations being made about "genetics", and is "genetics" a clearly defined term with a clearly defined way of saying who is an expert? As Rudra knows, most of the controversial aspects of the Wikipedia articles involved are controversial because they involve multi-disciplinary overlap with geneticists and other published folk making comments about linguistics, archaeology and yes, even genealogy. No one is claiming to be arguing for breaking Wikipedia policy. The details of the case ARE important. WP:RS states that "Proper sourcing always depends on context". Saying you can not use a source with a reputation for accuracy and an editorial process for anything at all seems to have no basis in any Wikipedia policy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

JOGG clearly fails our RS requirements and should be essentially treated as a self-published source. Further, the fact that it publishes papers not "appropriate for other established genetics journals" and in unexplored areas, raises WP:DUE concerns (if the relevant academic community hasn't made note of the research why should wikipedia give them any weight ?), and is another reason not to use it as a source. The only scenario in which I can imagine citing JOGG articles is if other reliable have cited them positively; in such a case the JOGG paper can be cited simply for convenience of the reader, in addition to the reliable source. Abecedare (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that JOGG should be considered for wikipedia purposes a self-published source. It is not a journal of geneticists, and is essentially a hobbyist's rag, no matter how well-meaning. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why I've gotten into this discussion, and am defending what I more often criticize. I've cited a JOGG article only once in Wikipedia and was wishing at the time that I had a better source. See Talk:Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)#Uí Néill if you can stand it when the occasional Wikipedian starts a discussion and rambles while unfortunately drunk. That said I defend my right to cite that paper because all I needed it for is M222 among the Connachta. DinDraithou (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This motion is based on a mixture of misunderstanding and very deliberate ill will by rudra, apparently with some support from other people interested in India-related articles. It is not justified. The JOGG is not an academic journal and does not claim to be, but academic journals are not the only type of reliable source. Marmaduke Percy is wrong to say that it is self-published. There is a board and an editorial process. If you look through the Wikipedia rules on these things, that is what is important. Is it respected? Yes. The JOGG has been referred to in more traditional academic journals, and the authors in JOGG correspond with and meet the academics and are respected by them. The role of non-academics in the field of understanding haplogroups is acknowledged in print by the academics, and indeed there is no way of denying that the "hobbyists" are leading the way in many aspects of the work being done. Population genetics as discussed in JOGG requires a few things: data, and understanding of statistics and certain other mathematical concepts. Some of the authors in JOGG such as Nordtvedt and Klyosov have superior mathematical skills than those normally found amongst geneticists. I note that none of the people in this discussion are generally people involved in working on articles in this field. The motion was moved by the latest of a myriad of Balkans versus India nationalist edit warriors with an axe to grind on R1a. A big part of the brand new strategy is to try to call the article my personal article, which it is not, and then to attack me personally, with Rudra creepily pretending that he is familiar with me off-wiki, which he is not, and referring to me as "just a genealogist" etc in a pseudo knowing way. (Who on earth is just a genealogist and why on earth would this need to be used as an argument?) See this. Attacking JOGG, where I have published, is clearly just one part of this. Rudra also uses his anonymity to carefully pretend he is qualified in this field which his edits and remarks on R1a show he is not. This whole discussion makes no sense if it is being led and managed by a group of edit warriors. I would not have heard about it if Doug Weller had not told me and I presume all other active editors in this area are also not aware of it. Any agreement reached here semi-secretly can and will be ignored. Is the JOGG important for Wikipedia? Yes. For anyone who cares about the quality of Wikipedia I think it is important to understand that one of the biggest challenges in getting good genetics haplogroup articles is the lack of any academic secondary literature. If we were to restrict all citations to articles already mentioned in secondary literature we would have to get rid of this whole field from Wikipedia because it would mean making articles based on information 10 years out of date. All people who know something of the field understand this. The JOGG does at least partly fill this role. It is also in many ways more neutral than the papers by the professionals with all their old articles to defend, BECAUSE it is written by educated and experienced non professionals. OTOH Rudra's accusations above concerning the "open secret" should be explained by him please. He is throwing nasty accusations all over the place without ever justifying them. What on earth is he talking about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(Apropos "See this": the thread is now archived here. Full text search for "genealogist" recommended.) rudra (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's a hobby website, written by non-experts in the field, whose "main emphasis... will be to present a forum for articles that may not be appropriate for other established genetics journals". A website on astrophysics could also have a very rigorous editorial process, but if those reviewing the submissions happened to be chiropractors and accountants, then it would also not qualify as a reliable source. What you describe as "the lack of any academic secondary literature" on the topics in question is what Wikipedia would view as a red flag. And while you may view non-professionals as "more neutral than... professionals with all their old articles to defend", Wikipedia generally views them as fringe. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayg, with all due respect, you are answering based on theory, not knowledge of the journal or the field nor the editing disputes which are behind this proposal. Even normal newspapers can be cited in some scientific articles, for certain types of information and they often are. For this reason alone, making broad theoretical generalizations is useless. And of course this is exactly why people post their complaints about sources here sometimes BEFORE trying to discuss it on article talkpages - they hope to create enough confusion to make it look like there is an official command to favor their edits. But the normal approach is to first try to work with fellow editors to resolve concerns. Rudra should do that instead of wikilawyering.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster is correct that some of us participating in this discussion don't contribute to literature in the field. He is also correct, in my judgment, that some of the edit warring has descended into personal attacks, to which I have objected on the appropriate talk pages. But just because some editors don't contribute to journals in the field doesn't preclude us from taking part in this conversation. I have no credentials as a geneticist, but I do have some idea of assessing reliable sources. In the case of Klyosov, for instance, some of the more pseudo-nationalist claims in his work bother me. As do some of the same sorts of biases in other work that appears in JOGG. I am sure that there are good reasons both for and against considering JOGG a reliable source, and I am glad that the discussion has been opened here. And once again, I would ask editors to refrain from making personal attacks on other editors, which are unhelpful in trying to reach a concensus. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Which "personal attacks on other editors" are you referring to? Also, consensus has already been reached on this source. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant reaching a consensus in the various genetics-related pieces, not this discussion. As far as personal attacks, I was referring to some of the edit warring in the R1a1 piece. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm. Wouldn't the fact that nearly everything Rudra has written on any talk page about this subject is obsessively written about me personally, including insinuations that the JOGG is written by people who are part of a plot or out to make money, not raise any warning signals about this being a slightly suspect proposal? I'd say if people write like that they should be ignored unless they make their insinuated accusations very clear. As far as I can see this whole proposal is only part of an attempt to do a character assassination based on the incredibly stupid argument that someone who does genealogy has no credibility. Rudra knows everything he knows about R1a due to Wikipedia, and what he has learnt very recently due to his interest in Indian related matters.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(Clarification: This is the third time I'm linking to something that explains what for the second time I'm calling an "open secret". Up-thread here, the context was DinDraithou's remark that "Professional geneticists themselves tend to make uninformed conclusions on language spread, archaeological cultures, and peoples." on which I commented that "It isn't just bad, it's worse. They do it for the attention (and possibly for the funding that attention might garner)." The link, which explains this, is to a post on the IER mailing list. Another link would be to this search in that list, which finds more posts on that theme - viz. some geneticists are playing very fast and loose with ideas and issues of which they may know little beyond the sound-bite value.) rudra (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the relevance of these internet discussions to this discussion about JOGG please? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(Some amount of topic drift and tangential commentary is normal in threaded discussion. It only gets out of hand when lazy readers fail to heed context or to follow any links provided, and instead launch immediately into dramatic escalation with words like "insinuate" and nasty accusations in bold, and demand explanations. But, let no one answer, lest relevance be the next complaint!) rudra (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So you posted something other than insinuations and vague accusations? Anyway, as they dominate the whole discussion they already are relevant, because you made it so from your opening lines about people who desire to be "upmarket" and academics. Or is that something relevant to Wikipedia policies? It seems to me that you choose the words of opening lines in a formal complaint with care. And if you continually repeat and even defend this style as your main "argument" then saying it is an accidental aside seems very unconvincing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

JOGG is only the tip of an iceberg. There is a serious degree of WP:PRIMARY policy non-compliance in the "haplogroup" articles such as the one on R1a. Some idea of the impedance mismatch at work can be had from trying to reconcile the ease with which consensus was achieved on this board about JOGG with the fact that using a source like JOGG is routine in these articles, nary a second thought, i.e. that clearly a very different consensus is operant among the active editors of those articles. While this is a subject better suited to the WP:NORN board, Andrew Lancaster's diatribe can be put in context by simply comparing the article as I found it a few days ago and the result of my partial cleanup. That enormous bibliography of WP:PRIMARY material is a smoking gun I've left alone. rudra (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

While I happen to agree with you about JOGG, I disagree with you about editor Andrew Lancaster. He is a hardworking wikipedia editor, and I believe his edits are made in good faith. Both he and you are, in my opinion, doing your best to make the R1a article an exemplary piece. Ben Bradlee of The Washington Post used to routinely send out two reporters to cover a story – in the belief that two competitors would come up with a better article. That's how I view the two of you. If you could stop the personal attacks and work with each other, you'd go far to making this a better piece. You may disagree on sourcing. That can be worked out. But you're both smart and making valuable contributions. I hope you can see that at some point. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have it wrong. I'm a generalist, I have no specific abiding interest in haplogroups, and it isn't a specific concern of mine that the R1a article in particular become exemplary. I simply ran across some problems and tried to fix them. (Anyone who thinks I'm actually a troll can undo this diff and revert to the status quo ante, though merging this diff in the process would be a courtesy.) The problem in "working out" things, like sourcing, with Andrew Lancaster is that the choices necessarily are either to accept the deeply irrational or to escalate. What could be rationally worked out with someone who insists that 21-2/3 West Bengal Brahmins testing positive for R1a1a is a "formatting error" that needs to be treated with a "neutral point of view"? What could be rationally worked out with someone who insists that a journal with an impact factor ranked 74th out of 138 in its field is "major"? This sort of thing just goes on and on. Working on the R1a article has uncovered the deeper problem of WP:PRIMARY policy noncompliance. Maybe I should be escalating this to the WP:NORN board (as the R1a article isn't the only case), or maybe I should be letting this all go and leaving the Andrew Lancasters alone to play in their sandlots of choice. I don't know. rudra (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncovered? Again this obsessive need to talk in terms of plots and me personally! I am kind of flattered. Look, you have come to this whole subject from debates to do with Indian nationalism and frankly it is tainting your judgment. Your aggression is uncalled for and your efforts to avoid things that might impact Indian related discussions are twisting the R1a article so that no longer reflects what people who know this field would consider balanced. The problem of relying on primary sources in this field is just reality and something you have read me pointing out over and over as part of the problem which we Wikipedians should be working on constructively together. Your new insinuation that it is impossible to talk to me is not borne out by any facts. You entered the R1a talk page with personal attacks and personal attacks only, after clearly having spent some time researching me personally in order to do this. Only on Dbachmann's talkpage (an admin you respect) have you bothered to give meaningful discussion. I challenge Rudra to try WP:AGF discussion with fellow editors and consensus seeking and see if it works. Quite honestly, I would welcome it, and my discussions with good faith editors tend to be fast. I have long ago proposed removing the exact figures from Sharma but you never replied in good faith. I have also not intervened yet in your editing, in order to give you a chance to make your proposals in terms of real edits. (They are better than I expected, but I do evnetually to propose some changes.) Concerning the R1a data article you admitted to Dbachmann that removing all Sharma reference raises fine points of Wikipedia policy. BTW, thank you for calling yourself a generalist. How about calling me one too and quitting with the "just a genealogist" smokescreen?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(Implosions are painful to watch.) rudra (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As Andrew says, any consensus reached here can and will be ignored by editors familiar with the material. I plan to. And I have respect for everyone here, but I think this discussion will prove of no consequence. Clearly it is not supposed to be about JOGG, which has not been the source of the problems. I do not think it is a proper soft target as it is better defended than may appear at first glance. DinDraithou (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

'Better defended,' in what sense? MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

DinDraithou, ignoring the consensus here is disruptive, with all that implies. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Because this discussion is effectively an attempt to avoid using the R1a article's talkpage (because Rudra is scared of being slowed down by disagreements) people interested in this case should consider for example this older discussion on that article's talkpage, in which a larger cross section of active wikipedians who work in this area made comment. This was not about JOGG as such but about perhaps the most controversial JOGG source being used in the current article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I invite people participating in this discussion to try a Google "Scholar" search for better known JOGG articles. I just tried an obvious example using keywords "Athey", "Haplogroup", "prediction". To see the JOGG itself discussed in an academic peer reviewed article, indeed a rare case of a secondary style article, see King; Jobling (2009), "What's in a name? Y chromosomes, surnames and the genetic genealogy revolution", Trends in Genetics, 25 (8): 351–360, doi:10.1016/j.tig.2009.06.003 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). Also here. The article specifically states that the JOGG and genetic hobbyists are now cite-able amongst academics and are knowledgeable and respected. Comments please.

By the way, I understand that amateur astronomers are often making cite-able discoveries too, although I am not an expert in this. If the only argument left is some sort of "qualifications" argument, I am sure this will be ignored. Wikipedia is not a technocratic elite or club with membership rules.

One last point in order not to allow the screwy context of this whole discussion to create infinite misunderstandings: I personally use JOGG as a reference very sparingly, when I know that avoiding it would mean making Wikipedia very out-of-date or very imbalanced compared to what is understood by people who know the field as a whole (which does include JOGG, and authors like Anatole Klyosov, whose letter regarding a paper by a group of well known academics was published and replied to in a major journal). I believe other responsible editors in this area do the same and we all see as a something to do carefully. Rudra has a right to question the "fine points" of such judgements, but such discussions should be on article talkpages. The current proposal is an attempt to avoid normal consensus building discussions, nothing more.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(The correct form of the suggested search in Google Scholar is not this. It is this, or perhaps this. Also of interest may be this and this.) rudra (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(JOGG is mentioned twice in the King-Jobling article, both times on p.8. First, in the text:

Genetic genealogy enthusiasts often display an impressive level of knowledge about aspects of molecular evolution, population genetics and statistics; some of this is evinced in the quarterly online Journal of Genetic Genealogy (www.jogg.info). Although it lacks the standard scientific peer-review system of traditional journals, it is nonetheless attracting academic geneticists among its authors and is an interesting model for public involvement in scientific publication. Other resources for genetic genealogy are listed in Box 3. Thanks to the advances in DNA technology and the power of the internet, genetics is now joining astronomy as a science in which amateurs can make useful discoveries."

and then in Box 3:

The Journal of Genetic Genealogy (www.jogg.info; also see main text) publishes articles on individual surname studies, new methods of analysis, insights into mutation rates, geographic patterns in genetic data and information that helps to characterize haplogroups.

Box 3 also has this:

Wikipedia’s pages on Y haplogroups (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroups) provide up-to-date information on specific Y lineages [...]

which may explain a "need" for an agenda.) rudra (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Rudra, is there meant to be an accusation amongst the cherry-picking in that last bit? Why do your postings always seem to be filled vague unclear accusations? Be brave. Make your accusations clear and loud please. State your claim, make your case or else do not make irrelevant side remarks. When asking User:Dbachmann to block me for disagreeing with you for example, you boldly pointed out that I have a genealogy webpage as the main part of your case. What other great arguments have you got? The facts of the matter are obviously that JOGG (and ISOGG also) has a reputation for fact checking, an editorial review process, and is widely cited in the academic peer-reviewed press on a number of subjects. The term "hobbyist" is being used in an undefined way for rhetorical effect in this discussion, as if it has a clearly defined Wikipedia policy implication, which it does not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia policy is meant to be guiding us then the words framing discussion so far such as "hobbyist" have no relevant meaning, but this quote which was not included by Rudra does seem important:-

Thanks to the advances in DNA technology and the power of the internet, genetics is now joining astronomy as a science in which amateurs can make useful discoveries.

So we have academics citing JOGG articles often, calling the work "hobbyists" do well-informed and useful, referring to them making discoveries which they keep track of and cite, using their "hobbyist" databases and citing them, citing their society website (www.isogg.org) as their best reference point for SNP phylogeny... We also see that the JOGG is respected for fact checking and has an editorial process. Aren't these the kinds of things Wikipedia policy asks us to check for? All boxes are ticked and simply ignoring such Wikipedia relevant facts and being sucked in by policy-irrelevant, vague insinuations such as "genealogy hobbyists, albeit with upmarket "academic" aspirations" (opening line of this whole proposal) would make a mockery of this board.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Something I forgot to mention. Currently nearly all academic articles and also most Wikipedians including Rudra use the ISOGG website as their references for up to date Y haplogroup phylogenies. ISOGG is the International Society for Genetic Genealogy - "hobbyists" in the mainstream again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the extreme abstract generalizing tendency in the new sub-section below, I see another point which might need covering. All RS discussions on this board should consider not only whether a source is reliable in a simple sense, but what in particular it is reliable or unreliable for. Nearly any source can be reliable for something. All too often people post here ignoring this. There are several problems in this case:-

1. Rudra recently spent a lot of time cutting out material he did not like from R1a. Specifically, he changed the opening lines quite a lot. This shows that he agrees with what it says concerning R1a being a subject in both "human population genetics and genetic genealogy", two different inter-related fields. The Journal of Genetic Genealogy is surely a good source for the latter, and just to remind, I have given academic geneticist sources which acknowledge its importance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Rudra seemed to state his case in a correct way in the sense of specifically asking what the JOGG might be good for or not good for, not just asking for blanket dismissal. However, with respect to this his description of what he thinks the JOGG might not be good for citing (something which the deleted material apparently did contain) is extremely vague.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So much for consensus

To demonstrate that the regular editors of the haplogroup articles mean what they say - that consensus on this board regarding JOGG counts for squat: an edit reintroducing deleted material based on not one but two JOGG articles (Klyosov has already been mentioned; Gwozdz is a retired professor of engineering.) rudra (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This board is where decisions are made regarding which sources are reliable, and involved editors cannot ignore the consensus here. If disruptive behavior continues, the next step is to take the offending parties to AN/I. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Any admin here who ignores Andrew's last few posts in this discussion and decides to harass him or me or any other editors for citing a JOGG paper appropriately will find himself or herself in trouble. But before that, a problem is that you're the only one really saying there is a consensus here, Jayjg, and you're only one admin. There may be others who agree with you but you hardly have a consensus. Just posting yourself again and again does not produce one. DinDraithou (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In trouble? How do you plan to carry out this threat? Polices such as this cannot be overruled by a consensus on a talk page, that should be obvious. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What policy? Did you read what Andrew found and posted? We won but you missed it.

Is a response to a threat a threat? Jayjg has gone power tripping because Andrew and I don't recognize his 'consensus', which he has clearly has some pride in. If he tries to follow through he'll end up looking small, and if he continues without background, worse than small: aberrant and bad for WP. You don't just get to beat up specialist contributors. DinDraithou (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Background? The only background he needs is an understanding of our policies and guidelines. No matter how expert someone is, that doesn't make them an authority as to what meets with our policies and guidelines. I'm not sure what you mean by beating up specialist contributors but specialists have no particularly privileges and get blocked and banned when necessary. And saying that a paper or a journal is not a reliable source is clearly not harassment. I'm not speaking as an Admin here, by the way, just as an experienced editor (well, I guess being an Admin has given me experience also). Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be loosing sight of the basics of this case.

• There was and is no consensus in this discussion. In other words this whole new track of discussion, taking us away from the real subject, is based on something which does not exist.
• The title of this sub-section implies that my new insertion of JOGG sourced material is simply a revert. It is not. I think this counts for something unless JOGG is simply being called unreliable for all possible sourcing? (But then again, as discussed above, there has been no serious attempt here to argue in detail what the JOGG can and can't be reliable for, presumably in the hope that this discussion can be cited as a kind of blanket ban.)
• Quoting policies and guidelines is easy. Applying them is more complicated. When people deny that an obviously complex case is complex this should be a warning signal.
• Consensus is not Rudra's priority and his posting here is cynically hypocritical! Note his behavior on R1a's talk page. Rudra started this new section to claim that edits were being made on the R1a article without taking note of what is agreed here. Putting aside the lack of clear agreement in this discussion, rudra consistently and openly ignores consensus, because he sees it as below him, and did not wait for any discussion in this case either. WP:BRD. This selective puritanism is a recurring theme in his wikilawyering. Why does there need to be a special section heading to discuss it? Looks like a deliberate diversion to me.
• In response to Doug's comment that this discussion can not be accused of being related to harassment, wikilawyering can be part of a bigger pattern of edits and talk pages postings which could qualify as tendentious editing. You'd need to look at the background in order to judge it. You can't pass judgment by looking at one fact in isolation in something like that.
• Because Rudra called this discussion without warning other involved editors and posted deliberately misleading explanations, anyone citing its conclusions in the future will not convince anyone. That's the reality of how Wikipedia works, not a threat. There'd need to be a better discussion.
• Most importantly, as Din points out some pretty strong arguments have been posted (just above where a new section was started, I wonder why?) and not replied to. All boxes are ticked (all concerns posted at first are answered) given the postings I made once I had time.

At the very least the case remains open. I tend to agree with Din though that the case is looking closed. In any case I would strongly suggest that discussion, if it is to be meaningful, should continue in the main section above and should not ignore the points made.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you've widened my comments beyond what I was talking about. The Haplogroup articles are a mess though and it is hard to wade through that mess. A big part of the mess is the use of sources. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Doug, JOGG is however not the problem, and R1a is not the best example of what you are referring to (any more). Many haplogroup articles cite discussion forums and personal webpages. If we clean that up, then your impression might be different. What's the biggest thing stopping us? The biggest thing stopping us is that for every article which is brought up to a less bad level, there are dozens of these types of single issue attacks which soak up enormous time and energy, for very little gain. Picking on the JOGG is misplaced. Discussions about JOGG sourcing should be about due weighting for specific areas, and not about trying to get it on some black list. Din's reaction might have been harsh but like me he is reading this discussion as an attempt to "win" a little battle by effectively black listing a source which is being used sparingly and reasonably in most real cases - and discussion should be about real cases and specifics in my opinion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Andrew, it's not enough for you and DinDraithou to agree to get a consensus. Your problem is that nobody (or hardly anybody) else is areeing with you. Hans Adler 11:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hans, I agree. I did not declare a consensus. I said there is none.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hans and Doug do either of you have any clear case where JOGG is to blame for the quality of any haplogroup (or similar) article being poor? What I can say with a high level of confidence is that Rudra himself knows that the need to use primary sources of ANY kind is the more general problem in many scientific areas. JOGG is just one example of many sources in this field, and it is not especially filled with primary research, so it is actually helpful in many cases. The only concrete example which Rudra has argued against in any detail, as part of the same session of activity he is having on R1a, was from an academic peer reviewed journal, not JOGG. Frankly it looks like he is going for a consolation prize. As far as I can see the appropriate behavior in all such cases is concrete and constructive discussion about due weight, and not trying to get around this by trying to get whole sources black listed. It is obvious to everyone who knows this stuff surely, that the big difference between this scientific field and, say, subatomic physics, is only one thing: the number of interested parties who drop by and get passionate. On User:Dbachmann's talk page Rudra has called my approach to this in haplogroup articles "naive inclusionist". That is not entirely wrong, except that it is not naive but very much something considered and tried out. He knows that many people working in this area think my approach has worked on a couple of articles so far, not necessarily to polish articles up to perfection, but to make them a workable and stable base for better editing. (Would Rudra have even touched the R1a article 6 months ago?) That's the real subject behind this discussion here as far as I can see. Ignoring that we are all really thinking about these things is leading to confusion. The JOGG is not the problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not JOGG is a reliable source depends on what point / wording you are trying to use it to support. It is not a black and white issue. If its conclusions are contradicted by more reliable sources than of course the more reliable sources are preferred.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please review the discussion in the main section. A JOGG article prima facie is not WP:RS. If it can't be excepted by WP:SPS, then it is, at best, WP:OR. Your statement thus amounts to: we should allow WP:OR until and unless some WP:RS contradicts it. Is that what you really meant to say? rudra (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly not a self published source. That is nonsense, and seems to indicate that you've read nothing posted in reply to you above. Is this your new accusation now? Originally the argument was apparently that the editorial board were not specialized in the right academic field for something. Having an editorial board kind of doesn't fit with being self-published does it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The WP:SPS exception pertains to articles in JOGG by established experts on topics within their field of expertise. Recognized geneticists are not precluded from publishing articles on genetics in JOGG, and if they do, such articles may qualify as WP:RS. That is the meaning of the WP:SPS "exception". rudra (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No exception is required. JOGG meets the requirements of a reliable source. It has a "reputation for checking the facts" and it has "editorial oversight". In the above main body of this discussion I have given citation from outside JOGG which mention JOGG to this effect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is correctly put, and pretty much describes the position being argued against by Rudra.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear here; all the editors who are uninvolved in this dispute, namely User:Dougweller, User:Crum375,User:Abecedare, User:MarmadukePercy, and I, agree that JOGG is not a WP:RS. The reasons why are obvious, as have been outlined above. User:Andrew Lancaster, you are correct: "JOGG is not the problem". JOGG is merely a hobby journal, and obviously not useable as a source on Wikipedia. The problem is with editors who insist on ignoring both policy, and that clear and obvious consensus. And User:Andrew Lancaster, if you make any future comments, restrict them solely to discussions of JOGG and exactly how it does or doesn't comply with the WP:V policy and WP:RS guideline. Do not discuss other editors, or even the state of various articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, no one is arguing the case for "ignoring policy". The application of policy is a subject of disagreement here. I also did not start a sub-section for diversionary discussion about other editors, and indeed this is a bad thing. But I responded to those diversionary accusations in this sub-section created by rudra. I am moreover concerned that he is presenting incorrect information and people are not checking it at all, and I think I may mention such concerns because they are relevant? Anyway: In the main section above I have laid out answers to all concerns and no one has commented or responded. If these explanations are simply ignored then how seriously can this discussion be taken? I also think it is relevant to point out that User:Abecedare is clearly someone who collaborates a lot with rudra and has come along to support him, User:Dougweller has been involved in JOGG discussions with DinDraithou before, and User:MarmadukePercy is also an involved editor whose position is also not as clear as you say (see above). Whether he realized the terms he was quoting back to rudra have specific Wikipedia definitions is unclear, and also whether he thinks the JOGG should be used is unclear. One of his major points was about the use of personal attack distorting discussion. You also ignored the posting of User:Jmh649 which was more in agreement with my position. My summary then, would be that there is no clear consensus and not even any real clear discussion. The discussion has been made deliberately confused and rushed in order to try to use this board as a kind of rubber stamp for edits rudra wants. Very few of the people here are really neutral, and those who are really must read beyond the inflammatory opening assault of rudra, who is making false claims pure and simple. Here is the background to Rudra opening a case here. As far as I can see, Rudra is basically a troll in this matter, and ignorant of the material and individuals he is making false accusations about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, your remarks were mostly about other editors. Please re-factor them, removing all references to other editors, and try again. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, this SUB-thread is based on accusations by editors about editors, starting with its title, and I was responding to postings by others. I think that was justified given that the accusations obviously ARE having a major impact on how this whole case is being read, and indeed form the main body of the case against this source. Anyway the MAIN thread is above (or I have proposed a cleaner start below if anyone wants to respond there) and contains answers to concerns raised which can be discussed further if there are still doubts. Surely this thread does not need to be doubled and tripled by re-posting the same material over and over. In summary though, the JOGG has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, and is widely cited as a reliable source within expert literature relevant to the citations under discussion - including peer-reviewed academic literature. Above I had shown this some time ago, with a google scholar search and a reference from a review article. These two things seemed enough to get more realistic discussion, but none has been forthcoming so far, and above I am waiting to answer any questions. Secondly I have stated that the JOGG is not being used to trump superior sources or make controversial citations, and I have asked for discussion about any examples if this is a concern. Again, I wait for any replies on that. Please do browse through the discussions above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW I see that above you asked Marmaduke Percy why he felt it necessary to refer to personal attacks in this discussion. You should read the talk page reference I have just given, which MP knows to be the background to this whole discussion. It is pure troll, and troll has a clear Wikipedia meaning. I checked before using the term.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, your remarks were again mostly about other editors. Please re-factor them, removing all references to other editors, and try again. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In terms of Wikipedia policy please?

There is a lot of confusion here because from the opening shots emotive words and cynical insinuations were being made, without any relevant reference to Wikipedia policy. (On the article talk page, Rudra himself has used only indecent personal attack to make it absolutely clear that his basic guiding policy concerning these genetics articles he hates is his personal common sense and screw everyone else. I would presume the people here who think they agree with him are not condoning that.) I believe it is actually not really clear what Rudra's argument is in terms of Wikipedia policies, and whether anyone who thinks they agree with him really does. So:-

Are we therefore agreed that the following are the basic policies relevant here are as follows?

• Does the source have a reputation for accuracy amongst experts in fields where it is being used as a source?
• Does the source have some sort of editorial fact-checking process in contrast to being self-published?
• Is the source being given undue weight in order to make claims in conflict with the highest regarded and most mainstream views in the areas involved?

Comments please on whether these are the relevant policies and what the answers to the three questions are. I say yes-yes-no. Strangely no one amongst those claiming to have considered the case and agreed with Rudra has addressed any of these three questions (neither, of course, has Rudra) which are based simply on Wikipedia policies. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone here is reminding me of Zahi Hawass (the Magnificent One),[44] that great defender of Egypt against the evil forces of Set. DinDraithou (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Arguing until interlocutors give up appears to be a familiar technique. rudra (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the subject me?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(Quoth a sage, "If the shoe fits...") rudra (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, if you are saying that the discussion is waiting for me to reply to points, then with all due respect I think there is a misunderstanding. The very first discussion started before I knew about it and rushed ahead based entirely on the basis of the claims being made by one Wikipedian, which I have argued to be problematic; BUT since I found the time to post a reasonably detailed response to what I think are all relevant concerns, there has been virtually no further discussion about the subject (the source, the policies). Please see the first section above. As far as I can tell right now, nobody except the original creator of this thread has even read my more substantial replies due to the opening of an off-topic sub-section (by the same person) right underneath those key postings soon after they were made. I remain open to discussion if my initial postings have in any way failed to cover all points relevant to the subject. But I can not mind read. Can I ask you to please read what I posted above in the first section and let me know what you think? If you want me to report a nicer formatted version (rather than the several sequential postings I made above), for example, I can do it if that is what you really want.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-factoring of responses to initial posting

User:Jayjg has requested a re-factoring and with big reservations I shall do so. I believe all of the following repeats points already made. I hope I will not receive a WP:TLDNR response! :)

1. The terms of the initial "question". Actually the "question" was posted in a way which defined conclusions already in its terms. But these premises (which, as he explained to DinDraithou, were accepted by Jayjg without further checking of any examples) were quite questionable, and this needs to be discussed if this message board is to fulfill its function properly. There should be two things considered in any RS discussion: the nature of the source, and what it is being cited for. Reference will be made in a few places to a useful journal article:-

• King; Jobling (2009), "What's in a name? Y chromosomes, surnames and the genetic genealogy revolution", Trends in Genetics, 25 (8): 351–360, doi:10.1016/j.tig.2009.06.003 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). Also here.

1a. The nature of the JOGG. In effect, the key concern raised was the expertise and recognition of the authors who write in the JOGG. It was claimed in the first sentence that JOGG is for "genealogy hobbyists", and specifically for ones with "upmarket "academic" aspirations". It was implied that the journal was deliberately set up to allow people publish things in a field they have no knowledge in. This is incorrect for several reasons:

• The accusation that the authors and editors of the journal aspire to be something other than what they are is not justified by anything cited and appears to be personal speculation by a Wikipedian.
• The accusation that the JOGG is a way to get published in a field where an author is not qualified also appears to be personal speculation by a Wikipedian. In order to make this accusation a passage was cited which simply stated that the JOGG aims to fill a gap not currently being filled, quite a normal aim for any journal. Any fair reading of the facts shows that the JOGG aims to have its own specializations and strengths.
• The knock-on implication that the authors are not knowledgeable or recognized in the subjects they write about, or more importantly for which they are being cited on Wikipedia, is also apparently personal speculation by a Wikipedian. Here is the google search I suggested for showing a JOGG article being widely cited, and not only by fellow JOGG authors: [45].
• (Note the central importance of the term "hobbyist" in all discussion here so far. The term is part of the first sentence and is then repeated by Jayjg as apparently the key part of his understanding of what is supposed to be relevant to the discussion (i.e. hobbyists contrasted to geneticists). The term is correct only if it means "not a tenured academic in genetics". But the key point for Wikipedia is concerning whether a person is verifiably a respected and knowledgeable source, and Jayjg clearly seems to think based on the wording of the opening that this is how the word can be understood in this case. It is unfortunate that this term is being used in such a central way instead of clear ones.)
• The journal's obvious association is with genetic genealogy and genetic genealogy really is distinct from genealogy. Nevertheless the word genealogy and genealogist have been used and dwelt upon as if it were an argument in itself in both this forum and in other places on Wikipedia, by the proposing party. In reality, one person can be expert in both, or only one of the two, and they can also be expert in other fields. Indeed, of course genealogists are rarely only genealogists. This raises a few issues for the claim being made:-

• In the peer-reviewed journal I brought into discussion, two top population geneticists note that the JOGG is "attracting academic geneticists among its authors".
• The second question is whether being an expert "genetic genealogist" is not on its own something that can potentially make one cite-able for. This has not even been considered, and I have struggled to try to get it considered, simply because of the way the question was framed here in the first place by wrongly stating that this is all about people deliberately finding a way to get published outside an area they know about. It isn't.
• That genetic genealogy is cite-able within population genetics is clear not only in the cases cited above, but also in the use of the ISOGG website as the standard citation for SNP phylogeny updates. (In fact, SNP phylogeny discoveries are now mainly coming from genetic genealogy, and being passed to population genetics, not the other way around. I know of no official source keeping score but I think my judgment is not particularly controversial and I mention as something that might be of interest. This balance has swung this way only within the last year or so.)

1b. What is being cited, what may be cited, what may not. While the initial posting used specific words to describe the suspected aspirations of JOGG contributors and editors, it was not so clear about what was being cited in Wikipedia from the JOGG, and this is essential to any meaningful discussion. While stating that he had not checked any examples, Jayjg however clearly understands that what is being cited from JOGG is "genetics" and he refers to the unreliability of the "samples" and "results" he presumes are being cited in Wikipedia.

• The subjects where JOGG is being cited in Wikipedia are normally described as "population genetics" and "genetic genealogy".
• Both these quite new fields obviously feed from genetics as a source technology, but neither are simply "genetics". We are not talking about lab testing, interpretation of lab results, interpretation of mutations themselves, etc.
• A specific characteristic of both these fields is how multi-disciplinary they are.
• Major population genetics articles for example have always had a strong tradition of included non-geneticists amongst their most important authors, and of being published in books and journals which are not about genetics.
• The JOGG is not being used to cite anything concerning "genetics" as such, but rather in the multi-disciplinary and specific genetic genealogy areas where it is strongest.
• The basic know-how needed in both fields is quite generalist (the ability to draw upon linguistics, archeology, medieval records etc) with the most technical aspect clearly being an understanding of the statistical analysis of dynamic systems, which is precisely what many of the JOGG editors and contributors have. This explains why physicists, chemists and engineers are making such an impact.
• The quality of some academic peer-reviewed population genetics articles have often rightfully been criticized on Wikipedia and in other forums, a problem coming from this need for multi-disciplinary thinking. But surprisingly perhaps, the JOGG is actually not the source of much controversy when it comes to controversial claims.

2. Excessive discussion of other subjects. Examination will show that a large part of the discussion both leading up to this proposal, and once it was made, are not about the JOGG at all, but about population genetics articles, which the proposing party has strong feelings about. In response to having this pointed out the proposing party has claimed that "Some amount of topic drift and tangential commentary is normal in threaded discussion". One hopes that it is recognized as tangential, because it dominates all discussion.

3. The Wikipedia policies on reliable sourcing are clear. They ask us to check whether a source has an reputation for being knowledgeable, for fact checking, and some sort of editorial process that goes beyond self-publication. All these conditions are met, and although I have asked for any questions on this there seems to be no disagreement about that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You've made some good points, Andrew. I suppose here is where I draw the line (and I'm no geneticist). If, for instance, a contributor to JOGG were writing about a particular family, for instance, and the reference supported an assertion in a piece about the family of President John Adams, for instance (just a made-up example), then I would be inclined to say that a journal of genetic genealogy study of the Adams family Y-Dna markers would be relevant and appropriate. In such an instance, the JOGG cite would be a crossover of genealogy and genetics. On the other hand, given what I've seen of some JOGG entries relating to the field of genetics as a whole, I think the quality of the work ranges from very good to dismal. I've been troubled by some of the more pseudo-nationalistic assumptions in some of the pieces. So I do agree with you that in certain instances, like, for instance, the Adams family case I raised, JOGG might be an appropriate resource. But for the general genetics field, I have been less than impressed by the consistency of the journal's entries. Just my two cents, but thanks for your thoughtful post. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the positive, directly verifiable evidence provided:

• On the King-Jobling article, Trends in Genetics 25(8), 351-360

• Claim (here): "The article specifically states that the JOGG and genetic hobbyists are now cite-able amongst academics and are knowledgeable and respected."

• The article does not specifically state cite-ability. It acknowledges that amateurs can be knowledgeable and contribute discoveries (the "astronomy model"). (The full text is available in a quote-box up-thread.)
• User:Abecedare had already anticipated this: "The only scenario in which I can imagine citing JOGG articles is if other reliable have cited them positively; in such a case the JOGG paper can be cited simply for convenience of the reader, in addition to the reliable source."
• Wikipedia cannot be the one to identify the knowledgeable amateurs, and there is no implication, let alone guarantee, that amateurs publishing in JOGG are ipso facto knowledgeable. (Besides, it is not Wikipedia's brief to identify the amateurs' discoveries either. They could just as easily be WP:REDFLAG items. This again raises the wider issue of the proper treatment of primary sources.)
• Note also that King-Jobling discount JOGG's peer-review system ("lacks the standard scientific peer-review system of traditional journals"). This is not favorable to a reputation for fact checking.
• The "WP:SPS exception" has also been already noted: that articles in JOGG by established academics in their own field may be acceptable as reliable, but do not thereby make JOGG a reliable source.

• Claim (here): the article is by "two top population geneticists".

• Two? Professor Mark Jobling is well known. Dr Turi King is a Research Associate. (U of Leicester, Dept of Genetics, Faculty listing). Was the puffery necessary? (Or was it a demonstration of familiarity with the field?)

• Comment: The article has good things to say about JOGG, but one swallow does not a summer make.

• On searching Google Scholar with the terms "Athey", "prediction" and "haplogroup".

• Claim (here): "an obvious example" of "better known JOGG articles".
• Claim (here): this is the search to perform for "a JOGG article being widely cited, and not only by fellow JOGG authors".

• The search specification in the link provided is incorrect. It fails to account for Google's relevance ranking algorithms in the presentation of results ("one page of hits does not a conclusion make") and, quite fundamentally, for false positives, stemming from the fact that the default combination of multiple search terms is a logical OR, not a logical AND.
• The correct search is this. And, for the sake of argument, this might actually be more favorable.
• Among the hits for Athey's predictor is this peer-reviewed article. IOW, caveat emptor.

• Comment. How does JOGG itself fare on Google scholar?

• This and this give some indication. Note that quite a few "Cited by" links lead to effective self-citations.

• Summary. The positive evidentiary claims are overblown. JOGG is not unknown, is clearly well-meaning and serious about being academic (or professional) in approach, but falls short of the requirements of WP:RS. rudra (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to find anything relevant to Wikipedia policy above, and so I will not lengthen the discussion by going through all the evidence being offered which effectively comes down to the term "overblown" which is itself a relative word. The basic claim that JOGG is cited by experts, respected, has a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and editorial oversight, are not being addressed and appear to be accepted "with reservations". In summary the reservations made in reply to my re-factored posting are now the same as made by me, DinDraithou, Dougweller, and Doc James, that whether use of the JOGG is within Wikipedia RS policy depends on the context of what it is being used for etc etc. In other words such discussion should be handled as content discussion on article talk pages, (and as I mentioned, JOGG is not being used in any particularly controversial on Wikipedia, certainly Rudra's original claim made no special claim about particular examples). No blanket ban appears to be appropriate or is anyone claiming otherwise? I note that User:Rudra's larger concerns (which fill his posts about this concern) concern all speculation in the whole academic field of population genetics and he is increasingly needing to rely upon claiming "redflag" special cases where "common sense" about the truth trumps normal policy when it tells him that a well-referenced claim is exceptional (as he refers to it on other talk pages "RS bullshit"), and needs to be given special treatment. How justified is it to treat a whole field as made up of special cases?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mere words. No claim has been substantiated satisfactorily. rudra (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I humbly disagree. Your own "mere words" which I read, come down to saying my remarks were in your opinion correct but somehow over blown. I find your points vague, tendentious, wrong, in various ways, but I also do no think this is the venue for arguing about irrelevant fine points of personal opinion, such as just how well known Turi King is and just how many academic articles have cited JOGG. The exact answers are not the point. What you have NOT denied is that JOGG is cited by experts, has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, and an editorial process widely understood to be neutral. Given that you have not denied that, what is there to discuss on this forum here? The criteria for being RS were what again? I think JOGG can be used in certain contexts. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:SPS, WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The issue has already been discussed at length in the only terms that are relevant to Wikipedia, that is, in relation to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If there are is any "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" then they can be treated as a WP:SPS in a Wikipedia article. Since the "relevant field" in this case is genetics, that would generally rule out any "student studying intellectual property law", "retired engineering manager", "retired physicist", "attorney in private practice specializing in family law", "Professor of Chemistry", "Coordinator of Reference Services", "M.D.", "economist", or "Associate Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science", which comprise essentially all of JOGG's "editorial board". Category:Genetics journals currently lists 37 genetics journals. For the most part the seem to publish real geneticists, and are edited/reviewed by real geneticists. Please feel free to use those that qualify liberally in the relevant articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We all agree to follow Wikipedia guidelines, and that JOGG should not be used for extraordinary claims outside its acknowledged area of accuracy etc. In terms of defining where that border will lie in specific cases, this discussion has clearly failed to get started. Jayjg you clearly have not read a single thing I wrote, and all you've wanted to do is declare the discussion simple and closed without discussion, right from the very first emotive proposal about hobbyists aspiring to be academics was filed. Even a newspaper article can be used to reference the existence of certain discussions in science, depending on the context, and indeed many top peer-reviewed authors in academic journals in this field are not qualified geneticists, so the simple solution you are suggesting that sources for anything to do with a scientific field must be authored by someone with particular university qualifications is "way out there" and very far from anything to do with RS policy. Frankly, if I may observe the reality here, this discussion board should not really be used as a place for admins to come for unquestioning moral support, or even just to let off steam, after they start emotion driven edit wars about content in areas they are not familiar with. If it were allowed to become that then it would cease to function within the community. See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW Jayjg you apparently have not fully understood or read the complaints of the person you want to support, the same as you have not read the replies. Rudra has never claimed that the JOGG is being used to cite red flag or fringe style information. I am thinking you are in way too much of a hurry in your approach to this discussion and really I question the point of bothering posting if you do not have the time. When two experienced editors who obviously know the policies come to this board I do not see the point of giving rushed answers using vague lists of links to commonly cited WP policies, and then telling people the case is closed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, your behaviour w.r.t. sourcing has previously raised some red flags for me, but I could not make up my mind and simply assumed good faith and adequate competence since I had no incentive to check the details of your highly technical articles. Then DinDraithou came along and raised lots of red flags when he argued very forcefully for treating Stephen Oppenheimer as fringe based on unpublished research. And here he defends JOGG as a reliable source, although not as forcefully. Can you see how the situation is not looking good at all? How plausible is it that there is a scientific field in which all the real researchers, those with results that can be taken seriously, publish not at all or only in JOGG, while the ignoramuses publish widely discussed books and journal articles and get positions at Oxford and elsewhere? Can you see how this looks as if you and DinDraithou aren't completely neutral? One of the most important abilities of a researcher is judging which sources are reliable, which are useless, and which are useful speculations. History of science is full of examples of what happens if a large number of researchers don't have this ability and run off in one direction based only on a vision and speculations. It appears to me that you and DinDraithou may be part of a community that may have precisely this problem. Hans Adler 09:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have discussed JOGG with both you and Doug before a few times in what I thought was a constructive way. And yes I think all these occasions involved DinDraithou. But please be careful about mixing subjects. You mention "red flags" in the normal sense of anything which raises a concern, in this case concerning debates DinDraithou was in, but of course Jayjg is referring to a specific policy page on Wikipedia concerning sourcing for extraordinary claims. There is no discussion here about such things as far as I can see? Anyway, you ask me whether I understand that this history looks bad, so here is an attempt at a good faith answer to what seems to me to be a slightly odd question:-

• Because DinDraithou thinks a source can be used, is this a case against that source? Obviously not, and if people try to use such arguments what can I say or do about it? However you now introduced this idea, and this was not an argument? Should it be?
• I certainly do not recall you ever saying you were worried about my sourcing, or you and I debating anything from different sides. I can't even recall you saying anything negative about my editing or sourcing. I do recall you being positive.
• In the cases I remember I believe I am being fair in saying I was asked for my opinion in articles I was not involved in at the time, and that I was able to help find alternative sourcing and/or wording, for which I was thanked? What did I miss? Are there really open concerns?

The only disagreement between us perhaps was that you have a very particular concern about Steven Oppenheimer, where I agreed basically with DinDraithou. But:

• Oppenheimer does NOT fit the description Jayjg is implying in this discussion here. He is not a qualified geneticist or primary researcher in that field. If anything he is a great example of what is wrong with Jayjg oversimplification about "genetics", because Oppenheimer is surely citable in genetics.
• Frankly, a big part of your argument with DinDraithou was about showing respect for Oppenheimer, given his high position in Oxford, or at least that is how I read it.
• I recall you making an appreciative posting about information I posted which explained in a more acceptable way to you why his out-dated books certainly do NOT represent the mainstream in this field.
• Saying that Wikipedia articles should not be based on Oppenheimer's books is not a "redflag" extraordinary claim, and such an opinion can can be sourced in many ways, which is part of what I did. Again, the biggest problem in the discussion which concerned you was that Oppenheimer's old books are just completely out of date.

Apart from concerning Oppenheimer, who you thought it was controversial NOT to use more, in no case I can recall was JOGG being used as a source for any even debateably extraordinary claims concerning "genetics" as I think the term is being used above. Please review you thoughts about the previous concerns you say you've had, because as mentioned above, if you or Doug have concrete and relevant examples, I would be interested to discuss these with either of you on any forum.

A final point. One of the central sentences in your remark above is as follows "How plausible is it that there is a scientific field in which all the real researchers, those with results that can be taken seriously, publish not at all or only in JOGG, while the ignoramuses publish widely discussed books and journal articles and get positions at Oxford and elsewhere?" I have no idea how to relate this sentence to anything in this discussion. Nobody is saying Oppenheimer can not be cited with due weight considering it is out of date, and this thread should not be about Oppenheimer. Nobody is saying that JOGG should be used for citing anything unusual to do with the technical side of genetics, and it isn't being used that way. I have to repeat my concern that this whole discussion started with a first sentence that had a big soft core of innuendo, and all discussion has been distorted by this. PLEASE read my re-factored summary above.

Here is something more concrete. DinDraithou has said he tries to avoid sourcing from JOGG, and that he does not really like it. What I think you might be missing is that the main area he sees it as citeable is about genetic applications to Irish genealogy, which I would say is more "genetic genealogy" than population genetics. Makes me wonder. When geneticists write about Irish dynasties and surnames (which they do) I wonder if Jayjg and Rudra would say that they are writing about "genetics". If I want to know about Irish dynasties I will not be looking around for a doctor of tropical medicine.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a big misunderstanding about what is being proposed by me, and I think others, who disagree with Rudra. Here it is: JOGG is not a questionable source such that it should incur a blanket ban in anything at all which touches upon genetics. It meets the basic requirements of an RS, and therefore when and how it should be used is a content question to be looked at in the context of concrete examples, as per Wikipedia policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been contended, in bold for emphasis, that "Rudra has never claimed that the JOGG is being used to cite red flag or fringe style information." This is both true and misleading. WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE are issues that properly arise only in the treatment of reliable sources. If a source is not reliable to begin with, then red flags, fringe and other such concerns are moot. My concern was with whether JOGG is a reliable source. Raising issues such as WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE would have been obfuscation and would only have diverted attention from the basic issue. In other words, I have not claimed these about JOGG, not because they are not in evidence, but because in the present matter they are irrelevant. The apparent further implication, that issues such as WP:REDFLAG or WP:FRINGE need to be raised in order to disqualify the reliability of a source, is absurd. rudra (talk)

Jayjg is correct in thinking redflag and fringe is relevant in this discussion. If JOGG is not being used for redflag or fringe citations this is important information because that is the main concern that you created amongst others. Everyone in this discussion have written (as they should) as if the JOGG might be an RS for some types of citation, but they have been led to believe by you that JOGG is being used as a source for "genetics" (e.g. "results" and "samples") as if it were simply a genetics journal, and that this is what I and others have argued for. They think this is what your question is about. The fact is that you have continually been misleading and vague about the context of your posting and what you really disagreed about in the examples you came here with. As demonstrated above, JOGG is a source with some level of reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and even newspapers can be used to report about science, so a simple blanket ban is out of the question as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned. The JOGG simply does not come under the definition of a questionable source, even if it is not the best of sources for many things. But it is an RS to some extent, like you effectively admitted in your above reply to my re-factored response, and so it can be cited "to some extent". The question is or should be about the extent and the particular uses it might be proposed for. The fact that is not being used for anything controversial is very relevant I think. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mantra-like repetition of a personal opinion will not make it true. To repeat, once again. JOGG does not meet the requirements of RS, as it falls short of the professional and/or academic standards of a RS. It has not been demonstrated that JOGG has a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy: citing the King-Jobling article to this end is some combination of comprehension failure and wishful thinking. For one thing, K-J explicitly discounted JOGG's peer-review system: this was hardly an endorsement of JOGG's procedures for fact-checking and accuracy. And what K-J wrote, in a nutshell, was that the field (note: the field, and not JOGG) has knowledgeable amateurs (who may contribute discoveries), and that such amateurs along with academic geneticists may be found publishing in outlets like JOGG. To sum up, yet again: JOGG is merely an outlet for what at best will be WP:SPS material. That is, even one more time: individual articles may be RS on their own merits, but JOGG is not a RS such that any article in it would automatically qualify (i.e. the way it works with reputable academic journals). All of this has been established again and again and again. The consensus is clear. Please desist from any further repetitive and contumacious arguing. rudra (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you are making things up. King and Jobling did not "explicitly discount" JOGG's editorial process, which by the way works like a peer review system. They simply distinguished it from an academic peer review process. No one is arguing that JOGG is an academic journal. But Wikipedia, while it respects the academic peer review system, does not demand it.

(And indeed in the adjunct debates you are having about India related genetics, you also want peer reviewed "bullshit" not mentioned in Wikipedia, on "common sense" i.e. WP:TRUTH based arguments. So your concern is certainly not peer review as such. Your real concern in this campaign is that your "common sense" tells you that genetics articles are trying to keep too much up-to-date for Wikipedia.[46])

What King and Jobling explicitly did was say that it was a journal with a reputation for fact checking and having an editorial fact checking process. You made your case above ("The article has good things to say about JOGG, but one swallow does not a summer make.") Also, your concession that an amateur, or "hobbyist" as per your opening, CAN be knowledgeable is essentially removing your one and only "argument" from the beginning, which was using the word "hobbyist" as the reason for not accepting JOGG ever as an RS.

No one is arguing for extensive use of JOGG to make critical technical points in genetics related articles. That straw man is confusing all discussion. It is being used sparingly to add a bit of perspective here and there. Oh, and it concerned Hans that it was cited on talk pages in argument about a well known author, but other sources could also be cited in that case.

If it is your proposal that the JOGG is a reliable source for nothing at all, and can be a reason on its own for deleting materials (which is what you did in the edits you then announced to the board for justification here) then this is a big call and has not been justified. You have not even begun to make any case about this which is relevant to anything in Wikipedia policy. Speculating about people wanting to be "up market academics" and similar hot air does not cut it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sites providing birth info for Alexandra Daddario

Resolved

Is ListOwn a reliable source for the birth info of entertainers? Nightscream (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can't imagine it being accepted. They are a classified ad site. That is their function. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What about this site for Alexandra Daddario's birth info? It looks like a fan site, but I wanted to be sure. Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Again, I don't think you'll find many people that would consider that a RS. If it were the movie studios site, yes. But that is a fan site. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Try this link: [47]. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

When an editor says a reliable source is wrong

Resolved

There has been a dispute on Union City, New Jersey regarding a local high-rise building called the Thread. A The New York Times article by Antoinette Martin that I cited as one of the sources says that that building is a former embroidery factory. But User:Djflem has asserted that this is not true, that the building is an original building, and that The New York Times is wrong. An anonymous IP editor whose IP is traced to Amsterdam (I don't know if this was also Djflem editing outside of his account) called the source "unreliable". I don't dispute that otherwise reliable sources can make mistakes, but for an editor to remove such info based solely on their assertion seems like OR, just as including such info on personal knowledge would be. What should we do? Nightscream (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

See if you can find more sources to either support or deny the challenged source you have. Try and discuss the issue on the talk page of the article to get a consensus. Removal of information is not OR. SunCreator (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of old maps of the area on the web, maybe you can find one that settles the question. Zero^talk 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This would seem to be a question of policy rather than consensus; I wouldn't want people in a consensus discussion to decide based on their persona feelings about the assertion. As for maps, I don't see how this would help. I actually have a number of old maps of the area, but none are going to indicate if a building on a given block was a factory. I've sent emails to the writer of the article and to the building itself to ask them. Hopefully that will do it. Nightscream (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers are often wrong, including The New York Times. However, we consider newspapers such as The New York Times to be reliable sources, and go by what they say, absent any other reliable sources stating something different. And an editor's personal knowledge carries little weight in such a discussion, and there's no need to e-mail the articles' author etc. Feel free to use the article to support the claim that the building is a former embroidery factory. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found another New York Times article which describes construction of the building as beginning in 2007. There are also numerous less reliable sources (such as ads for apartments in the building) describing it as new, and nothing else describing it as a former embroidery factory. I think it's fair to conclude that the originally-cited NYT article was in error. See Talk:Union_City,_New_Jersey. Barnabypage (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It may have been in error. It may have meant that the building was constructed where an embroidery factory once stood. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's quite plausible, I think. Barnabypage (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Digital Spy

Is Digital Spy considered reliable? I've doubted its reliability for quite awhile, but I would like to get the opinions of other editors. –Chase (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_47#digitalspy.co.uk Do you have a particular aspect in mind? SunCreator (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to have missed that when I searched the archives. It still seems pretty tabloidy and gossip blog-y to me. I don't think consensus was ever gained on the issue, so perhaps now would be a good time to? –Chase (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think unless you have something specific then like previous comments I'd say it is a WP:RS but bear in mind the point that it tends to report much gossip and celeb type information careful reading of it's articles are required. For example this, if you read it carefully it does not confirm the headline, but rather says it has been 'claimed' and 'is allegedly'. SunCreator (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of some content (e.g. news stories, in-depth features, profiles etc) is implicitly guaranteed by mainstream publishers and sloppy errors will attract heavier libel damages than they would in other contexts, even in the same publication. I doubt that Digital Spy intends to publish news stories this rigorously. Nevertheless, parts of Digital Spy are deliberately presented as officially-sanctioned reviews signed by regular real-life-named contributors, and IMO these should be considered reliable sources for those reviewers' opinions, in the same way that a regular critic's reviews published on a newspaper's website would be reliable. However, any statements about facts (e.g. "245,000 people watched the final broadcast of Spooks: Code 9") wouldn't be reliable and would need to be verified elsewhere. Blog pages written by regular contributors and published by mainstream publishers are probably the same. But if there's any doubt about the contributor's identity (e.g. because the publisher doesn't verify it or can't be trusted to verify it) then all bets are off: the source is useless. - Pointillist (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Common situation (song articles)

This link is widely misinterpreted by editors. It's a page updated periodically(weekly?) of planned future song releases, meaning, firstly, it's not a good reference to link as the contents change and secondly because it's future releases then it is subject to WP:CRYSTAL. Another common mistake of editors is to imply it is a physical release, but it does not say that. SunCreator (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

www.americanboardofsportpsychology.org

Hi, User:BruceGrubb is wanting to use Terry Sandbek, Ph.D. "Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading" Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology as a source on Multi-level Marketing. The site is ostensibly a peer-reviewed journal however the "journal" appears to consist of a sum total of 8 articles appearing only on the rather unprofessional looking website [48] and the document in question doesn't even appear to be one of those. The "journal" itself seems to have racked up a sum total of one citation, in an obscure Pakistani journal [49]. Given the article in question is (a) not by an expert in, or about, the topic in question (multilevel marketing) (b) probably not peer-reviewed and (c) not in a journal of any standing even if it was, it would appear to me to clearly fail WP:RS. Comments appreciated. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC) ETA: I found the article in question listed here on the website. It's a "position paper" and listed with other opinion-type pieces. As noted, it's not listed in the "journal" articles section [50] --Insider201283 (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

contrary to what Insider201283 thinks a badly designed web site does not translate into unscholarly. The actual Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology site clearly states: "The Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology is a peer reviewed journal devoted to disseminating scientific and popular research-based articles in an efficient and timely manner. The Journal also publishes technical reports, editorials, opinions, special features, and letters to the editors, as well as classified and other advertising. Peer-reviewed articles are posted in PDF format, requiring that you have ADOBE Reader. If not you can download it for free at www.adobe.com."

Worse for Insider201283 a link to the American Board of Sport Psych. is provided by Adams State College http://www.adams.edu/academics/sportpsych/ who has the following accreditations: North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA-HLC) Accreditation, Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE); Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP); and National Association of Schools of Music (NASM), Commission on Accreditation.

Carlstedt PhD, Roland A. (Editor) (2009) Handbook of Integrative Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Behavioral Medicine: Perspectives, Practices, and Research Springer Publishing Company ("Springer Publishing Company is extremely proud of our history -- publishing academic and professional works for more than 50 years.") on page 3 clearly states that Carlstedt has published articles in The Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology and Biofeedback, Cortex, Brain and Cognition.

So an accredited college recommends it and a publisher who had been publishing academic and professional works for more than 50 years uses it as why an author of its Handbook of Integrative Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Behavioral Medicine: Perspectives, Practices, and Research is trustworthy. Oh just in case Insider201283 regales us with some other nonsense Springer Publishing Company also puts out A Guide to the Standard EMDR Protocols for Clinicians, Supervisors, and Consultants, Chemistry and Physics for Nurse Anesthesia: A Student Centered Approach, Handbook of Forensic Neuropsychology, Second Edition, and EMDR and the Art of Psychotherapy With Children: Treatment Manual and Text just to mention a few.

Talk about major egg on the face. Sheesh Insider201283 do you even know how to do actual research before posting this nonsense?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

egg on the face indeed ... your own quote above says "The Journal also publishes technical reports, editorials, opinions, special features, and letters to the editors,.... Peer-reviewed articles are posted in PDF format". All other matters of reliability aside, what format is the Sandbek article in Bruce? --Insider201283 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it is in word but thes Journal also states--

RATINGS:

(*) for the researcher and practitioner (more technical/scientific)PEER-REVIEWED

(**) for coaches and athletes (research-based but less technical/more applied)

(***) research based popular article (written with the lay person in mind)

It is clear that not all PEER-REVIEWED papers were in PDF format as the

American Psychological Association Divisions 47 and 6 (Behavioral Neuroscience) 2004 Convention Symposium: Integrative Sport Psychology (*,**) Presented Papers section only one of the six papers is in the PDF format. All the rest are in powerpoint format even though the one star (*) denotes all as "for the researcher and practitioner (more technical/scientific)PEER-REVIEWED" and then you have three star (***) articles in PDF format even though the ratings only expressly states that one star articles are PEER-REVIEWED. I am inclined to trust the star ratings rather than the format especially as PEER-REVIEWED is in all caps and bolded.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I note again, even if one accepted it was a prestigious well known peer-reviewed journal, and clearly relevant to MLM (neither of which are true) the article in question is not even listed on the journal page. The front page of the site says "Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology Inaugural Issue now Available", and following that link gives a page that does NOT include the Sandbek article [51]. The Sandbek article is instead listed at the bottom of the home page under "articles". Having an asterisk beside an article saying "peer-reviewed" on a clearly amateur website does not make something a reliable source. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Not listed on the journal page?!? Are you blind?!? "BE SURE TO SCROLL DOWN TO SEE ALL CONTENT" The entire page is the journal!

You have 'Sport Psychology in the News' followed by a book review followed by "ARTICLES ETC. (see Library below for Download)" and the very first thing you hit is

POSITION PAPER #1 on BRAIN TYPING

1. [*, **] Pseudoscience of Brain Typing by Terry Sandbek, Ph.D.HIGHLY RECOMMENDED article on Critical Thinking in Sport Psychology

IT IS THE VERY FIRST ARTICLE YOU COME TO!!! It is ranked as PEER REVIEWED in bold caps due to the one star (*) and then it is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED also in bold caps in the text right next to it. How on earth do you miss that?!?

In the download section that says "SPORT PSYCHOLOGY ARTICLES" Sandbek article is the last one on page one (assuming 10 pages).--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Can you be specific as to what statements the paper in question needs to support? Different statements get held to different standards, there isn't such a thing as an expert on every subject (well, possibly Da Vinci or Asimov; but they're dead). Having a Journal and a PhD is nice in general, but what does sports medicine have to do with Multi-level marketing? --GRuban (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The claim made in the WP article, based on Sandbek, is Another charge is "By its very nature, MLM is completely devoid of any scientific foundations."--Insider201283 (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Straight from the paper: "In the following article our author Dr. Terry Sandbek addresses Brain Typing and pseudoscience in Sport Psychology." The just of the article regarding MLM begins in the section "Brain Typing as a Product" subsection "Multilevel Marketing (MLM)" which has this lead in right before it: "None of them have any direct link to applied science or scientific research. Multilevel Marketing and Positive Thinking, his two previous ventures, have no connection to findings within the scientific community."

Sandbek then sites one MLM critical website after the other for about two pages. Not only are Taylor, FitzPatrick, and Vanduff here but so are Lanford and Barrett. Sandbek then goes into "Pop Psychology of Positive Thinking" which tangentally touches on the methods MLMs use. Then you hit "The pseudoscientist uses testimonials as evidence." and the whole pseudoscience dynamic which is not just part of Brain typing but also Multilevel Marketing and Positive Thinking.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, he cites multiple non-RS websites as his sources. You're not helping your case Bruce. Let's just wait for some more 3rd party opinions hey? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Insider201283 claimed this before but the fact is one of these sources are referenced in a Juta Academic publication and Taylor is referenced four times in Cruz's peer reviewed 2008 "A System Dynamics Model for Studying the Structure of Network Marketing Organizations". In short Sandbek is not a one trick pony and there are other reliable sources that use these people or their sites as references.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This RS/N request is with regard Sandbek as an RS. If you want to query others, post them for discussion. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Insider, but it was YOU who brought up the "non-RS websites" claim and so made it relevant the issue of Sandbek being an RS. The main page is referenced by an accredited college on their web page and is used a expertise qualifier on another book published by Springer Publishing Company.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, this page is to get others opinions on the source in question, not for back and forth bickering. Let's wait for more 3rd party opinions. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Now it makes sense. From reading the paper, Sandbek is criticizing one specific person, Jon Niednagel, who is apparently is trying to do something called Brain Typing which has something to do with Sport Psychology (hence the sports medicine connection). As one of his criticisms, Sandbek mentions that Niednagel was involved with MLM. The sentence in context is:

Such is the case with Brain Typing. Mr. Niednagel is quick to claim a scientific basis for his product but is unable to offer any solid evidence that it is based on any scientific principles. This is not surprising when we look at the types of businesses that he has promoted in the last few decades. None of them have any direct link to applied science or scientific research. Multilevel Marketing and Positive Thinking, his two previous ventures, have no connection to findings within the scientific community.

The article, including the quoted sentence, is primarily a criticism of Niednagel specifically, not of MLM in general, and I suspect Sandbek would reject any claims of being an expert on MLM in general. Not appropriate for the MLM article. If we have an article on Brain Typing or Niednagel, it would be a good source there, but MLM is much bigger than Niednagel.

That said, however, surely there is no lack of better sources to criticise MLM. Consumer advocates, attorneys general, economists, all those would be much better critics than sports medicine experts. --GRuban (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

While the article is mainly critical of Niednagel the section of the article in question is critical of MLMs in general. In fact the lead in right before the relevant section expressly states "None of them have any direct link to applied science or scientific research. Multilevel Marketing and Positive Thinking, his two previous ventures, have no connection to findings within the scientific community." then we have some two page worth of material on MLMs in general finishing up with the conclusion "By its very nature, MLM is completely devoid of any scientific foundations." (the quoted piece). This section is focused on how reliable the MLM model itself is. This along with the rest of the paper when through the peer review process and it if wasn't usable it would have never been allowed.

This is akin to saying because Higgs, Philip (2007) Rethinking Our World Juta Academic ("Juta is respected as South Africa's pre-eminent academic and law publisher") is mainly on philosophy that all its comments about MLMs are useless. MLMs have been called cults as far back as 1985 (related in a Western Journal of Communication 2003 article and so itself based on RS) and cults are something that is in the realm of both philosophy and psychology and Sandbek is an expert in psychology.

As for better sources that are critical of MLMs Insider201283 has tried to keep those out too. He claimed Cruz (2008) was not peer reviewed even though I had clearly stated it was (and later proving it was). He said an article by no less than The Times was not a reliable source (see the end of Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Multitude_of_self-published_source for that insanity). He tried to imply a Religion Dispatches piece date February 11, 2009 some how predated an ISP article dated Jan 28, 2009 to keep it out. The claim of ""basic mathematics shows" is code for "I'm talking about pyramid schemes, not MLM"" regarding the "The False Lure of Multi-Level Marketing" By David John Marotta Aug 3, 2009 article which appeared in various papers including the Central New York Business Journal is typical of the nonsense we have seen on the talk page.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazingly, on this very page Bruce is telling another editor that an author should be an expert in the main area of the article. With regards other sources, there are actually very few quality sources "critical" of MLM, it's the internet gossip columnists that primarily drive that aspect of the conversation. Actual business experts understand the difference between MLMs and Pyramids and don't accuse MLMs of having the failings of pyramids. That's *why* Wikipedia requires quality sources - so that myths based on poor knowledge or understanding are not spread. I will challenge poor sources no matter what their POV, and as already noted I've also challenged the use of some pro-MLM sources that do not pass muster as RS/V. There *are* plenty of RS sources available, there's no reason not to stick to them.--Insider201283 (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Bruce, I don't buy it. Note the word "his" in your quote there. Note the article title: "Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading". Note the Editor's Note at the top of the article, "In the following article our author Dr. Terry Sandbek addresses Brain Typing and pseudoscience in Sport Psychology." All of those point to the author not focusing on MLM in general, but this one practitioner of it, merely tarring that practitioner by association with MLM. Sandbek has lots of other references there as to why MLM is bad, so you can try and use those directly, but they're not Sandbek. Sandbek himself has one sentence in there of his own that could, out of context, be read as critical of MLM in general without mentioning his real target, but that's not the point of the piece, so shouldn't be used for a fairly strong attack on MLM in general. --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Use Talyor, Fiztpatric, and Vandruff directly? But Insider201283 is fighting those references too! He is even fighting references that appear in Wiley and Sage with "stating something is "a legal pyramid scheme" is a clear oxymoron and clear evidence the author is NOT a reliable source on the topic." garbage. He defends Wiley with Rubino but when anti-MLM stuff by Carroll (2003) and Coenen (2009) in the exact same publication appear we get this "clear evidence the author is NOT a reliable source on the topic" garbage.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Gruban - Taylor, FitzPatrick, and Vandruff are self-published websites by people with no RS published work in the area, they have all been previously rejected on RS/N. Bruce has however managed to get around this limitation by finding a peer-reviewed paper that mentions their opinions briefly in an intro and then simply quoting the paper. I personally think that's against the spirit of RS, but so far he has consensus support.--Insider201283 (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)Gruban - Insider201283 is again engaging in a half truth. user:Arthur Rubin on the talk page and User:TheEditor22 on the RS/NS felt that Taylor, FitzPatrick, and Vandruff could be used as they were cited so many times in peer reviewed papers (including one that Insider201283 claimed was and was called on the carpet for that responded with "For someone to cite it, based only on a webpage, and have that accepted in peer review? A tragic example of poor standards.") as well as in reliable publishers such as Juta Academic not to mention the McGeorge Law Review which using Taylor as a reference stated "Day after day, however, many Americans and others around the world4 fall prey to a similar type of deception—supposed “business opportunities” in which 99.9 percent of investors lose money." User:Jakew left the RS/NS discussion just a little after User:TheEditor22 came and you note on his User_talk:TheEditor22 who had been temporarily banned for using sock puppetry and other things to keep a reliable source by Fox News that Insider kept arguing for the removal of in the ACN Inc. article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League

Resolved

Can I use the website of Anti-Defamation League (www.adl.org) as a reliable source for the claims made in Current Communist antisemitism? I have attributed the claims to ADL, i.e. "according to the Anti-Defamation League ..." --Defender of torch (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Websites of known organizations can certainly be used as cites for official positions and opinions of the organizations. Collect (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Defender of torch (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This is beyond the scope of this particular noticeboard but you probably also want to cite a third-party reliable source which mentions the ADL's view on this particular topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The ADL is an expert source on antisemitism; there is no need for additional third-party sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish you were around when I tried to make the same argument! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The ADL is a controversial source on antisemitism, especially in all matters involving Israel. It is clearly notable enough to cite, but nearly always that "according to the Anti-Defamation League ..." qualification is required. But you don't need to cite their opinion via a third party, you can cite them directly. Zero^talk 12:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The ADL is an expert source on antisemitism, and has been one for almost a hundred years, and the specific ADL material in the article had nothing to do with what you are talking about. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

TV schedule

Hi,

I need input on whatever the TV schedules posted in this forum thread can be counted as Reliable to assert the X series broadcast on Y network/TV channel. Note that this thread is hosted in the official TV network forum and there is to my knowledge no other place to find broadcast information in the whole official website.

Thanks --KrebMarkt 08:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bulletin/Message boards are not reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted a refined assessment not a mantra recitation. Cordially. --KrebMarkt 17:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you prove who posted the schedule? Is it by a spokesperson of the station? It's very strange that a TV network's website wouldn't contain a printed schedule. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, taken at face value, the posting appears to be from the Executive Producer and Production Assistant. If true, this would qualify as WP:SPS, correct? As for it being strange, if this is a Japanese program broadcasting in a Spanish-language nation, this might be the only source in English (of course, that's pure speculation on my part.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm in conflict with editors from Philippine wanting adamantly to add broadcast information. Because i'm clearly not neutral, i was dropping here the less crappy reference i was provided for evaluation. You can read the Ip tantrum here.

My personal opinion on this one: It cannot constitute a RS because it's most likely TV schedules posted by a benevolent user with the tacit approval of the TV Network forum moderators. The information is certainly trustworthy and accurate but a step short to our standard for a Reliable Source. Checking this "Production Assistant" forum post history reveals a behavior closer to an user with privileged information access rather than a real TV network staff member.

Now if someone more neutral than me can give another opinion based on arguments that would be better than what i say versus what they say in such dispute. Thanks --KrebMarkt 19:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a refined assessment: WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

KrebMarkt seats on the dusty roadside and laughs out of bitterness until its hurts. Thanks nevertheless. --KrebMarkt 07:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you linked to the specific article where this is an issue. A lot depends on context. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

See Aria (manga) just the infobox information on network broadcast. Thanks you much for you time. --KrebMarkt 20:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If the user isn't a spokesperson of the TV station or equivalent, then the forum posts wouldn't meet the formal sourcing requirements. Now, I understand that people are watching this on TV and nobody doubts the truth of what's being sourced. If the regular editors of the page can agree to WP:IAR on the source that's one option. Another would be to see if there aren't any newspaper TV schedules which can be cited instead. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle

Would Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross be considered reliable Sources? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/matierandross/index Both are columnists for the San Francisco Chronicle, which in and of itself is certainly a reliable mainstream American newspaper. Both are certainly subject to editorial review by the editors at the San Francisco Chronicle. This being the case, can we disregard them as "gossip bloggers" and treat them as unreliable sources, or since they are subject to editorial review and published by a mainstream newspaper, would they be reliable sources? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Would anything change regarding their reliability if the entire editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle published an opinion piece verifying the original story a couple of days later? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Meets RS. Whether it's the best source for a particular article is up for discussion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

They would generally be considered to be reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

NB that this relates to the outing of Vaughn Walker. For what it's worth, the discussion in the legal web of the story has not been "Is it true?" but "Given that it's true, what are the implications?" I know other reporters who were aware of the issue and decided not to run the story. THF (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Brief Chronicles

Is the Oxfordian journal Brief Chronicles considered to be a reliable source for the Wikipedia Shakespeare authorship question article? It focuses on a fringe theory, the Shakespeare authorship question, from an Oxfordian perspective (i.e. the assumption that Edward deVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, was the true author of the Shakespeare canon). See the focus and scope statement.

Reading the “about” page, it is apparent that the journal was planned and carefully constructed to give the impression of a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal. However, the publication is controlled by general editor Dr. Roger Stritmatter, an Oxfordian whose commitment to spreading the gospel is well known to Wikipedia Shakespeare editors, and the 12-member board includes at least 10 identified Oxfordians, such as Dr. Michael Delahoyde of Washington State University and Dr. Richard Waugaman of the Georgetown University of Medicine and Washington Psychoanalytic Institute. While the accomplishments of these people should not be disparaged, they believe in a fringe theory (which is not all that unusual among certain percentage of academics) and participate on the board of a publication devoted to promoting a theory well outside the accepted scholarly consensus.

In its inaugural number, Brief Chronicles published 10 articles, ostensibly chosen by a double-blind peer review. Coincidentally, three of the 10 were authored by members of the editorial board. They included such articles as “The Psychology of the Authorship Question,” which according to the abstract, “Employs a historical/psychoanalytical model to understand why so many academicians are resistant to rationale [sic] discourse on the authorship question”; “Francis Meres and the Earl of Oxford”, which supposedly “Analyzes the numerical structure of Francis Meres' 1598 Palladis Tamia to show that Meres not only knew that Oxford and Shakespeare were one and the same, but that he constructed his publication to carefully alert the reader to this fact” (and incidentally marks the Oxfordian descent into cryptic number puzzles that formerly were the sole province of Baconism); and “Edward de Vere's Hand in Titus Andronicus”.

I believe that WP:PARITY applies to this publication, especially the sentence, "Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable. Examples: The Creation Science Quarterly, Homeopathy, Journal of Frontier Science . . . and many others." Tom Reedy (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As I see from their editorial board [[52]] Brief Chronicles is obviously a peer reviewed journal with high standards. The editor in chief is Gary Goldstein, former editor and publisher of The Elizabethan Review, a semi-annual peer reviewed journal published from 1993 to 1999 on the English Renaissance. The rest of the editorial team has similar credentials. If that were not enough, the journal will be indexed by the Modern Language Association International Bibliography and the World Shakespeare Bibliography. Definitely RS. Smatprt (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Elizabethan Review was no more WP:RS than this publication. Its board was made up of much the same type of partisans as the one under discussion here. I don't understand why Oxfordians believe that any publication in a true peer-reviewed journal at any time confers the magic wand of credibility to all subsequent activities, but it appears they do. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smatprt that Brief Chronicles is a peer reviewed journal with high standards. The editorial board is made up entirely of people with credible academic credentials. Both the editor in chief and executive editor have impressive track records. Those bringing this challenge ignore the fact that the journal will be indexed by the Modern Language Association International Bibliography and the World Shakespeare Bibliography. The journal clearly meets RS requirements. Schoenbaum (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, Schoenbaum, you seem to be a new WP:SPA with few edits, all but one to the talk page of the authorship article.

Smatprt will recall a related discussion here [53] from last year. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I do remember that discussion. At the time, this board looked at the credentials of the editorial team, asking relevant questions about their expertise. I would hope that a similar exercise is involved here.Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Both Smatprt and Schoenbaum are SPA editors whose sole activity on Wikipedia is to promote Oxfordianism. They are not in any way independent commentators. I am not independent either, since I am an active contributor to the page with a bias against Oxfordianism. However I consider that to be no different from my "bias" against fringe theories in general, as this "bias" is the bias of Wikipedia itself. It seems clear to me that this is a journal dedicated to a fringe theory set up and staffed by proponents of a fringe theory. It is no different from Creationist journals that can boast PhDs on their boards. The important thing is that this journal does not accept articles purely on the basis of their academic worth, to be reviewed by those scholars who are best qualified to assess them, irrespective of whether or not they agree with the article's ideological position. Paul B (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would ask that Paul (and others) actually look at my editing history. I am hardly a SPA editor, having made over 6000 edits to close to 100 articles, ranging from Shakespeare to West Side Story. I would ask Paul to rescind his statement.Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. Look at his editing history. The last time he edited an article not obviously related to Shakespeare authorship was on the 7th feb, when he added this to Historical revisionism. Paul B (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a mainstream academic journal since it doesn't have a publisher like Sage, Taylor & Francis, Oxford etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is deeply troubled, and probably cannot be edited to wikipedian standards, because there is an editorial block by a group which is actively promoting by its edits the fringe theory. Most of the text is sourced to articles and books that, in academic terms, are not RS, but are RS for the fringe theories, being examples of them. Attempts to introduce proper RS on crucial questions in the lead leads to endless blather. There are 57 candidates for an alternative Shakespeare, each with a coterie of passionate fans, but here the de Vere school, and Diana Price are showcased, in a way that smacks of promotion.

The WP:SPA editors who have entered the fray don't appear to show any interest in the wider work on wikipedia. On an article dealing with borderline, fringe ideas, one needs several experienced hands who have a thorough understanding of the rules to prevent gaming. This won't occur.

WP:PARITY, as Tom notes, affirms that 'fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable.' That reallyshould clinch it. The operation looks fraudulent.

The article is ranked of high importance. Why a fringe theory with 'virtually no' academic support should merit a 'high importance' tag is unclear.

In lieu of concrete measures, the best solution would be to leave it to the SPA block, but impose of them a requirement that their present hyperactivism be focused to bringing the page up to GA level review within a month or two, and then get experienced GA reviewers who know both wikipedia policies and the Elizabethan period, or Shakespeare, to examine the quality of their work. As it is, this looks like a page that will have a huge volume of talk page edits and chats reflecting stalemate between proponents of mainstream scholarship and representatives of the fringe theory, with no significant measures of improvement towards the minimal requirements stipulated by the policies adumbrated in WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE etc.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am hardly an SPA editor. The rest of this post is troublesome as well. Accusations such as "fraudulent" really have no place here. Nishidani also knows full well that the article has been going through a major clean-up, line-by-line in some cases, which he is a participating in, though he has spent much time arguing endlessly with his own team over using "a" instead of "the". I also question why he would attack such researchers such as Diana Price when his own team-member, Tom Reedy, was the editor who suggested using Ms. Price's work in the article.(Ms. Price, by the way, is not an Oxfordian, but is anti-Stratfordian). All this is, of course, off topic. Can we get back to looking at the qualifications of the editorial board and such requirements as the double-blind review process which the journal employs?.

Is there any editor of this journal who is not an Oxfordian or, *gasp*, a Stratfordian? Inquiring minds want to know. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If there's anything Oxfordians hate more than a Stratfordian, it's a Baconian. You might find tentative tolerance of Derbyites. Paul B (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The only "hate" involved, as evidenced on the talk page, is that exhibited by Stratfordians. Mainstream stratfordians, such as Alan Nelson, even appear at various authorship conferences where they are welcomed openly. Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

All but two of the 12 members are open, admitted Oxfordians. Explicit information about the authorship sympathies of the other two, Carole Chaski and Donald Otrowski, is harder to come by, but Chaski has worked with Stritmatter on another project concerning Herman Melville, and Otrowski appears in an anti-Stratfordian documentary that I have not seen and his Harvard English class has been cited by some as the beginning of their interest in Oxfordism. I'm sure Dr. Stritmatter, who is a very active editor on the page in question, could enlighten us. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Chaski has worked with Stritmatter on another project concerning Herman Melville". Isn't this simply guilt by association?Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: you might want to limit comments by involved editors to one or two at the most. If you don't, a look at his editing and discussion history shows that Smatprt will deluge the discussion with irrelevant and tendentious posts that will effectively obfuscate any honest discussion or consensus on the issue by uninvolved editors. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom - you've already posted, what, six or seven edits? This is my second edit, caused mostly by the false accusations being made about my being an SPA (way off base) and other off-topic comments made by your team.Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to answer this from a different point of view; I'm going to agree with both sides. :-). Side "A", above, seems to be saying that the journal, publishers and review board, is full of people from one side of a fourfive-way argument, so it's biased. Side "B" seems to be saying that the journal is full of people with Doctorates from respected schools, so it's reliable. I'm going to say you're all right. A source can be both reliable and biased. The article Shakespeare authorship question is specifically about the controversy, so it is a perfectly appropriate place where a journal published and reviewed by highly titled Oxfordians should be cited to explain Oxfordian views; it seems a perfectly reliable source for that branch of scholarship. That said, these views should be appropriately tagged with the caveat that these are the views of Oxfordians, not of all or most Shakespearian scholars in general, since Stratfordians, Baconians, Lettucians and Tomatovians may well differ. --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So IOW, the journals WP:PARITY use as examples, The Creation Science Quarterly, Homeopathy, Journal of Frontier Science, can all be used as reliable sources for the Wikipedia articles on creation science, homeopathy, and flying saucers because they have Phds supporting them? Is that what you're saying? Because that sure sounds like what you're saying. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as long as the statements therein are not presented as facts, but as the views of the people making the statements as reasonable representatives of the side in question. You will notice that that is exactly what is done in the specific articles you bring up:

• Creation Science#Notes includes The Vanishing Case for Evolution, Henry M. Morris, Institute for Creation Research; Howe, G. F.; Froede, C. R. .J.r. (1999). "The Haymond Formation Boulder Beds, Marathon Basin, West Texas: Theories On Origins And Catastrophism". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 36 (1).; Froede, Carl R. Jr (1995). "Stone Mountain Georgia: A Creation Geologist's Perspective". Creation Research Society Quarterly 31 (4).; Howe, George F.; Froede, Carl R. Jr (1999). "The Haymond Formation Boulder Beds, Marathon Basin, West Texas: Theories On Origins And Catastrophism". Creation Research Society Quarterly 36 (1).; Phillip Johnson. "The Wedge", Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. July/August 1999.; the Evolution Debate Can Be Won. Phillip Johnson. Truths that Transform; Get Answers: Created Kinds (Baraminology), Answers in Genesis; and so forth.
• Homeopathy#Notes and references includes Hahnemann S (1833/1921), The Organon of the Healing Art; Mathie RT (2003), "The research evidence base for homeopathy: a fresh assessment of the literature", Homeopathy 92 (2): 84–91, PMID 12725250; Caulfield T, Debow S (2005), "A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals", BMC Complement Altern Med 5: 12, doi:10.1186/1472-6882-5-12, PMID 15955254; King S, "Miasms in homeopathy", Classical homeopathy; and so forth.

I'll stop there before checking the article on flying saucers, but I'll be shocked if it doesn't have any references from people who claim to have been abducted by aliens; it would be a fairly useless article without them, no? No offense, but the same applies here. It wouldn't be a very useful article about Shakespeare authorship question if it couldn't cite the reasoning of the questioners. --GRuban (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm, the question was whether it was a reliable source, not whether it is a source that can be used per WP:FRINGE. Paul B (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And the answer was, yes, it is a reliable source to explain Oxfordian views, which is the point in question. There is no such thing as "a reliable source" without context. This entire noticeboard all about whether a source can be used to back a specific point in a specific article. Surely you would not expect to take the most definitive "yes" answer about the journal here, and use it as justification to use the journal as a reference for an article on nuclear physics, or Indonesian politics, or global warming? ---GRuban (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. There is no such thing as "a reliable source to explain Oxfordian views". That's not what "reliable source" means. Why don’t you read what it says at the top of the page? "Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable". That is the sole purpose of this board, and that was the question that was asked by Tom at the top of this section. Your remark about nuclear physics is both ridiculous and utterly irrelevant. Even the most reliable source on any topic is not reliable for a wholly different one. That's blindingly obvious. We are talking about what's reliable for Shakespeare studies. You don't seem to understand the concept of "reliable source". The fact that an unreliable source can be used in some articles is quite different from saying that it's a reliable source for that or any other article. There are different rules concerning the use of unreliable and reliable sources within articles. Paul B (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, if you've read this board for any length of time, you would have noticed that the question "is this source reliable" is met with: in what context? for what statement? to cite what? Reliability is not absolute, but depends on context. (That's from WP:RS, by the way.) If the context is "Shakespeare studies" in general, then I can buy the argument that the journal shouldn't be treated as the mainstream view. However, it seems the article in question is specifically about (5 ... if I have the number right now ...) different points of view in Shakespeare studies, which are, by definition, outside the mainstream. Am I wrong? --GRuban (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable and I am confidant (and would work to insure) that any edits would be appropriately tagged.Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of response that makes an Oxfordian's heart sing. It's based on the assumption that there is serious scholarly debate, of which this journal is one POV (out of "four" apparently. Where does that number come from?). That is to treat a fringe view as if it were mainstream. If there were genuine academic debate Oxfordians (and presumably proponents of the other "three" positions) would be able to get their theories published within mainstream academic journals. That's what happens when there is a real academic debate between different points of view. It's like saying that there are several views about the origin of the grand Canyon: it was created by Divine Wrath in the Great Flood, by Alien mining engineers, or by erosion, so it's a "three way argument". But the first two theories are not published in independent RS journals. Also, though many of these editors have PhDs, they are not generally for Shakespeare scholarship, or even English literature in several cases. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If a litmus test to decide whether a subject is "genuine" is the ability for researchers to "get their theories published within mainstream academic journals", then that threshold has been met. Not only have "The Review of English Studies"[[54]] and "Critical Survey" [[55]] both published articles by anti-Stratfordians, but the Shakespeare authorship studies is now being taught at at least one noted university [[56]]. Paul knows all this, so I wonder why he would post such erroneous information. Smatprt (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

out of "four" apparently. Where does that number come from? Top of your article, the one in question. "Supporters of any one of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively." Of course, my uncle Al claims to have written Hamlet after he's had a few pints, but as I keep telling him we can't find enough reliable sources to back him. --GRuban (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that would be five then, including the mainstream view. As for Smatprt's claim that the threshold has been met, your evidence is very weak. Two articles in journals which are not even devoted to Shakespeare or the English Renaissance is negligable. In any case, the first article is not about Oxfordianism. It's about a source for The Tempest. As for the "authorship issue" being taught, that is in the context of debate about the history and interpretation of Shakespeare. Creationmism is also "taught" in universities in that kind of context. As a matter of fact I used to teach the authorship issue myself when I ran a course called "Envisaging Shakespeare" some years ago. Paul B (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So true. Corrected to five. --GRuban (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check your facts. The last time I checked "English Studies" includes Shakespeare! And... "Critical Survey addresses central issues of critical practice and literary theory in a language that is clear, concise, and accessible, with a primary focus on Renaissance and Modern writing and culture. The journal combines criticism with reviews and poetry, providing an essential resource for everyone involved in the field of literary studies. "…an essential journal for anyone interested in the critical debates of our time. Always up to the minute, yet free from jargon, it is also a great place for students to get a sense of what is going on in the subject." —Jonathan Bate, University of Liverpool" Smatprt (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You merely confirm exactly what I said. Neither periodical specialises in Shakespeare or the English Renaissance and the publications (at least the first one) are not even about the "authorship controversy". Paul B (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Paul, but you are just splitting hairs. "The Review of English Studies" and "Critical Survey" not to mention "Notes and Queries" and several others I havn't even mentioned are all peer reviewed academic journals with articles that are applicable to the subject at hand. Heck, "Critical Survey" even has Stanley Wells and Jonathan Bate on its editorial team.Smatprt (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

They may be "applicable", but that's not the issue. They are not about it. There are not articles in mainstream journals engaging in debate about whether Shakespeare or Oxford wrote Hamlet (or any other canonical play). The central point is that this is not a subject of mainstream debate about which there are a range of views. Isolated articles related to the topic are not evidence of mainstream debate about it.

Is there any reason why this debate can't stop while uninvolved editors look at the evidence and make a decision? If they need any further information they'll ask for it. Lobbying in the hope of affecting the outcome is not an honest use of the noticeboard. So please just STFU. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, using internet slang for vulgar language really isn't helpful. Of course, if you meant "Southern Tenant Farmers Union", then please disregard! In any case, when two of your team make dishonest statements about by editing history in an attempt to sway uninvolved editors, it needs to be answered - especially when they refuse to retract them. Or when Paul makes a blanket (and incorrect) statement that authorship researchers can't get published in mainstream journals, and I can show otherwise, then it is incumbent upon me to do so.Smatprt (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I knew you couldn't do it. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You misrepresent what I said. I didn't say "authorship researchers" could not publish in mainstream journals. any individual can publish if what they write is relevant and legitimate. I said that authorship debate is not part of normal academic discussion in mainstream journals. For comparison, there are articles in mainstream journals discussing whether or not Leonardo da Vinci painted the second version of the Virgin of the Rocks. There are not articles discussing whether or not it expresses secret anti-Catholic symbolism, as claimed by Dan Brown. Paul B (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller wrote above: "With all due respect, Schoenbaum, you seem to be a new WP:SPA with few edits, all but one to the talk page of the authorship article. I will recall a related discussion here [186] from last year." [Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Smatprt replied: "I do remember that discussion. At the time, this board looked at the credentials of the editorial team, asking relevant questions about their expertise. I would hope that a similar exercise is involved here." [Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Paul B. responded: "Both Smatprt and Schoenbaum are SPA editors whose sole activity on Wikipedia is to promote Oxfordianism."

It's true that I'm new to Wikipedia. Everyone starts somewhere. I make no apology for it, and am willing to respond to questions from the board about my qualifications. Paul B's claim is false, not only as it relates to Smatprt, but also as it relates to me. None of my comments on the talk pages promotes the candidacy of the Earl of Oxford, and none will. That is not my purpose, and he has no basis for saying otherwise. He admitted above that he is biased against Oxfordians. The fact that I've had disagreements with him on the talk pages doesn't make me one. He's just stereotyping me. My comments have been anti-Stratfordian, not Oxfordian. 96.251.82.13 (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You are being transparently disingenuous. Only Oxfordians argue for evidence that "Shakespeare" was dead before 1604, as you have done. Paul B (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm previously uninvolved in this topic, and this thread is not making me eager to get involved.

Brief Chronicles does a pretty good job of looking like an academic journal, but it's clearly a publication founded to advance a specific agenda: giving a veneer of scholarly legitimacy to unorthdox views of Shakespearian authorship. I found this sentence from the editors' introduction to the first issue telling: "Four contributors to our first issue hold PhDs in literary studies; two are MDs with records of publication on literary and historical topics, and six are independent scholars." This is a red flag that the journal advances fringy claims. Certainly independent scholars make valuable contributions to many academic fields, but they also contribute loads of nonsense to poorly refereed venues. Also, the phrasing of the sentence suggests that some of the contributors who hold PhDs or MDs do not currently hold scholarly positions. So a substantial portion of the contributors in the very first issue do not currently hold teaching or research positions. Frankly, this looks like a fanzine dressed up as an academic journal. Still, it may be that this periodical can be cited in Wikipedia articles, but it should not be used to suggest that Oxfordianism or any other non-standard theory of Shakespearian authorship has academic legitimacy. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor who inserts most of the material referenced by it happens also to be the editor of the journal, and such use smacks of WP:COI to me. There also was a reference to the journal's establishment in the main text, as if it were some actual historical event that related to the topic, which I have deleted as unnecessary newsletter detail. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Another off-point accusation? And wasn't it you, Tom, that argued for the inclusion of the Kathman website of which YOU are a contributor? In spite of the apparent hypocrisy, this seems to be an attempt to sway uninvolved editors. Shame on you.Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You know how dishonest we Stratfordians are, Smatprt. We just can't help it, since we've been doing it for four centuries to protect our cushy academic jobs.

The truth is I just now thought of that objection, and I think it's valid. There's nothing off-point about it, just as there's nothing off-topic about bringing up that you promote Oxfordism at the expense of Wikipedia's reputation at every opportunity, as anyone who bothers to check your posting and block history knows. And I've never referenced the one article on Dave's website that I wrote, in contrast to Stritmatter, who never loses an opportunity to insert a reference into any article that mentions Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Akhilleus, and for stepping into this ugly fray. In response to your final sentence "Still, it may be that this periodical can be cited in Wikipedia articles, but it should not be used to suggest that Oxfordianism or any other non-standard theory of Shakespearian authorship has academic legitimacy", I think it should be noted that the issue here is whether the journal can be cited to explain Oxfordian views, which as Gruban noted above, should be allowed. As was noted "A source can be both reliable and biased. The article Shakespeare authorship question is specifically about the controversy, so it is a perfectly appropriate place where a journal published and reviewed by highly titled Oxfordians should be cited to explain Oxfordian views; it seems a perfectly reliable source for that branch of scholarship." Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue here was WP:PARITY and both your and Schoenbaum's zany idea that Brief Chronciles fell under 'peer reviewed journals with high standards'. It is nothing of the sort. It is as if Butlerites or Robert Graves fans produced a fanzine-journal to push the view that a woman, or Homer's daughter 'wrote' the Odyssey, and, holding the Martin Wests, Geoffrey Kirks and Erbses' of this world in contempt, reviewed each others contributions and made out this was a 'peer review' as that word is understood in serious scholarship. Such stuff could be harvested to document their dotty views, certainly, but not as the results of 'peer-reviewed' quality scholarship. Oxfordian stuff has nothing to do with scholarship, since it's fundamental premise, that the biographical fallacy is itself a fallacy (sheer blithering madness of method, in short), makes it wholly subjective and beyond the care and keep of anything by a subjective hermeneutics of suspicion that will always trump the known documentary record, and what can reasonable be inferred from it. Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Youtube links used as reference

The subject of the appropriateness of using youtube videos comes up often, however there seems to be no bright line as to whether they shold be used or not. In the case of Patrick Wolff three youtube links depicting a chess match have been repeatedly (three times) added to the article despite the request to discuss why they are necessary and if they meet the narrow instances where youtube links can or should be used as a reliable source. Is this a case where the links should be used? Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought they are really not to be inserted as inline links, personally I remove them on sight. If the only support there is for a comment is a video link that anyone can upload, perhaps the comment is not worth inserting. If it is from the subjects official site or a closely related issue then I sometimes move them to the external link section. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, Off2riorob, of course they can be reliable sources. There are official YouTube channels for some major news networks, and their items are reliable sources. Then there are some cases where an original movie can be an appropriate source, but indeed, the rest should go at first sight.

Ponyo, you might want to be a bit more specific. Are these video's reliably showing what is asserted, or not? I see there is a 'first' reference there, could the other three be supporting the first one? (I must say, it seems excessive, 4 references .. and if it is just showing the match, then one might want to check if the video is not in violation of copyright before considering if we should be here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict>The videos are not linked to an official youtube news channel and have no known copyright status. The reference for the chess game results was added by an uninvolved editor after I removed the youtube links. The youtube links were subsequesntly added back in to the article. As there is an alternative source for the info, and the copyright status for the videos is unknown, I see no reason why they should be included - especially if the editor repeatedly inserting the links will not discuss it on the article talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In this specific case, however, the video of the chess mach was not posted to an official media channel. It is annonomously posted to the public channels by someone posting as "duckgeezer". We have no way to know if the video has been edited or manipulated, and so can not rely on it. We also need to consider WP:COPYRIGHT... in the case of an official media channel, the poster owns the copyright to the video, and so can legally release it on YouTube... that is not always the case on the public channels. To use "duckgeezer"'s video, we would need to establish that he holds the copyright to this video. If he does not, then he violates the law by posting it to YouTube, and we violate the law by linking to it. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

First, we need to establish if the video is even relevant to the article. What are the videos supposed to be showing that adds to the article? Second, we have to establish that the uploader is the copyright holder, because we don't link to copyright violations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree but relevancy is not really the issue here as in this case the referenced material was totally relevant. In the case of copyright holder this reference did a major fail and cannot be a allowed. At least when I provided a youtube link in the Land of Confusion article I made sure within all reason that it was provided by the copyright holder before ever using it (see the Talk:Land_of_Confusion on this). We really need a better youtube policy as based on shown in User talk:TheEditor22 another editor got banned for using sock puppetry to keep what was a RS that a another editor who if it is the same Insider I am dealing with has a long history of COI issues regarding certain articles kept removing (which if I am understanding WP:IGNORE and WP:IAR? correctly was in a gray area).--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Virtually every YouTube link I have seen has fallen into one of three categories: a copyright violation; linkspam; original research - this case met the third criterion. "X was covered by Y, ref YouTube of X playign Y" is original research. If it's not covered in reliable independent secondary sources then it's not worth including, end of. No further policy is required specifically for YouTube, though it would make everybody's life a great deal easier if it were blacklisted and links allowed only via the whitelist. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Here are several youtube links that would NOT have any of issues you raise: CBS News, FOX News, ABC News, and The White House. These are all reliable sources so you can NOT blacklist Youtube entirely and there are are other organizations that use Youtube (the James Randi Educational Foundation) that would qualify for other articles. If used carefully I don't see any real reason to try and blacklist Youtube.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Should you delete any article which does not have reliable sources?

I wrote an article on a little known Scottish band called Iron horse. [57] To my surprise, the article is marked with Notability.

I read about the Notability guidelines and I am puzzled. I don't have anytihng to do with the Iron Horse Group. I just love their music. It may be that the music lovers highly appreciate this band. But there is no way to tell. They are next to unknown over the Internet. The band retired in 2001.

What can I do to meet the Notability requirements in this case? Can you really decide that the article is not worth being there based on the lack of sources? What if the quality of their art justifies the article by itself? Or who can be the judge of that

thanks Alfred

Yup. Without reliable sources, we don't know if anything stated in the article is even true. Plus, we don't have articles on anything people do. Notability guidelines were established to avoid every garage band, game made up at school one day, and self-published novel doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Who can Judge? ... not you or me (or any other editor on wikipedia)... this is why we require reference reliable secondary sources. They are the only reliable judge.

What can you do to meet the Notablility requirements? Find reliable secondary sources that mention the band. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's one. "Living Tradition CD review of The Iron Horse - Five Hands High", Alex Monaghan, Living Tradition magazine, issue 7. I'm not a music expert, but Living Tradition claims to be "a full colour, bi-monthly Folk & Traditional music magazine that has been in publication for over 15 years" which would tend to meet our standards. You want a few more like this. --GRuban (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As side note just to spare you any other issues make sure the article is in the main area of expertise (in this case music) as article outside that area may not quality even though it is publisher itself is reliable. Also note that journal articles on one main topic may have related sub topics that it talks about to prove its main topic point and these can have issues.

I would also like to add that the notability requirement is being misused by some editors in reference to articles in otherwise WP:RS publications ie the dreaded 'other articles don't mention this article so even though it is in a reliable publication (or even a peer reviewed journal) it is not notable' sillyness. I would like see a formal change to stop that nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I have enough info to try to make the article better. But I do need to mention one think, which is not "yes, but..." thing. I appreciate the answers you've given me. I only want to point out that in the case of a band like Iron Horse, it is not the numbers of articles about the band that makes the band notable. It is the intrinsic value of their art, their music is what makes Iron Horse a notable band in the history of music. So, if you agree with that, I would like to argue that an article on Wikipedia about a notable band, is meets automatically the notability criteria. Question remaining, how do you know the band is notable? That was the direction of my original question. I would like to have your opinion on that too but in the meantim I will go back to the article and try to improve on it. Thanks

The way we decide the encyclopedic "value" of a subject (the dividing line, whether the subject should have an article devoted to it) is described in Wikipedia:Notability. The basic rule is whether independent reliable sources have significantly covered it. In other words, we anonymous volunteer editors don't directly decide for ourselves whether a subject is worthy of coverage, we look to see if others have decided so, and we go with that decision. Otherwise we would have arguments over "the intrinsic value of their art" between someone who likes Celtic music, and others who think media containing it should carry a warning label. --GRuban (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Habrahabr.ru

It this a reliable source for IT articles? As far as I can tell it's a blog hosting service with some digg-like and slashdot-like elements, i.e. the ability to vote on stories and accumulate karma. It's a bit different than slashdot, because blogs are individual, e.g. [58]. As far as I can tell, the individual blogs all are WP:SPS, and the editorial oversight is rather hard to ascertain because it comes from anonymized votes. So, the blogs hosted there need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis: if the author a blog hosted there is a well-known authority that has published in that field elsewhere, then it's a reliable source, otherwise I think not. (FYI: AfDs where it was invoked: Evilwm, Kohana (web framework)Wmii, but for the latter two there are other sources.) Thoughts? Pcap ping 06:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say no as there is no way to really check on most blogs if a person is who they say they are. At least with self-published authors you have a clear reference and if they are favorably cited in enough WP:RS material you can build a case for them being considered experts in a topic but that is hard enough.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's simple. HH.ru have personal and themed blogs. Created article belongs to personal blog. After it get some karma points(summ of all plus and minus votes), author can move article to themed blog(such as i_am_clever or kohanaphp). It means what article is reliable. Also, for old articles, you can see a summ of all votes. In [[59]] - +24, which means what it is undoubtedly reliable. My personal meaning: 5<x<15 - normal article, 16<x<30 - reliable article, 31<x<50 - very very good aticle, 51<x - awesome article. 80.70.236.61 (talk)

I think you may be confusing "reliability" with "popularity". It seems the voting system you describe is for determining the latter, not the former. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems the reliability criterion are not correct for open source software, If you were IT-specialist you understand that in opensource world notability equals popularity in blogs, forums, howtos and distros, see discussion about Dwm. Are you programmer? If no, it is quite sad that incompetent people judge opensourse enthusiast and, e.g., scienologists, in the same manner. Why there is no special rules for FOSS, based on the same idea that Wikipedia based on? And I see that you do not understand it. Do you prefer read commerce articles in magazines feeding from Microsoft? What else do you need to understand notability=popularity? Did you follow presented link? Habrahabr and linux.org are the great tool to measure popularity=notability of FOSS project. I would like to know what are the possible way to write special notability criterion for FOSS, cause now it is not right at all, and the last deletion "discussions" shows it. Mclaudt (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability does not equate to popularity, because we define notability a certain way for our uses. So only if the blog is by " a well-known authority that has published in that field elsewhere" should it be used. Calling people incompetent (especially when they are simply telling you what oure guidelines are) is a personal attack, please don't do it again. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Linux.org.ru

Another Russian IT site invoked in AfDs (e.g. Dwm). If the unsourced Wikipedia article about it is to be believed, it operates just like slashdot, i.e. accepts user submitted stories with some moderation. Reliable source? Pcap ping 06:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• From my point of view linux.org.ru is russian variant of slashdot. So we should treat its reliability on the same basis as we do with slashdot. 77.35.27.153 (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• This site is the best way to measure notability of some opensource software. It unofficially represents Linux community in Russia, and despite its content is user-generated, it can be used to estimate notability of software. The problem of inconsistency application of WP:N for Free and OpenSource Software is one of the most important in Wikipedia. Please read Notability of free open source software. There is a strange tendency of deleting FOSS articles from Wikipedia, despite it is based on the same ideas that FOSS does. So in the trend of rethinking notability criterion for FOSS and improving it by some special guidelines, this site is great measure tool, dealing with popularity(=notability for FOSS). Links here: [60], [61]. Mclaudt (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Article name changes post-publication

I do not know why The Economist changes (apparently all of) their article names, renaming them from the original hard-print publication title to an online version. Does anyone know, and how should these articles be cited? Example:

• Venezuela's curious coup, The Economist, 2009-06-11 "ON APRIL 11th 2002 nearly a million people marched on the presidential palace in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, to demand the ousting of Hugo Chávez, the elected president whom they accused of undermining democracy and causing the creeping “Cubanisation” of the country. As they neared the palace, violence broke out, 19 people were killed and over 150 wounded.…"
  • "Venezuela's curious coup" was renamed to "Riddle wrapped in a mystery"; how would that article be correctly cited, to reflect differences in the hard-print and online versions, and what is going on here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

On a related matter, how should we cite a source when the publisher changes its name over time? Should we cite the original publisher name, under which the source was first published, or the new publisher name, if the name changed after the source was published ? Sample, Naval Historical Center changed to Naval History & Heritage Command, effective 1 December 2008 (see bottom of this page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We should WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT... if you got the information from the dead tree version (with the dead tree title) that is what you should cite, and if you got it from the on-line version (with the on-line title) that is what you should cite. This is especially important if there are differences... as it enables other editors know which version verifies the information stated in the article. Of course, if the differences are significant, this might be grounds for questioning the reliability of the information (we would need to look into why there is a difference... is one a correction of the other? etc.).

As for publisher's changing their names, I would add a parenthesis: <ref> Author Name, Source Title, Source Publisher Name (now: New Publisher Name), date, page. etc.</ref> Same thing when we source to reprints of old books... we should cite the reprint info, and note the original publication info in a parenthesis: <ref> Author, Title, Reprint publisher, date of reprint (originally published by Orignial Publisher, original date), page, etc. </ref> Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Blueboar. So, at the bottom of this edit, since I got it from an online version title "Riddle wrapped in a mystery",

• RIDDLE WRAPPED IN A MYSTERY
• Jun 11th 2009
• ON APRIL 11th 2002 nearly a million people marched on the presidential palace in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, to demand the ousting of Hugo Chavez, ...

I should change that title ... but ... the online link still goes to "Venezuela's curious coup". I don't know how to resolve this? Should I somehow indicate both titles? I'm most curious about why The Economist consistently does this-- on every article, as far as I can tell, so it's not a matter of corrections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My guess would be that the editing process for the article at some point splits into two parallel processes, one for print and one for online. This would further imply that there might be changes in the text itself, strengthening the already strong case for rigorous adherence to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Incidentally, I can't in all honesty think of another plausible reason - Riddle wrapped in a mystery is a worse headline from a SEO point of view and probably less intelligible to non-native-English-speakers, and there is no great difference in the length of the two headlines. (Length and the desire for attractive line breaks are significant factors in print headline writing that don't apply to such an extent online.) Barnabypage (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, now you have confused me... when I click on the link, I get the title "Venezuela's currious coup"... which you say is also the print edition title (unless I am misreading you). Where does the "Riddle" title come from? Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I was afraid that would happen :) I'm trying to find another example, that shows it more clearly. When you click on the link, you get one title, when you access the full online text, you get the other at the top of the article, and on some older articles (need to access one of them as an example for you), you get both, as if one of them was added as a byline. We may not get to the bottom of this without me taking a trip to the library. In the older case (which I can't locate right now, it mattered because you had the search on the new title ... very confusing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll ping DGG to see if he can shed light here (isn't he a librarian? unsure). But for example, when I cited this article years ago, it was listed as "Venezuela: Mission Impossible", but now it comes up under "Poverty in Venezuela" ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK... I think I get it. I would say all of this can be clarified by using a parenthetical mentioning the various titles. If there is a significant difference between the versions, it does not really matter which is used as the "main" citation. If there is a significant difference, then apply SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT as best you can. Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

On a related note: When an online document lists a publisher, and the publisher thereafter changes its name (but not the name on the document), what should be listed: the old name, the new name, or both? In HMS Calliope (1884) I cited to two online documents, last revised in 2002, on the website of the “Naval Historical Center” of the US Department of the Navy. That center has since changed its name to the “Naval History and Heritage Command”, and has expressed a preference that it now be referred to by that name. See bottom of this page. (That refers to images, but there does not seem to be any reason why it would not apply to texts from that source.) The articles I used were first published under the old name, bear the old name, and have not been modified since. They however are continuously published by their presence on the website of the renamed entity. I have listed both names now—is there a right or wrong answer here? Kablammo (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My call... list either the original or both. The key is ensure that someone can find the same version of the source that you saw. Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In most news sources, the person who write the article does not write the headline. This can be the result of deliberate emphasis: recent issues of the Wall Street Journal seem to have headlines giving a more conservative view that the actual news reports. In many publications there can sometimes even be two titles: a headline written by the executive editors, and a title written by the reporter; sometimes this is presented as a title and subtitle--the title is meant to catch attention, the subtitle to describe the contents. (This is a common practice with book titles as well). Sometimes I've seen a title from Associated Press or other news service, and above it a title from the reprinting newspaper. And this occurs in unexpected places also. Nature has had the practice of supplementing the actual title of an article with a headline, over which the authors have no say. Sometimes the table of contents of a publication to bear a different title than the actual article.

In academic fields, we usually go with the title that the indexing services use, but I've sometimes seen Scopus and Web of Science have different titles for an article.

In librarianship, we have a simple rule: we transcribe whatever happens to be on the title page in the position where a title is usually found. If, say, the cover of the book has a different title, which is not rare, we optionally transcribe it also.

For Wikipedia I would modify Blueboar's rule, and include whatever titles I conveniently could find. If I knew there were two, I'd use both. If I had just seen the print, I wouldn't search to see if the online was different. If I had just seen the online, and it indicated the print had a different title, I'd add it--if not indicated, I wouldn't go looking to see if it is the case. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. This is one reason why I prefer the <ref>...</ref> format for citations over templates. It allows you to be flexible when dealing with complex citations and adapt the standard formats to meet the requirements of the situation. A good rule of thumb... when it comes to citations, it is better to give too much info than not enough. Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So, is the correct summary to both of my questions here that we should indicate both in both cases? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say so. Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There's also the problem that headlines (and entire articles) are sometimes tweaked across "early" and "late" editions. I presume online versions tend to match the latest edition (sometimes incorporating errata from days or months later).--Father Goose (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

DGG, is the "both names" rule common in your profession? Do you update the 'card catalog' every time an author's name changes, e.g., due to marriage or divorce? Or is it still Mary Smith, because that's what the book says, rather than Mary Jones, which is what her friends call her? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a librarian, but the book is still by Mary Smith, until Mary Jones (if she cares to call herself that in print) chooses to have a new edition come out as the product of Mary Jones. And if that does happen then the older copies are still by Smith; only the redesigned ones are by Jones. It seems to me that most women who publish under their maiden names continue to use those names after marriage. Transsexuals (etc) are more interesting; books that were by James Morris are republished (if they're republished at all) as by Jan Morris, but my copy of a book by James Morris is by James and not Jan Morris. And if it was published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich then this is how I cite it, regardless of Harcourt (and Brace?)'s later divorce from Mr Jovanovich and marriages with Messrs World, Reed, Elsevier, Houghton and Mifflin. Morenoodles (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the International Amateur Radio Union a reliable source for information about member societies?

The International Amateur Radio Union is an international society of long existence, with member societies which must be recognized national organizations, and they only recognize one organization per nation. Member societies typically existed prior to membership in the IARU, and some member societies have existed for more than eighty years. The member societies are legally independent. The IARU is managed by the American Radio Relay League, probably because the ARRL is the largest member society.

Some years ago, a decision at AfD resulted in the creation of stubs for member societies of the IARU, based solely on such membership (which demonstrates that a particular society is national in scope), and listing by the IARU, with pointers to the member society, as well as reference in publications of the IARU, is arguably an "independent reliable source" (the IARU being legally and in fact independent from the member society, except arguably the ARRL).

Two factors, national scope and independent source for verification may create sufficient notability for a stub, that is already the guideline at WP:CLUB, and stubs appear to me to be the best solution for organization of information about the member societies in this case (there are other alternatives, of course, including lists in the article on the international organization, but that was not consensus, and the large bulk of member societies have stubs). However, a process of AfDing these stubs has begun, on the basis of lack of notability. The lack of notability claim hinges on a position that the IARU description of the members is not a "independent source."

It appears that !voting in the AfDs generally favors keeping the articles, but the very same arguments are repeated over and over and over. It would be better to have some global clarification, so that editors don't waste time pursuing alternatives with a pile of individual decisions that go one way or the other depending on who notices the AfD.

National scope is considered an important factor in the notability of nonprofit organizations, see WP:CLUB, and recognition by a notable international organization would seem to meet the minimal additional requirement for a stub: independent notice.

Hence the question (and a similar question could be asked about national member societies in any international and legally independent organization):

Is the IARU an "independent source" for the purposes of determining notability of national member societies? There is no controversy over the use of information from the IARU in articles, other than this. Some member societies have sufficient "outside" mention that has been found to qualify them for individual articles on that basis, but there is a problem that such notice in publications outside the field of amateur radio, which can be expected to exist somewhere for all these member societies, is typically in local languages, would mostly be very old, and is difficult to find, particularly under the gun of an AfD. (For example, the Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society is about eighty years old.) If the combination of national scope and the minimum notability represented by IARU recognition and listing is adequate for a stub with fully verifiable and trustworthy information, there would be no need to defend each and every member society based on claims on individual non-notability, reducing unproductive disruption at AfD. The decision whether or not to collect information in the article on the international society or to use stubs would then properly be made by editors at the international society article, the article on the umbrella organization.

This does not apply to simple "members" or especially "chapters" of international organizations. It only applies to member societies which are national in scope; these national members are legally independent and they are not established by the international society; rather, they apply for membership after they have been established. Recognition, I suggest, is "notice." And this only applies, as well, to notable international organizations, fully qualified on the basis of independent sources for their own articles.

There exist stubs on individual amateur radio clubs that would not be protected from AfD by this clearer understanding, such as clubs affiliated with the national member societies. These clubs are not national in scope, generally. --Abd (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure: I proposed a change to WP:ORG at [62], and this is being contested there based apparently on a claim that such international organizations would not be a reliable source for information about member national societies. Some of this may be based on a misunderstanding about legal independence, but because there is a sourcing issue, I've brought this here, and I'll notify participants there of this discussion. --Abd (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would say that the IARU is a reliable source for the fact that its member organizations exist and are members of the IARU. However, I don't think it can be used to establish that those member organizations are notable under WP:ORG, which states: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I would not consider IARU to be sufficiently "independent" of its 162 member organizations as to give it the authority to determine that its members are all notable. I would also disagree in part with the comment above that states: "Some member societies have sufficient "outside" mention that has been found to qualify them for individual articles on that basis, but there is a problem that such notice in publications outside the field of amateur radio, which can be expected to exist somewhere for all these member societies, is typically in local languages, would mostly be very old, and is difficult to find, particularly under the gun of an AfD. (For example, the Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society is about eighty years old.)" I would allow discussion of the member societies published in magazines devoted to amateur radio to be used as sources to establish notability for the society, as long as the magazine was not itself published by the particular society or by the IARU. Also, there is no reason to think that such coverage (regardless of what kind of publication it was in) would be very old. After all, if the HKARTS is about 80 years old, that means that such coverage could have taken place any time between the 1930s and the present day. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. From what I've seen, whenever the IARU recognizes a society, which is by vote of existing members of the society, in which the applying society is, of course, not represented, it is an independent recognition, independently published. Currently, it seems, these decisions are covered, at least, in QST, which is published by the ARRL, not the IARU. HARTS has almost certainly been covered, as an example, in other independent sources, over the eighty years, but, contrary to what's been asserted in these AfDs, it is far from easy to find those. Someone local could do it, though, someone with access to local archives and libraries. While there is some benefit to the articles from the threat of deletion, most of those who would have access to resources don't even see the AfD; I've now spent some hours on research and have found only a little on-line, and I'll say that, as well, I've never been much motivated to improve articles under AfD, too many times I've succeeded, found sources, and then the AfD closed as Delete anyway, my time was wasted. What's my one !vote? Basically, the combination of national scope and IARU recognition practically guarantees that some other sources exist. That recognition is about as close to "inherent notability" as I can imagine. I can't fathom a local or national newspaper that would not report it, if they became aware of it.

The issue here is whether or not the IARU is a reliable source for information about its members. On the fact of membership, I'd claim, it is thoroughly and completely reliable. It is relatively reliable in about everything else. I thank Metropolitan90 for the opinion about "publications devoted to amateur radio," because, with time, this will resolve the issue, especially through QST, and there are other such publications around the world. Where I disagree is in the apparent opinion that the IARU is not independent. The IARU is managed by the ARRL, which is an independent organization itself. Admission to the IARU takes a supermajority vote of the national members, I just looked at two 2009 decisions (reported in the IARU newsletter); the vote for those two new members was 72 and 73 votes out of 73 voting, with one abstention on one new member. This is independent recognition ("notice"), independently published, of a national organization, and it would be so even if the member could vote. --Abd (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, and I also don't think that Apple, Inc.'s recognition of the legally separate Apple Canada, Inc., counts as an "independent" source for Apple Canada, or that the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies is an "independent" source for information about its national members (often highly reliable, but not actually idependent). I'd say the same thing about husbands and wives, or parents and their children.
  But Abd already knows that I don't think that IARU's recognition of its members is 'independent', and that's why the question has been brought here: we would benefit from as many responses as possible. Please consider replying, even if you might normally skip this one on the grounds that the 'right' answer seems to have appeared.
  I also want to say that I wish these IARU members hadn't been nom'd for deletion in the first place, because even though IARU isn't (IMO) an independent source, I suspect that at least the majority do meet the independent sourcing requirements at WP:ORG -- just not, unfortunately, with sources that can be quickly found with your favorite web search engine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment with agreement. Thanks, WhatamIdoing. Agreement first. Yes, other comment here will be extremely valuable. Please comment. My view is that, if there isn't a clear consensus here or at WP:CLUB, the matter will be decided at Talk:International Amateur Radio Union, possibly with an RfC. --Abd (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment with partial agreement. These societies are almost certainly notable based on unarguably independent reliable source, that is due to the nature of recognition of a single national society by a highly notable international body that you can't just join by sending in your dues. The problem is finding the sources, and since it is so highly likely that sources exist, and since all that is being suggested is a consideration that international recognition, combined with national scope, establishes sufficient notability to allow a stub, and since this does not open the door to content any wider than is already open, it would seem, at worst, harmless. There has been no claim that the IARU can't be cited for information about its members. There has, in fact, been no claim that official web sites of member societies cannot be cited. Obviously, the latter cannot be used to establish notability, it is only the former that is in question. --Abd (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment with disagreement. Apple has nothing to do with this. The guideline under discussion refers to "noncommercial organizations." The IFRCRCS, however, is relevant. When that international organization recognizes a member, it is, at that point, independent, both organizations exist separately, and have separate control of their own activities. But the general case is a red herring here (though not at WP:CLUB). The question is specific, about the IARU and national member societies (which not uncommonly predate the IARU itself). There can be and have been competing national societies. The IARU will only recognize one per nation, and such competing societies have apparently merged on occasion in order to become fully national-scope and eligible for membership. Or in other cases, it seems -- I'm still researching all this -- one society was considered so predominant that it was recognized. --Abd (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• It depends what you mean by reliable source. It is reliable for facts about the organisations, but it lacks independence and is usually not a secondary source so there is no way that being recognised by this organisation would confer any kind of notability on a member society. The general notability guideline applies: the individual society articles would require multiple non-trivial independent (secondary) sources, of which this would not be one. Most of them will have been, I'm sure. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Reliable source" here means "usable for information for an article." However, there is also a notability issue, which ordinarily is considered to require an independent reliable secondary sources. However, there is a purpose to this requirement, it does not exist as a policy; rather, the policy is WP:V, and a presumption that a topic is notable if it's covered in multiple independent reliable sources. Cutting to the chase, does recognition by the IARU of an organization as the exclusive national umbrella organization, unique to a nation, indicate notability? Is the IARU an "independent" source? Now, at the time that it decides to issue recognition, it certainly is independent. I'm sure that its internal process would weigh competing claims, if they existed, and it only reports, as far as I've seen, the outcome, so it's reasonable to consider it a primary source. But it's a primary source verifying recognizing national significance for the organization, which would seem to be the issue to me; the recognized organization becomes an agent for the IARU before the national governmnent. The recognition is a recognition of national importance, which, by WP:CLUB "usually" means that the organization is notable. In reality, this should be moot, if we had easy access to other sources, which certainly exist. The issue only arises with small nations, usually, or with very long-term members, such as some established in the 1920s or 1930s. It's a near certainty that these organizations had coverage in national newspapers, but it's hard to find the sources, for sure. As well, QST is a publication of the ARRL, which manages the IARU but which is legally independent of it, and which goes way back, and I'm told there are complete archives. But they are very hard to search. Simple accepting *for this situation* that IARU recognition establishes notability, that the IARU official recognition, issued while the member national organization had no vote, is independent, would simplify the situation for probably over a hundred articles. It could then be a possible precedent for other international organizations with a similar situation, but that application would have to be considered in detail. My goal is to satisfy the intentions of the policies and guidelines, beyond the technical details of wording and habit, and then bring into conformance guidlines (which are always tentative) and actual practice, to reduce unnecessary disruption, i.e., useless AfDs or, alternatively, useless resistance to AfD. --Abd (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLUB plainly says "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards". I don't know how to make it plainer, but the word "both" here means merely meeting the first criteria, which is about the national scope of the organization, is not sufficient: the org must also meet the second criteria, which demands the production of what it describes as "third-party, independent, reliable sources."

WP:CLUB makes no claim that national organizations are "usually" notable; it claims that national organization for which third-party, independent, reliable sources can be produced are usually notable.

I am sorry that there's a mess with IARU, and I am pleased and relieved that most of the AfDs have closed as keep or no consensus, but I am very frustrated with your ongoing efforts to redefine the guideline and, now even the very notion of independence, to suit this one situation. Re-writing guidelines to gain ascendancy in a specific dispute is not usually helpful to the encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can consensus reached here be ignored by experts in a subject

There is a discussion above -- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Journal of Genetic Genealogy where an editor has said "As Andrew says, any consensus reached here can and will be ignored by editors familiar with the material". I have always understood that talk page consensus cannot trump policy, and I assume that means that talk page consensus can't overrule consensus here. Note I'm not saying there is a consensus here, this is just a question of principal for me at the moment, although I think the point at issue is also an important point of princple. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read the discussion above. It sounds like a terminal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. A topic ban on WP:AN seems in order. 85.204.164.26 (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Doug, you should know that consensus here is not something that can be enforced. This is not an arbitration pannel. Yes, you are likely to get well informed opinions on how the RS guideline and other polices should be interpreted and applied to a partiular source in a particular article, but that is it. This notice board does not "Trump" anything. What "trumps" local consenus is the guideline itself. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

One would hope that all editors take what is said here into consideration. Of course with strongly held beliefs regarding a single issue often a WP:RFC is a helpful next step.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll need to reword the question. If there is a clear consensus here, yet on the talk page of an article the editors there decide to ignore it, surely the next thing to do (in a hypothetical case, not the one above) is indeed to go elsewhere, possibly ANI? I know this is not an arbitration panel, but ArbCom doesn't normally deal with issues like this. How often are RfCs used to enforce policy/guidelines as opposed to simple content issues? If discussions here can simply be ignored we're just talking to ourselves. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Doug, I realize that this is probably just a theoretical discussion but I do think it reflects upon the real case at hand, or may be seen to (as shown by the IP reaction above!). The quote you cite by Din is being taken out of context. There was in fact no real consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never said there was. I don't see one either. I'm interested here in the hypothetical, because it's a problem that exists elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This RfC [63] did manage to settle a many year dispute and avoided going to ARB. I will say that simple issues can hopefully be dealt with here but that for more intractable cases we are just talking to ourselves and going through the motions, proving that all measures have been attempted, before parties move to ANI / RFC / ARB.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

When editors ignore a clear consensus at RS/N, the next step is typically AN/I. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think that what happens more typically in cases like the one under discussion is that because the discussion itself has been so ill-informed, deliberately confused by an interested party, filled with personal attacks, vague accusations and emotive language; and consensus was so "called" quickly in an artificial way, that if anyone ever tried to use the ruling in the dozens of involved articles, there is the option of simply having a better discussion. The above case is part of one long personal attack in sheep's clothing. On his talk page User:Dbachmann explained to me, sympathetically with rudra, that rudra is worried about the use that people with "Aryan" theories about India use genetics articles, and that is on a mission to do something about that. I have asked him to explain how this fits with Wikipedia policy, and indeed which theories he thinks are dangerous, but I got no answer. As can be seen by looking at the discussion spread deliberately all over Wikipedia, Rudra does not want clear discussion with other editors he wants to over-rule and go in with "emergency powers". That's why he is here, and that is why he asked Dbachmann to block me for disagreeing with him and that is why his talkpage contributions on R1a are pure trolling and personal attack.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your post is one long personal attack having nothing whatsoever to do with the assessments made here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I realize that this is a theoretical discussion, but nonetheless, it is expressly linked to an example case involving me, and specifically it is citing an incident out of context. Not only do I feel it is important to avoid misunderstandings, sorry, but also I tend to think that in order to discuss theoretical cases it is interesting to consider why real life cases might not be what they look like. On the other hand, going through a case history which can be cross checked is not personal attack. For what personal attack means see [[64]]. Here is a textbook example of personal attack according to the definition.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

FitzPatrick & Reynolds, False Profits

An editor is using the book False Profits as a source for several claims in the article on multi-level marketing. The book appears to be a "vanity publishing" book, with the publisher, "Herald Press" [65] having the same address (1235-E East Blvd. #101, Charlotte NC 28203) as the authors "consumer advocate" organisation and website www.pyramidschemealert.org [66] No other books appear to have been published by this publisher and the authors have no other RS publications in the field, his website has been previously rejected as an RS for the article[67]. Comments appreciated. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you outline what is being asserted using this book as a source? Skeptics dictionary did a review BTW [68] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Skeptic's Dictionary on this topic is another issue altogether. Carroll's articles on MLM and MLM companies like Amway are full of quite juvenile errors and misunderstandings of the industry (like claiming that generating wholesale sales through recruiting other distributors is dumb because it's "recruiting competitors" - yeah, so Coke should get rid of all those wholesale distribution channels and deal only with consumers!). Carroll refuses to even accept emails on the topics. Anyway, the claims the "False Profits" reference is to support (amongst other poorly supported POV claims, but one at a time) are that "Another criticism of MLMs are that MLMs ... are pyramid schemes ... and use..." the exploitation of personal relationships for financial gain". These are clearly controversial POV opinions and from an otherwise unnotable and non RS source have no place in wikipedia. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

One could change this too "Carroll criticizes MLMs for being pyramid schemes that exploitation personal relationships for financial gain" Lots of people criticize MLMs and these criticisms are notable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies I was a little unclear in my response. The claims were from the False Profit book, not Carroll. I've not looked into the use of Carroll as a source for the article yet (it's there) but I'm not sure if it's notable in this area, given it's clearly an opinion piece and to the best of my knowledge he has no expertise in the area of business. In any case, for now I'm just concerned with the False Profit's book. Carroll's book has at least been published by a reputable publishing company, though I'm not sure if the Amway/MLM articles are in the published version. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the source is poor. However we have better sources that also say that MLM is a pyramid scheme and that it exploits relationships for financial gain such as [69]. Thus we have an easy solution. Replace this poor reference with a good reference. I have the complete copy to this article if needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Doc James, governments around the world all state that "pyramid schemes are illegal", yet they also state that multilevel marketing is legal. Any source that says MLMs are pyramid schemes are either (a) saying they are illegal, which is not true, or (b) saying pyramid schemes can be legal, which is also not true. Clearly any such source is, virtually by definition, not reliable. With regards the metapress.com link, it unfortunately doesn't work without the login. Which article are you referring to? There's two I found through a search for "multilevel marketing", one on "internal consumption" [70] and one on "socialization" [71]. I have both papers and neither of them support the claims, indeed both explicitly note that MLMs are NOT pyramid schemes. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I see now you mean the "internal consumption" paper as a source for the fact that some critics of MLM believe them to be pyramid schemes? It's certainly usable for that. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

CRITICISMS OF MULTILEVEL MARKETING MLM is without question controversial. Millions of people are positively disposed toward MLM as judged by the number of MLM distributors and MLM sales. Simultaneously, count- less individuals, through publications, blogs, and Web sites, vehemently criticize MLM. MLM practitioners in particular have been criticized for alleged unethical behavior that includes misrepresenting earning potentials, pressuring friendsand relatives to become distributors or purchase unneeded or unwanted products and services, and using deceptive recruit-ing tactics (e.g., Bloch 1996; Koehn 2001).

As will be discussed, the existence of internal consumption in the context of MLM is viewed by critics of MLM as primafacie evidence of an unethical and perhaps illegal pyramid scheme.

Title:On the Ethicality of Internal Consumption in Multilevel Marketing Source:The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management [0885-3134] Peterson yr:2007 vol:27 iss:4 pg:317

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

<-That's a pretty decent summary of the issues, shame we can't just cut and paste it :) It obviously needs rewording and additional sources. I think I have the two sources he cites, as well as many other academic articles, however I haven't read them all yet. At present I'm just trying to clear out the POV and poor sources currently being pushed. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as we provide a reference and it seem to be a reasonable size quote way can't we directly quote it? I use Carl (2004)'s direct quote from the Western Journal of Communication complete with inline citation after all. Or is it because you have issues with Carter 1999 being part of the direct quote?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS specifically deals with material published by vanity presses, which appears to be the case here. Is either author "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent) Something similar to this was this was kicked around in Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#When_does_an_person_become_enough_of_an_expert_that_we_can_used_his_self-published_material.3F. The list provided in that thread regarding Taylor and Fitzpatrick was as follows:

Carl, Walter J. (2002) "Organizational Legitimacy As Discursive Accomplishment in Multilevel Marketing Discourse" Organizational Communication Division of the National Communications Association conference Nov 21-24, 2002. (uses FitzPatrick's book False Profits as a reference)

Carl, Walter J. (2004) "The Interactional Business of Doing Business: Managing Legitimacy and Co-constructing Entrepreneurial Identities in E-Commerce Multilevel Marketing Discourse" Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 68.

Cruz, Joan Paola; Camilo Olaya (2008) "A System Dynamics Model for Studying the Structure of Network Marketing Organizations" Requirements of System Dynamics conference papers for the 2007 conference papers were as follows: "Papers may be submitted from January 2, 2007 to March 26, 2007 and must be in sufficient detail for the referees to judge their meaning and value. Submissions must be in English and should be 5 - 30 pages in length (there is also a maximum 2 MB electronic file size). Abstracts will not be accepted. Submission of models and other supporting materials to enable replication and aid the review process is encouraged in all cases (maximum file size 2 MB in addition to the paper). [...] All works submitted will be assigned for double blind peer review. The results, with the oversight of the program chairs, will determine whether a work will be accepted, and the presentation format for the work."

Higgs, Philip and Jane Smith (2007) Rethinking Our World Juta Academic uses MLM Watch website as well as Fitzpatrick as references. "Juta is respected as South Africa's pre-eminent academic and law publisher".

Koehn, Daryl (2001) "Ethical Issues Connected with Multi-Level Marketing Schemes" Journal of Business Ethics 29:153-160.

Pareja, Sergio, (2008) "Sales Gone Wild: Will the FTC's Business Opportunity Rule Put an End to Pyramid Marketing Schemes?" McGeorge Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 83. ("student-run, scholarly journal published on a quarterly basis" by University of the Pacific)

Terry Sandbek, Ph.D. Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology uses both Taylor and FitzPatrick

Woker, TA (2003) "If It Sounds Too Good to Be True It Probably Is: Pyramid Schemes and Other Related Frauds" South African Mercantile Law Journal 15: 237

Wong, Michelle. A. (2002) "China's Direct Marketing Ban: A Case Study of China's Response to Capital-Based Social Networks" Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal

The issue of how much and often someone has to be sited in reliable sources to be considered an expert was never really addressed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that the "MLM organizations have been described by some as cults (Butterfield, 1985), pyramid schemes (Fitzpatrick & Reynolds, 1997), or organizations rife with misleading, deceptive, and unethical behavior (Carter, 1999), such as the questionable use of evangelical discourse to promote the business (Hopfl & Maddrell, 1996), and the exploitation of personal relationships for financial gain (Fitzpatrick & Reynolds, 1997)." part is an exact quote of Carl's Western Journal of Communication article and is repeated verbatim (without the inline references) in Phillip G. Clampitt's Communicating for managerial effectiveness 3rd edition (2004) Sage Publications on pg 667. I used the Carl reference as it is clearly more informative--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC).

As an aside - pretty much all distribution is "multi-level" - the point at which "pyramid" becomes inportant is where a significant part of the total revenue is derived from recruiting more marketers. As long as the main interest is in selling a product, it is not a "pyramid scheme." In many fields, by the way, where there are several ;ocal competitors in an industry, one will buy the wholesale amounts to reach price break points, and re-wholesales lesser amounts to his own competitors. The result is that he makes a small profit on each resale (and saves on his own wholesale costs) while the others have a convenient local jobber who is as cheap or cheaper than if they made individual purchases. Collect (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

College newspapers

What are peoples thoughts on the reliability of The Daily Collegian and Collegiate Times, used in Michael Peter Woroniecki. I haven't read every article yet, but I'm thinking that they are possibly acceptable for reporting events that occurred on campus, but not external events. I'm trying to clean up a major NPOV issue, and this guidance would be useful before I start. Kevin (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

College newspapers do have editorial oversight, though the amount and quality of such oversight will vary wildly depending on the paper. I'd say they're fine for non-controversial claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much what I thought. I don't think there is a single non-controversial aspect to Woroniecki, so I'm going to have to find better ones. Kevin (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The "oversight" is generally limited, especially for articles which have notorious "facts" in them - the editors are generally more anxious for a "good read" than for absolute objectivity. Caveat lector. Collect (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

In this working paper and later a book (The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy), Walt and Mearsheimer are critical of what they see as the extension of the "Israel lobby" dominating public discourse. In regards to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy they claim "Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case... Its board of advisers...includes no one who might be thought of as favoring the perspective of any country or group in the 'Near East.' Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks."

I believe that the authors' critical opinion can be cited as just that--and for a long time this has been in the criticism section of the WINEP article. In searching around other articles that cite it it is always cited as the authors' viewpoints (Max Boot, Saban Center) and placed in the criticism or dispute section. An editor now seems to believe it is okay to include the authors' viewpoint as a part of the article's neutral text, even though the article has a criticism section. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Walt and Mearsheimer's report should only be cited for Walt and Mearsheimer's opinion; it's a notable minority view, but definitely not reliable for neutral factual sourcing due to the controversies over its accuracy. THF (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I suspected. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the book is currently being cited in the body of the article as Walt & Mearsheimer's opinion, just as THF suggests. The full excerpt from the current article is:

However, John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political science professor, and Stephen Walt, academic dean at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, describe it as "part of the core" of the Israel lobby in the United States. Discussing the group in their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer and Walt write: "Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda... Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks."

It is in no way being described as a neutral fact - only their opinion.← George ^talk 06:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The text as quoted by George looks to me like a perfectly ordinary report of an opinion. If it is an accurate and balanced account of that opinion, I don't see the problem. Zero^talk 12:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing RFC at RAF Rudloe Manor

I'd be grateful if we could get some opinions on the RFC at Talk:RAF_Rudloe_Manor#Notability_and_suitability_of_sources, which relates to another users desire to use two primary sources, documents from The National Archives, in support of his assertions. These are File:PROVOST.gif and File:GOVTDO3.gif There is also a notability issue, is the section within a larger Headquarters worthy of being singled out for discussion in the article.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bedford School

I have a question about a source of some information on a article about a school. The question revolves around a claim of a case of arson at the school (for the record I am not connected to the school in any way).

Some Background :

The article as I cam across it refereed to a "arson" in 1979 without any ref - there were (and are) photos showing a fire so I first taged then after 2 weeks changed to to fire. An editor Toddy1 came up with two refs 25th Anniversary of Bedford School’s Great Fire, March 2004 and An interview with Mr Simms, who celebrated 50 years with Bedford School this week, November 2009. one which says fire and one that says arson and reverted the article back to arson.

I reverted the article back to fire with this edit stating that : as the refs provided are WP:PRIMARY and one says "fire" and the one that says "arson" does not elaborate on the reason for claiming it was arson

Now an ip editor 20.133.0.13 is claiming that they are not WP:PRIMARY and I miss understand what a WP:PRIMARY source is (see this post to user page) as the passage of time makes this a secondary source.

So to my question :

1. Is anything a organisation says about it's self ever not WP:PRIMARY ? does the passage of time change it?

2. Is the school website a WP:RS about the fire and calling it arson ? Codf1977 (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My quick reaction would be to say that the school Website is a RS in saying that there was a fire, but not in terming it arson - distinguishing arson from an accidental fire is not part of the usual expertise of schoolteachers! However, Google throws up lots of other sources for it being arson so I'm sure you can find something better. For example try this one from the local authority, which references a fire service document. Barnabypage (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Think that is the best one - shame it looks like a visit to the record office is needed to find out what is in the clipping and what paper it came from. I do think on balance it was probably arson - will keep looking though for a WP:RS untill then will keep it at just fire Codf1977 (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You deleted arson, demanding a source. I found a source. But you still edit war over it. I do not see how you can stretch the definition of primary source to cover the source.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• The website of the school is a primary source. There's no "stretching" of the definition needed. If that isn't obvious to you, try reading WP:PRIMARY and see if that clears it up for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved. [72] is a reliable source for the statement that it was Arson. Hipocrite (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

[73] reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the National Archives are reliable - however it only says "man guilty of setting fire to Bedford School" - it does not say arson. Codf1977 (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of what Arson is? Hipocrite (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes intentionally and maliciously setting fire to structures - I don't have any knowledge of this case - but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the crown was unable to prove arson and the person was convicted of a lesser charge. As I have said before I think it probably was arson - but probably does not hack it when it comes to an encyclopaedia. The only thing we know for sure is there was a fire and someone was convicted in relation to that fire, we do not know what he was convicted of. Codf1977 (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We know for sure. There is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that it is arson. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Moot point (see below) but I am at a loss to see how you can be sure with the sources provided. Codf1977 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are being unreasonable.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

St. Louis Post-Dispatch Political Fix

User is deleting this reference saying blogs are not RS What say you? Dlabtot (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The guideline at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources states: Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

The biography of the author of this particular blog states: Jo Mannies is a political columnist and blogger for the Post-Dispatch, where she had been the chief political writer until she stepped down as a full-time staffer in November 2008.

The blog in question appears on the Website of the Post-Dispatch.

I'd say it's fine. Barnabypage (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added the source back per the above argument, however since this is not an ideal reliabl;e source, I have attributed it. I have removed the label "convative" from the lead sentence because using labels like this with a single source, especially a blog, is problematic per WP:LABEL. If a source mentions a label as part of a description, that's (probably) OK; but to go around looking for labels that sources have used in order to insert them into articles without explanation or context is a highly unconstructive thing to do, I think. --Defender of torch (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just who is it that you are accusing of acting in bad faith in that way? We report what the sources say. Dlabtot (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

George Thorogood's birthday?

Hi I'm not sure you have George Thorogood's birthday right. I believe it is actually December 31st, can not confirm the year (1950-1952).

Thanks Lori

Do you have a source for this - a book or a reliable Website or something like that which gives the information? Barnabypage (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

truthdig.org

Can I get an opinion about this source being used to back up material added to the BLP of Debra Medina (politician)? Namely, is http://truthdig.org considered a reliable source? Thanks. —DoRD (?) (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a curious source. A lot of things seem news-like but some articles such as this one expand tenfold and get really editorial. As such, I see a ton of red flags and there's no way whatsoever that it should be considered RS on a biography or a living, dead or even fictitious person. The start is somewhat tolerable, but it dives into defamatory gossip in a hurry. Even if that all can be proven factually accurate (which it makes only minor attempts to) we'd still have more to talk about since the site as a whole offers no balance. I see on the article talk page for Medina that the contributor adding notes the source's founder as proof of credibility/reliability, but just because someone who has won an award on a topic or is well-known in a certain community doesn't mean everything on their web site is automatically vetted and balanced.

Certainly not appropriate per an easy duck test of reliability. Might also consider a review of Truthdig (our article). This in no way impacts its use as a source or not and would be a separate matter. It's used elsewhere on Wikipedia as a source, but for statistical facts or quotations passing the "do no harm" bit. This is entirely different. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Source: Dog Whisperer

Nutshell: Article in question: Dog Whisperer, citing a Theatre History PHD candidate with no ostensible dog behavior expertise, as published in the journal of the Institute for Critical Animal Studies, the disputed source. See: Steven Best

The reference "Lisa Jackson Schebetta, a Ph.D. candidate in Theatre History, Theory and Criticism at the University of Washington,[24] concluded that the goal of the program is always a product, a dog that behaves according to its owners' desires, however illogical.[25] The dog is filmed performing his problem behavior, a male human voice-over describes the situation briefly, the owners share their exasperation with the film crew, and Millan arrives. He meets the people and shares with them his basic philosophies: ― a dog needs exercise, discipline and love, in that order, and the human has to be the Pack Leader. These mantras are the answer to every dog's problem, regardless of where the dog has come from or his or her current state of agitation. Although there are alternative theories about dog behavior and training, any discussion of these is omitted. Millan then meets the dog, the dog submits to him, and the owners celebrate, often voicing their amazement in referring to the miracle they have witnessed. The formula —problem dog meets Millan, dog submits, and owners are overjoyed — does not waver. Although the footage is clearly edited to construct the predictable story, each episode presents itself as natural and spontaneous.[25]"

The article [Mythologies and Commodifications of Dominion in The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan] The journal [Journal for Critical Animal Studies] The author [Lisa Jackson-Schebetta]

This was deleted as not meeting wikipedia's definition of a 'reliable source' and its re-instating is being contested. Marj (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As the editor who deleted the section, I made this note in the Edit Summary: "deleted Jackson info: she's a Ph.D. candidate in Theatre History, Theory and Criticism at the University of Washington." The Criticism section of the Dog Whisperer article is full of really good, expert testimony. In our discussion, Marj said she wanted the section to be as scientific as possible. The source of the publication is in question, as is the validity of sourcing criticism of a dog trainer/rehabilition professional... by a theater history student. Which seems... decidedly tenuous. 842U (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It was User:842U's suggestion to raise the issue here, so not sure what the objection is now. All of the "really good, expert testimony" was added by me. This page is about a television program. It is not about Cesar Millan, he has a separate page. Jackson Schebatta is qualified to analyse a television program. She is not a 'student' she is a PhD candidate - but more to the point is that her article was reviewed and assessed before publication. Marj (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems deliberately argumentative, rather than an attempt to resolve the reliability of the source. Where's the blame?? Marj (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is relevant that the article is linked to in PDF format, anyone who wishes to can vet the information for themselves by reading the whole paper. Marj (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The article by Jackson-Schebatta does not appear to be a reliable source for this topic. The author is not qualified as an animal behavior expert, and the journal that published the article seems to be an activist publication that is not peer-reviewed. There is no editorial board, but they do list an "editorial team" that includes no experts in animal behavior or directly related fields. [74]--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The topic is a television program. The page is not on animal behaviour. If the page were about Buffy the Vampire Slayer would the writer need to be an expert on vampires, or on television? Marj (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It absolutely wouldn't hurt though would it. And more importantly, Wikipedia NPOV and COI guidelines would preclude having an animal-liberation-affiliated editor altering an article on a dog show to suggest the show... commodifies domination of dogs. 842U (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote is on the program format. Her opinions on animal behaviour, if she has any, are not referenced. Marj (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you (Jack-A-Roe) say that the journal is not peer reviewed? Quote "Upon acceptance for review, the editors will send manuscripts, under a double-peer reviewed process, to no less than two, and generally three reviewers. Reviewers provide their recommendations to the editor, who makes the final decision to accept the manuscript." Marj (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dog Whisperer also references the Huffington Post, USA Today, and the Hollywood Gossip website - and these are accepted as 'reliable sources'. Marj (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Huffington/Hollywood: there would be a different standard for a source reporting a discreet piece of information, e.g., that The Dog Whisperer won a People's Choice Award, and source reporting professional criticism of an entire television show (about dog behavior) — especially when the source does not confine themselves to their area of expertise. In other words, Jackson-Schebatta makes broad criticisms relating not to the show, but to dog behavior. 842U (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see that info about peer-review on that website - would you provide the link for the page where that is listed? Regarding the newspapers used as sources in the article, those are separate questions - they may be reliable or not depending on how they are used. If there is a concern about that, they should be checked. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The advice to contributors is usually the best place to find a journal's policy on reviewing. [Submissions] Marj (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS) is highly biased; it was co-founded by Steven Best, formerly known as the Center on Animal Liberation Affairs (CALA): an animal liberation group. ICAS is affiliated also with libnow.org, their animal liberation activist blog. As such, ICAS as a huge COI commenting on anything animal related; there is no way ICAS as a source could represent NPOV. 842U (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Awards and criticism are biased. Surely you are not suggesting they can be otherwise User:842U? Marj (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems appropriate to use as a criticism in the article, as long as you specify the source ("... journal of animal liberation group ..." or something like that). The fact that a show about animals is criticized by animal rights activists is important, and ICAS and/or CALA seem like a notable animal rights journal and organization respectively from what you've written here and our article. It is an edited journal, which says nothing about neutral, all that means is that it's not just one person ranting, the article is approved by some kind of organization. We can't expect criticism to come from NPOV sources, criticism is inherently POV. However, I think it's getting a bit of undue weight in the article as is; the section on Jackson-Schebatta's criticism is just another criticism, and shouldn't get a separate section. I also think the fact that she's a theatre student isn't important; the fact that her criticism was published in an animal rights magazine seems the important part to me. I'd put it into the criticism section, and shorten it by a third. --GRuban (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasoned opinion. User842U combined two separate references to this article into one section and gave it the heading. It was just another criticism when I added it. Marj (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There may be a use in the article for that source, but it must not have undue weight, and must be presented with attribution to the activist bias of the source. I would add though that for a TV show that is as widely viewed as this one, it seems better sources can be found than an article by a grad student in an obscure agenda-based publication. If that source is used, it should be limited to one sentence, not a full paragraph. It's just someone's opinion, and that person is not an expert on the topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jack-A-Roe that is useful - I think I have now done this. Though there are academic listings of Journal authority and this particular one is not obscure, and no more agenda-based than any publication (you don't start a journal unless you think there is a gap that needs coverage) and the whole point of a refereed journal is that the published article is NOT one person's opinion, but reflects a consensus of a review panel and editorial team. Why I think this paper is important is that it makes the point that this is a television program, filmed and edited to appear natural, but very much a constructed narrative with the necessary happy ending. While there is much authoritative research on dog training methods that critique the methods used by Millan, this is the only peer-reviewed research on the Dog Whisperer television program - which is the subject of this page. Marj (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

However I am tired of 842U's dirty tricks - like removing comments that they have made from discussion forums to change the character of the discussion and remove incriminating statements. Their history shows that they were indefinately blocked from Wikipedia and later given a second chance, and as recently as last month were in conflict with another editor for deleting sections of the Smile Train page "without discussion or consensus" Check my history. Since I began serious editing last December all I have done is raise two pages to Good Article standard. This time the bad guys win. This is my last edit. Marj (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nash Information Services

This group does not appear notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, yet is is linked in something perhaps close to 700 articles [75] Is that an issue? MM207.69.139.150 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see it as a problem. It appears that Nash Information Services is best known for publishing The Numbers (website), which has had an article of its own at various times in the past, although it has been deleted each time. Still, I don't think there is any rule that being non-notable makes a source unreliable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

How are we to gage the reliability of a source if there are no third parties that talk about the source? MM207.69.139.150 (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bruce Nash, the editor of The Numbers, is sometimes quoted as a source in articles about the movie business that are printed in reliable sources, such as the San Francisco Chronicle, The Times, Esquire, and the Sydney Morning Herald. There may not be enough information in these articles to write a full article about his website, but apparently these reliable sources believe that Nash knows what he is talking about with regard to box office issues. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this is the proper forum for this discussion. the community has already discussed and decided upon this exact topic twice on the Articles for deletion page which discussed the information you are bringing up here.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry about that, I misread this entire discussion. Since I am now officially the Jerk on this thread I will keep my opinions to myself and just let you know to disregard what I wrote.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica

Is it a reliable source? Because there is a "suggest edit" button. Is it like wikipedia that anyone can edit the articles? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's a reliable source. The "suggested edit" button is a response to Wikipedia, so that the public can identify errors or propose improvements, but the expert editors decide whether or not to include them, and determine the actual wording of any changes. Paul B (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's a reliable source, per Paul Barlow. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncertain -- the online version editors do look at proposed revisions and make changes, but it is a "tertiary source" under WP counting, hence a secondary source is substantially preferred. I porposed a wording change in an article which they adopted, and another Wiki editor wrote a long missive implying I had a nefarious aim. They reverted, lest they be caught up in a controversy over nothing. The print version is a tad less of a problem, but still tertiary. Collect (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The online version has the same editorial oversight as the offline. User-generated content cannot be added directly to articles. And tertiary sources, particularly as respected as Britannica, are considered fairly reliable sources, particularly when the articles have named authors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Is James Miller reliable on Michel Foucault?

Hello. There is a dispute about whether the writer James Miller is a reliable source to comment on Michel Foucault. Please see the dispute here. Specifically, the dispute is partly over whether Miller is a reliable source on Foucault's philosophy with regard to sado-masochism. Here are some quotes directly from his book:

• Miller, James. "The passion of Michel Foucault," Harvard University Press, 2000: "The philosopher himself, the artist went on, "had given interviews on sado-masochism," he appeared in public wearing his leather clothes, he made no secret of his inclinations--he lived, in his own fashion, as freely and defiantly as Diogenes had in ancient Athens." [paragraph break] "All of which, as we have seen, is true."

pp. 379-378: "By now, I took it for granted that Foucault's pre-occupation with sado-masochism was an important key for unlocking some of the most challenging but commonly neglected aspects of his work. I also assumed--correctly, as it turned out--that Americans were far more likely than the French to talk freely about this aspect of Foucault's life."

p. 378 [referring to a discussion with Foucault's longtime partner, Daniel Defert]: We talked for nearly three hours. My line of questionining seemed to strike some nerve. It was, I suppose, clear that I had immersed myself in Foucault's texts. It was clear as well that I had done my homework about Foucault's experiences in America's gay community. Defert of course knew about these experiences; and he clearly agreed that these experiences were important, indeed crucial, for a proper understanding of Foucault's work, and particularly his last books."

James Miller is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of Liberal Studies at the New School for Social Research, and his text was published by Harvard University Press. If there is more information that I would need to provide, please advise. The reason I have queried here is to get an outside opinion. Thank you.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The big problem with the Miller text is that many Foucaultian scholars agree that he intentionally misreads or distorts Foucaults works in order to provide foundation for his thesis (that Foucaults ventures into deviant sexual behavior provided the groundwork for his political and scholarly endeavors). this is the same claim that TheSoundAndTheFury is attempting to place in the article. The Cambridge Companion provides a good review of why Miller should not be trusted stating among other things that "miller overemphasizes it to the point of distortion," (you can read the rest of it at my link). this view is supported by Carrette who frequently opposes Millers read on Foucault and claims that Miller "misread" Foucault to get his claims. Page 16 and 24 are particularly interesting. There are other places, but this summery provides the reason the community at the Foucault page are resistant to inserting Millers claims that Foucault's personal experience is directly tied to his work and should be elaberated upon in what we feel is inappropriate.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It qualifies as RS under the rules. That it received negative reviews because other scholars do not share Miller's take on the relation of his SM interests and his radical politics is neither here nor there. I can't se anything controversial about Miller's position (I don't know the book), though my instincts, reading these short snippets, tell me I wouldn't personally like his book. You get the same stuff in earlier mainstream French books, i.e. Didier Eribon's 'Michel Foucault,' Flammarion Paris 1991 p.337 ('La pratique du SM est la création du plaisir') and the exactions of historical forms of social power on pleasure (though 'les événements affectent des concepts et non pas des hommes' ) is an important qualifier in Foucault that could be used against Miller's reading) were central to his work. Suffice to put 'according to J Miller', and it is acceptable. Mind you, there is so much superb work by ranking scholars on Foucault that one should access those, except if they generally fail to explore the SM connection in reasonable detail. Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is to be inclusive. Why not include the views which argue that S/M and these other sexual practices were important for Foucault and his work, and the sources which seek to criticise those views. The reader will at least be presented with that. If this was not notable, it would not have attracted the attention. In particular, I have not heard a response to how it is actually Foucault's partner, Defert, who gave much substance to the claim that S/M etc. were important, "even essential" to understanding Foucault's later books. Those were not the words of Miller. Other sources provided on the talk page give credence to the view that this is an important aspect of Foucault's life and work. As you very rightly point out, there are also other points of view. I do not understand why this dispute cannot be included in the article, rather than brushed aside. For now, I suppose the question is: does a source become unreliable because it has been criticised? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, by the way. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone editing speaks enough French for it, Didier Eribon's biography of Foucault is a good source in general and does cover this aspect of the life and work. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Doh, just seen Nishidani already said so! Itsmejudith (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We crossposted. Precisely, Judith. Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

the biggest problem is a WP:WEIGHT issue. the connection between Foucault's personal sexual deviance and his philosophy is only a main topic in Millers text, a reading that he had to distort the available information to achieve. as another editor brought forth here are some other reviews that support this viewpoint "Diane Rubenstein's review in Modern Fiction Studies states what appears to be the consensus among Foucault experts about this book: it is a "a sordid, distorted, and sensationalist reading" of Foucault. (Modern Fiction Studies 41.3-4 (1995) 681-698.) Ruth Ohayon castigates Miller's "salacious approach" in The French Review, Vol. 70, No. 4 (Mar., 1997), pp. 605-606." even though it qualifies on the surface as a WP:RS if the Foucault community believe that it is "scandalous" which one author warns the reader to check Miller's quotations because of the multiple examples of "textual abuses" p. 172. That and the book was started based on the now completely disproved rumor that when Foucault "realized he was dying of AIDS, 'had gone to gay bathouses in America, and deliberately tried to infect other people with the disease'" Miller wrote the book "to see if anything in Foucault's major works could be connected with the morbid story he had heard" (same citation as above p. 178). The above citations go beyond criticism, and enter into the realm of attacking the credibility of Millers work, and those attacks are coming from authors who are considered experts in Foucault's life and works.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Googling the secondary literature, his thesis is described as one that aroused vigorous inframural debate and rebuttal, which means that, while it qualifies as RS in every sense, it is a minority view within academia. I checked out what distinguished scholars like David Halperin and Alistair MacIntyre had to say: they're trustworthy on things like getting an intellectual tradition and translations of key texts right, etc., and they are harsh on Miller, for misreading the Bataille-Klossowski-Nietzsche nexus. So this means he is RS but, as you say, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT comes into play. Miller's views can be briefly cited, strictly for the theory of the SM-theory connection, but little else, as far as my superficial examination of the record allows me to understand. Wikipedia is full of RS (the I/P area) that are wholly unreliable on many specific issues, yet must be cited, because those are the rules. And, finally, most scholars, Halperin aside, who criticize Miller, probably don't know what it's like to be in certain Frisco bath-houses. I don't either, but welcome, against my native grain, anyone who raises the issue: the contrast between those austere deccades in the dusty stacks of Parisian historical libraries, and few wild and intensive years in the fleshpots of San Francisco is too strong not to make the curious bystander wonder about certain connections. Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani provides some interesting insights. I will sum up my understanding of the actionable conclusion of all this: Miller's notes on Foucault's sado-masochism may be mentioned but not in depth, and the fact that Foucault had a professional and personal interest in sado-masochism is not beyond the pale for inclusion. I will edit the article with this in mind, introducing some of what was previously deleted. The editors on that page can refactor and rephrase as appropriate. If, in the end, Miller is not a reliable source on Foucault except for specific issues, then should he be removed from other parts of the article? His text is referred to several times. Another issue is that if the criticism of Miller is not directed at his remarks about Foucault's experiences "in the fleshpots of San Francisco," is it directly relevant for Miller's remarks on that, or can we presume that the criticism extends to Miller's depiction of these aspects of our subject? I also don't know how much thought has been given to the idea of simply noting where scholars disagree on these matters of research and interpretation. When we are able to narrate a dispute, we give the reader something more valuable than keeping all that information out. (IMO) --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the edit for anyone interested. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it per WP:UNDUE. We can have a footnote indicating there is some controversy surrounding Miller's salacious biography, but the Foucault bio page is not the place to detail the various claims made in that biography. Perhaps on Miller's page it is useful information but not here, where its only purpose seems to be prurient. csloat (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Csloat, a number of editors above have considered that the inclusion has some merit, and that Miller scrapes through as a reliable source. I do not understand the resistance. Particularly, the version proposed by Coffeepusher spent most of the text criticising Miller. It's quite unclear how this violates the due weight clause. Would the editors who previously commented on this please consider advising on whether csloat's behaviour here is productive? This information, as has been shown, has been mentioned by many reliable sources. Total exclusion seems unwarranted; but I would like to hear the opinions of others. I will leave a note on their talk pages to highlight the fact that the disagreement is still ongoing. My version, Coffeepusher's version, clsoat's deletion --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

don'tr understand the deletion by csloat. SM as I showed citing Didier's bio, was something that fascinated Foucault, and Miller, who, on reading more extensively, does not seem anything like the best RS for anything regarding the intellectual geneaology of Foucault's thought, certainly examines this indubitable aspect of Foucault's life more than the other biographers I am familiar with. Therefore he certainly can be cited, if sparely, on Foucault and sadomasochism, if only because his book is frequently cited in the more orthodox, 'anal' (i.e. conceptually restrictive) accounts of the thinker.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems odd to me to say that his experience in the American gay scene influenced his philosophy. It could only have affected his thought in his later years. Histoire de la folie was published in 1961. Eribon is a much better source since he continually and very clearly relates the life to the oeuvre. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, yes, that is what Miller notes through Foucault's longtime partner: it was an influence in his later years. I am unable to verify your statements re Eribon because I never learnt French. Yet it's still unclear why Miller is such a problem--why not just note the criticism, as Coffeepusher did? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As Judith says, it didn't influence his philosophy, which was fully formed by the late 60s. Even the later trilogy Histoire de la sexualité comes from courses he gave around 68 at the Collège de France. The problem with Eribon is that, on this, as far as my underlined copy tells me, rather too brief. Not that it interests one that much. I just think it is not prurience, but fidelity to the record, to note that one book deals substantially with this issue.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree (obviously with my posts above) that Miller is a sensationalized reading of Foucault, his arguments have found their way into the scholarship. His book is cited 477 times, and I have personally had to address this criticism of Foucault IRL (and even was taught the life/scholarship connection at one time before I did more research). This was why I redid the edit the way I did, offering 2 sentences for an explanation of the study (yes, it was a biographical study), and one heavily cited sentence which summarized the criticism, which I believe accurately portrayed the argument, gave it the due weight it deserved, and gave the readers all the resources to judge for themselvesCoffeepusher (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think people are making good arguments for the inclusion of a sentence or two mentioning the Miller book (and the fact that it is roundly dismissed by actual scholars), but I don't see an argument for dwelling on one of the (many) scandalous and unsubstantiated claims that Miller makes throughout the book. It's pretty clearly an undue weight issue as I see it. I also don't disagree that some discussion of Foucault's sexuality might be shown to be relevant, especially if it is sourced to Eribon or another actual scholar. But taking Miller's pseudo-journalistic account, elevating it to the level of a "study" (as if it were a peer-reviewed research analysis rather than a compilation of gossip), and then pulling out one of his more sensational claims and devoting a large paragraph to that claim (more space than we're devoting to The Birth of the Clinic!) is definitely undue weight. In Miller's book alone there are multiple such ridiculous claims that have led to Miller being criticized -- such as the claim that Foucault was a murderer, and the claim that his entire philosophy changed as a result of a single dose of LSD. These claims tell us a lot more about Miller than Foucault, which is why they may be mentioned in a Miller article but not in the Foucault article. csloat (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am much persuaded by Coffeepusher's edit suggestions, for what that's worth.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you discuss why? I feel I've offered a compromise that addresses Coffeepusher's concerns while maintaining appropriate weight for this material. Also, can we take this discussion to the article talk page, since this isn't actually a "reliable sources" noticeboard issue. Thanks, csloat (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Quoting an RS source citing non-RS sources

An editor (User:BruceGrubb) on the multi-level marketing article is trying something that to me seems a clear attempt at getting around the spirit of WP policy. A number of the sources he is wishing to use have been rejected as not RS, so he is quoting whole a sentence from an otherwise RS source in order to include criticism from the clearly non-RS sources. The paragraph in question is -

Another criticism of MLMs is that "MLM organizations have been described by some as cults (Butterfield, 1985), pyramid schemes (Fitzpatrick & Reynolds, 1997), or organizations rife with misleading, deceptive, and unethical behavior (Carter, 1999), such as the questionable use of evangelical discourse to promote the business (Hopfl & Maddrell, 1996), and the exploitation of personal relationships for financial gain (Fitzpatrick & Reynolds, 1997)."

Now note that the citations given are not actually listed as citations in the WP article, it's merely a whole quote from (Carl, Walter J. (2004) "The Interactional Business of Doing Business: Managing Legitimacy and Co-constructing Entrepreneurial Identities in E-Commerce Multilevel Marketing Discourse" Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 68 a minor but otherwise acceptable journal.[76] Fitzpatrick & Reynolds, 1997 is clearly referring to the book False Profits, a vanity press book which I listed on RS/N and was rejected as a reliable source[77]. I asked Bruce if the Carter reference was another vanity press book "Behind the Smoke & Mirrors" and his reply was that it didn't matter what the reference was because the quote was from a peer-reviewed journal.[78] He did not reply when I asked what the Hopfl & Maddrell reference was, and the Butterfield reference almost certainly references a 25yr old book about Amway [79] from a collective, non-profit press that actively admits to being committed to "the politics of radical social change" [80] - not exactly NPOV when discussing a multinational business! So, the quote cites 4 sources, two of which are clearly non-RS, one of which is dubious but perhaps allowable, and one of which is of unknown origin. Is this acceptable editing practice?--Insider201283 (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I'm inclined to say yes. If it is peer reviewed, then the sourcing was acceptable to the peer reviewers for that journal. They could have objected. They are in a much better position than us to evaluate the reliability of those sources. Keep in mind that authors of RS may use many sources we would not find acceptable for WP articles. However, their going through the processes of fact check and peer review clears them of any taint.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

However, a quote needs to say where the quote originated. It can certainly mention the RS, but then say something like "quoting such and such a source".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

On what basis do you say that journal editors or reviewers are better placed to evaluate reliability of a source? Editors do NOT check every source an author uses, particularly if they're used for a minor point unrelated to the main thrust of the article or the expertise of the journal (in this case it's a discourse analysis). The logical conclusion of this train of thought is that the opinions (or lack of) of any journal editor or reviewer anywhere trumps Wikipedia policy. That opens a whole new can of worms. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, what you're saying is that if a source, any source, is cited in a peer-reviewed article, then that automatically makes the source RS, which means it should be usable directly. I think that line of thought has been rejected here many times. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that. You can use the RS. We would disqualify RS because they use sources we would not find acceptable for a Wikipedia article? Now that would be a Procrustean bed for scholarship!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you could follow the chain of sources long enough, almost every information would become non-reliable. After all, we clearly can't cite "I spoke to these otherwise non-notable people who claim they were watching it happen, and he said..."; but a New York Times article based on reports of eyewitnesses is often fine, and a peer reviewed scholarly paper collating and analyzing multiple eyewitness reports is the best we could hope for, though in the end, they would be just the same non-notable people who claim to have been watching something happen. The difference is that each step is a filter which, hopefully, would filter out the less reliable information. (Doesn't always work, of course, but it's the best we can do.) --GRuban (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I agree there. In one case while researching Omega-3 I came across a claim in a newspaper that seemed odd to me. They quoted a journal article, so I got a hold of the article. The journal article did in fact say what the newspaper said, but they were merely citing another article - it wasn't part of their actual study, just part of the introductory discussion. I then sourced the original article and found it didn't make this claim at all - in fact it said the complete opposite. What the newspaper said, and the journal it cited said, was outright false. Should that be ignored when deciding what to put in to Wikipedia? Remember the core criteria is Verifiability. We should be able to look at an articles sources to make a judgement about what an article says - and if the articles sources a verifiably poor, then by definition the article is not a reliable source. This isn't rocket science. Find some crackpot with a bizarre theory about climate change who manages to get quoted in the newspaper? Voila, his theory should now be in wikipedia! You're basically saying that information from known unreliable sources is fine to put in Wikipedia as long as it's been quoted by an ostensibly reliable source. I think that's a very, very dangerous path. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

First sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." And, yes, that absolutely does mean we have plenty of "crackpots[people] with bizarre theories who manage to get quoted in the media" who have articles in the Wikipedia. I can list as many as you want without breaking a sweat: from Time Cube, to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, to Category:Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations to David Icke to ... We do our best to document what the world thinks. What the world thinks is sometimes quite bizarre, and sometimes outright false, yes. We also write about outright falsehoods: Piltdown man, Gleiwitz incident ... --GRuban (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I understand that, but that's also an issue of WP:WEIGHT where some idea has received widespread coverage. Here we're basically saying any idea is acceptable if any RS has published it - though I suppose that's what WP:UNDUE is supposed to address. Still, the idea that a concept from a verifiably non-RS source effectively becomes RS because it's repeated somewhere RS and verifiable does not rest well with me.--Insider201283 (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of your feelings on this matter in this case you have clearly lost the argument as WP:SOURCES is pretty clear on this. Carl is a reliable source and User:Wehwalt is echoing what user:Arthur Rubin and user:TheEditor22 have said regarding referenced material used peer reviewed source gives the cited work more reliability. As for WP:UNDUE if you look at the majority of what is out there that is not trying to sale the whole MLM idea is already negative. Look at What to sell on eBay and where to get it from 2006 by Chris Malta, Lisa Suttora through McGraw-Hill pg 194-197 for an example; hardly a positive view of MLMs in general. Heck, Tina Grant back in a 1997 book called International directory of company histories, Volume 41‎ by St. James Press said "Nevertheless, Herbalife's distribution network closely resembles the typical multi-level marketing approach — sometimes referred to as a pyramid scheme..." on page 203.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, the vast majority of info does NOT refer to MLM as "already negative". You cherry pick your sources to make this claim, or take a source like the Walter one here, which is not negative about MLM, but merely refers to the fact some people (citing non-RS sources) make this claim, and then claim it supports you! It's like taking a geology book that says "some people believe the world is flat" and claiming the book supports your idea the world is flat! You're other technique, alas an all too common one in this field, is to immediately dismiss any pro-MLM books or articles based on the fact that they are, well, pro-MLM - so therefore they can't be trusted! Books not about ebay, but about MLM by recognized publishers by professors of marketing at top universities? Unacceptable - the publisher publishes stuff on homeopath too. Though of course, a book on another topic altogether, from the same publisher, that mentions, briefly, something negative about MLM, well that's acceptable! Books by well known recognized professional journalists - actually on MLM not something barely related - nope, not acceptable! He's just trying to sell a book! (well duh!). I could go on and on, but the situation is clear. A sentence or paragraph mention in an otherwise unrelated article does not have as much weight as a whole book or article focused on the topic. A self-published book published by a non-expert does not have as much weight as a third party published book on the topic by an academic. You took unreliable and minor sources, by people with entirely unrelated expertise, and used it to create a whole section on "criticism" that made up something like half the article. And you put it at the top of the article before even describing what MLM (the topic of the article) is! That is not WP:BALANCE nor WP:NPOV. The article needs a section on controversy of this topic. And yes, the confusion in terminology needs mentioning, but your obsession with getting the clearly incorrect (as evidenced by multiple unimpeachable sources on the topic) claim that MLM=pyramid scheme into every article you can is more than tiresome.--Insider201283 (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)Come on Insider201283, even a good hunk of the supposedly neutral and pro-MLM stuff call its a "scheme" rather than a "method", "methodology", or even "system" and as I pointed out in the article's talk page "scheme" carries with it some very negative baggage (such as "dodge: a statement that evades the question by cleverness or trickery" or "form intrigues (for) in an underhand manner"). As for multiple unimpeachable sources in the article's talk page you have claimed self-published works weren't (The Business School for People Who Like Helping People by Robert Kiyosaki through Cashflow Technologies which he owns and is president of) and claimed peer-reviewed papers weren't (Cruz) and have been called on the carpet several time for overly pro-MLM editing and even admitting "I have no problems being accused of violating WP:COI - I am." with regards to Alticor/Amway/Quixtar editing on your own talk page and this nonsense seems to be just a continuation of that. You have even challenged The Times by claiming the totally insane statement ""court testimony" is not only a primary source, it's inherently unreliable and extremely POV." despite this was presented by The Times. You are even challenging a direct quote from a peer reviewed paper because you don't like one of the reference they used.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, (1) no it doesn't. You clearly haven't read much of the literature (2) I've said MANY times I don't think the Kiyosaki book is a particularly good source, so why your obsessing about it I don't know. You are also WRONG about it, as you well know, since it's been (a) republished by another company and (b) Cashflow Tech is not considered SPS. (3) Your further obsession with unfounded attacks on me, based on out of context info is quite bizarre. The problem with the Times article was it cited a court case, but the court documents themselves, publicly available, said something different! Are you *really* admitting you want something put in an article that is verifiably wrong? Is that your general approach to editing WP?--Insider201283 (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Bedford School redux

• The question: Is the 1979 fire at the Bedford school appropriatly described as arson.
• The arson sources:
  • http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=004-fs&cid=2-5-24#2-5-24 - "Report of trial of man guilty of setting fire to Bedford School [see FS D/PC 23]*."
  • http://www.bedfordschool.org.uk/default.asp?page=1098&news=254 "The result of an arson attack..."
• The not-arson sources:
  • http://www.bedfordschool.org.uk/default.asp?news=1172 "The great hall caught fire" does not use the word arson.

Please review the sources, or find more. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The National Archives entry is presumably prepared by a professional archivist and can be trusted to reflect accurately the contents of the report. Likewise the essay on the Bedfordshire County Council site which refers back to the same primary Fire Service source but again uses the word "arson" in commentary (i.e. it is another professional observation that the primary source, thus far inaccessible to us, describes arson).

I think these would trump the school's own Website if there was disagreement among them (historical myths do grow up in institutions, after all...) but in any case I don't really see that such a disagreement exists. One of the school pages says "arson", the other says "caught fire", which I suppose is a superset of "arson" anyway; it certainly doesn't preclude the possibility.

The only doubt I would have is whether the specific word "arson" is necessarily accurate. There is a precise definition (see [[81]]) and without the trial record we don't know if the man was actually found guilty of arson or of some other offence which involved setting fire to the structure.

So it seems to me that the easiest route forward is to use a construction such as The Great Hall was destroyed in 1979 after a man set fire to it. Barnabypage (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found a article called "The problems that can follow commercial fires at schools" 10 August 1989 from the "Post Magazine", an weekly insurance industry magazine. It talks about the fire and the capture of the arsonist. It says "In March 1979 a fire destroyed the main building of Bedford School. This building had existed for over 87 years and its destruction was regarded as entirely accidental until the chance overhearing of a conversation in a local public house led to the arrest (and later conviction) of the thief/arsonist who, incidentally, had started at least 10 other fires in the Bedford area." If you send me an email I can forward the article to people so you can verify it and use it as a ref..--Slp1 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. It's a well-regarded magazine, too, so definitely a reliable source. Barnabypage (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up - no need for a copy - just revert to a version with arson in and ref the publication Codf1977 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And p 89 of this book, "Blaze: the forensics of fire" published by St. Martin's Press, in 2000 and viewable on Amazon,[82] also states it was arson. "Arson is also connected with other crimes as an attempt to destroy evidence or disguise a murder as an accident. In 1979 Bedford School was badly damaged by fire when burglars set light to the late Victorian Great Hall in an attempt to cover their tracks." BTW, though we've found other more independent sources, I think the school's history as published on their website is a perfectly acceptable and reliable source for describing their own history, per WP:SELFPUB, and thus for describing this as arson. --Slp1 (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the school website can just be assumed to be a reliable source for describing their own history Codf1977 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree... calling it arson is well established by multiple reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.palestinehistory.com

There is a Wikipedia editor who has repeatedly used the neutral voice of the encyclopedia to quote a legal opinion about the powers of the Palestinian Authority from this website.[83] The site contains very outdated information. For example it says that Yasser Arafat (now deceased) is still the head of the Palestinian Authority. The Internet Archive indicates that the page was last updated in June of 2007 [84]

It appears to be a self-published website that is the work of a single editor/creator, Esam Shashaa. Other than the text of a 1988 PLO declaration, none of the material contains inline citations, footnotes, or evidence that it is based upon other published sources. There does not appear to be any editorial oversight, and Mr. Shashaa is not a generally recognized expert on political science, history, or international law.

He says that he has a degree in "Business Administration and Accounts" and "I thank you for taking the time to browse my site and find out more about the History of Palestine, as well as the site's author and creator."[85]

harlan (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• This does not appear to be a reliable source. If you have evidence of an editor inserting links to it, who has a provable connection to the site, please note it at WP:ANI as link spamming. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't suspect that this is a case of link spamming, just the selection of an outdated and unreliable source as the basis for a number of reverts. I pointed out that this online source is a self-published work of its editor/creator, Esam Shashaa, because Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources suggests that anyone can create a website and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. Mr. Shashaa does not appear to be a recognized expert or claim to be one. WP:IRS says these types of sources are largely not acceptable. harlan (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Random web pages are not reliable sources unless some case for reliability can be made. This one seems to have no information to enable such a case, so it should be treated as not reliable. Zero^talk 10:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Fictional character article standards question

I've come across an article about a character from a book (made into movies and plays). The article has zero references (other than a really low quality YouTube video which I've deleted). The entire article (Violet Beauregarde) is clearly original research. I suspect most of the content is verifiable if you read the book, see the movie, etc. In the case of plays, none of the included material is verifiable. My thought would be to shorten the article to basic facts specific to each media (book, movie 1, movie 2) and turn the page into one for disambiguation. However, I'm certain that this case isn't unique and that most big movies/books have articles written about specific characters. I would think that unless a character has been the subject of published secondary material from reliable sources, book/movie characters don't rate their own articles. But that may be just me. So may main question here at AN/I is this: what are are standards for articles about book/movie characters? Rklawton (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The standards for sourcing should be the same as for other articles. I found RS for the character using User:Nicolas1981/Wikipedia Reference Search, a custom search that omits most non RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Works of fiction, including films, are fine primary sources for articles on fictional characters unless original opinions are introduced. (Plays are usually published in print, too, although the texts can be difficult to get hold of.) I agree it's a long article on a minor character, but remember what we're discussing on this page is the reliability of sources - not notability. My personal opinion would be that the article is harmless at worst, useful to some fans at best, but could do with a bit of copy-editing. Barnabypage (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I value your opinion; thank you. Rklawton (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Context of NSF statement about belief in ghosts

Announcing an RfC at Talk:Ghost#RfC:_Context_of_NSF_statement_about_belief_in_ghosts. The questions being discussed are:

1. Whether the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs".

2. Whether their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus (in the USA) on that subject.

See you there! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviewed secondary 2008 and 2009 sources for cold fusion

Are the sources here:

1. Biberian, J.-P.; Armamet, N. (2008) "An update on condensed matter nuclear science (cold fusion)" Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie. Volume: 33, Issue: 1-2, Pages: 45-51.

2. Sheldon, E. (2008) "An overview of almost 20 years' research on cold fusion. A review of 'The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion.'" Contemporary Physics. Volume: 49, Issue: 5, Pages: 375-378.

and here: (includes discussion of peer review from book's forward)

3. Marwan, Jan and Krivit, Steven B., eds., Low energy nuclear reactions sourcebook (American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press, 2008; ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8)

and here: (includes discussion of peer review)

4. Krivit, S.B, “Cold Fusion: History,” Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources, Vol 2, Juergen Garche, Chris Dyer, Patrick Moseley, Zempachi Ogumi, David Rand and Bruno Scrosati, eds, Amsterdam: Elsevier; Nov. 2009. p. 271–276, ISBN 9780444520937

5. Krivit, S.B, “Cold Fusion - Precursor to Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions,” Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources, Vol 2, Juergen Garche, Chris Dyer, Patrick Moseley, Zempachi Ogumi, David Rand and Bruno Scrosati, eds, Amsterdam: Elsevier; Nov. 2009. p. 255–270, ISBN 9780444520937

all reliable, peer reviewed, WP:SECONDARY sources for improving the cold fusion article? If not, which are and which are not reliable, and why? 99.191.75.124 (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to contribute. Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Except for the first one (with which I am unfamiliar), in general these publications and publishers are considered reliable. So obviously something else is going on here. Is it the way that they are being used that is being challenged rather than their base reliability? Did you include Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_35 as part of the discussion, so that interested editors could obtain copies? Since, except for the first one, these are not (currently) readily available to most of us, exact evaluation is not possible without asking the author for copies. Elsevier has been known to publish volumes of less than reliable conference proceedings for monetary gain. --Bejnar (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Associated Press, reliable?

• Specifically, [86]

This source is being used to support the following half-sentence in the article Gary Lavergne: "which according to a 2007 Associated Press article is "considered the definitive account of the massacre.""

The article has been under discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gary Lavergne, where an editor questions whether that source is usable because he believes it an includes an error, that in the crime under discussion there should be 29 not 28 floors. I am of the opinion that an error in a reliable source does not invalidate it as a reliable source to begin with, but beyond that there's no definitive proof it is an error. Within a minute or two of searching, I found support for the "floor 28" it asserts in the following sources:

"It was from the observation deck, 28 stories up, that UT student Charles Whitman opened fire Aug. 1, 1966"[87]

"Twenty-eight floors below, Dickerson and Walden saw the bodies and heard the shots."[88]

"From the observation deck on the 28th floor of the University of Texas Tower, Charles J. Whitman turned the campus into a blood-stained" Newsweek, Volume 68, Issues 1-13 p. 113

He has altered the article Charles Whitman, which also included the 28 floors figure, now to read 29, with support from an archived student newspaper article. He suggests that the Associated Press piece should be eliminated from the Gary Lavergne article as unreliable, indicating that these other three sources are unreliable as well.

Feedback would be welcome on whether or not this source is reliable to substantiate that statement: "which according to a 2007 Associated Press article is "considered the definitive account of the massacre."" I'm not particularly inclined to sweat the details at Charles Whitman myself, as I am only involved in attempting to make sure that the BLP on Gary Lavergne is fairly represented. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

AP is a reliable source and the sentence proposed would certainly be appropriately cited and attributed with it. That the article may contain an error does not invalidate it as a source. As far as determining which floor should be given, the best and most reliable sources with the highest degree of scholarship and oversight should be used (books from mainstream publishing houses, scholarly journals, other well-regarded mainstream publications etc). A student newspaper may be considered a reliable source but not if it is contradicted by multiple other, higher quality sources. --Slp1 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Even though I don't consider this one fact necessary for this to be a reliable source, I've done a bit more poking since posting this, and there do seem to be substantial sources suggesting 28th floor is correct: in addition to the above, there's this 1966 source which says, "Then he struggled up three flights of stairs, jerking the dolly after him, to what is regarded as the 28th floor, about 280 feet above ground." Here's a 1970 source that also considers it the 28th floor. Indeed, there seem to be quite a few...certainly more news sources than those news sources archived which regard it as the 29th. I imagine I should note this at Charles Whitman, anyway. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the source Moonridden girl refers to [[89]], it was taken from the University of Texas' historical website. As to the AP source, there is no name associated with it, and other AP writers may not agree with the phantom writer of the article. The AP source also doesn't mention where the opinion comes from, so it is not verifiable as to the source of the quote. The other articles are not in question as to the use of this singular source, though, they are in error as well. Five wrong errors do not add up to one fact. Victor9876 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you by any chance scroll to the bottom of that source? It is "Daily Texan. September 22, 1965. Article by: Unknown." It's the student newspaper, and it also has no name associated with it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a very minor error--a fiddling detail that can easily be resolved by, for instance, a FOIA request for related police documents. but it exposes an underlying solecism that is quite common on Wikipedia: the notion that there exist intrinsically reliable sources whose authority overrides all conflicting reports by virtue of their status. To clarify, I'm not suggesting that it's sensible to challenge an AP report with an article from an opinion blog, a student newspaper, or whatever. I suppose the distillation is that we shouldn't reify fiddling detail in our articles. The number of the floor is not ascertainable from reliable sources with any degree of certainty, and it's of no relevance, so omit the detail

Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 19:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but the issue in question is whether that fiddling detail is important enough (and wrong enough) to invalidate sources that go with the more frequently reported number of 28. The number of floors isn't actually mentioned in the article of concern to me, Gary Lavergne. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tasty Monster, that will hopefully be the resolve. To Moonridden girl, YES, I did notice that, but it is archived by the University, not the AP, and 1965 sourcing was different to today's standards. If your argument is that it should not be sourced, then neither should the AP article which does not source the opinion. Victor9876 (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not my argument at all; simply pointing out that if anonymity concerns you, you may not wish to use that source. Feel free to remove the number of floors from Charles Whitman, if you like. As I said, I have no concern with that article, so long as Lavergne is not disparaged within it. There is no consensus to remove the Associated Press comment from Gary Lavergne. So far, consensus supports its retention here and at WP:BLPN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is supported by you (who brought the issue to light) and one other party who only weighed in on your reversion, nothing has followed since the debate began. Victor9876 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't yet read the latest note at WP:BLPN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you for bringing that to my attention, I just read it. It was a criticism of another admins interpretation of my remarks and your use of the rules. Nothing pertaining to this discussion that I could garner. I do believe we'll see her here in a thread or two. Victor9876 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Question! Can an administrator "tweak" the rules on Wikipedia? Thanks in advance. Victor9876 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, with great difficulty. But that applies to all of us, not just administrators. The rules are set by the community: propose a change, get enough people to agree to it, or at least not object strongly, and it becomes a rule. It's pretty hard, of course, since the existing rules have a lot of people supporting them, that probably won't agree to radical changes, but possible. What specific rule tweak are you looking for? --GRuban (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks GRuban for your response. I'm not sure which rule Moonriddengirl is referring to here [[90]], but she specifically refers to herself as having "tweaked" policy, and it is not clear as to which one. I only bring this to light as she has brought this forum and another one at [[91]] against me, throwing every rule at me while accusing me of deliberately trying to disparage the author. Every attempt to clarify my position was met by rule after rule, and then through her own admission in the cited thread on her userpage, "tweaks" a rule. I'm not accusing her of flagrantly violating a rule, as she has me, it just seems like a double standard, please advise me if I am wrong. I want to avoid future exchanges that escalated there, and anyones input on whether or not this is a legitimate complaint would help. If I had responded to her at any time that I had "tweaked" the rules, I'm sure I would be answering a higher level of admonition, or been blocked. Thanks again! Victor9876 (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you've requested "anyones input", I'll assume that you won't castigate me for answering this time. Policies on Wikipedia are shaped by the community except to the extent that they are mandated by the Foundation. You are as welcome as any member of the community to contribute to shaping those rules. Please see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for more information. As to my tweaking the rules, like many active contributors to the community, I have helped shape a number of policies. However, it may reassure you to know that I have not recently "tweak"ed either of the ones in question here (WP:BLP or WP:V), as a check of their histories will show. I am not in the edit history of either within the last 1,000 edits, except in reverting vandalism once to each. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha. There, she seems to be referring to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Change_to_G12:_accepted_license. There she tried to clarify a speedy deletion criterion that allowed speedy deletion of content without a free license, so it allowed speedy deletion of content without a free licence we liked. It looks like she failed [92], since her change isn't in there now; but discussion is still going on. As I wrote, it isn't easy. Anyway, I don't recommend fighting your issues out with her by throwing accusations at her, that's not likely to get her to agree to what you want. I recommend talking it through, figuring out what exactly she's objecting to, and seeing if you can modify to closer to what she wants. I suspect she will be willing to help if you let her. I haven't had much interaction with Moonriddengirl, but earlier on this page[93] she seems to be a rational sort of person that can be reasoned with. That sort of reasonableness is almost required of admins, actually. It looks like your argument with Moonriddengirl is about more than just this one source. Is there a single definitive place where this issue can be discussed? --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for your cordial replies. I would have thought the authors article talkpage would have been the proper venue, since the issue was originally raised there, and the current state of discussions were generated from an exchange with another admin, Stifle, who reported he was having issues and would not intervene anymore there or several other areas. Then he brought the BLP issue to the discussion forum where Moonriddengirl took over. The end result is - we are here and the other forum. I don't wish to be pedantic, but there comes a time when information doesn't add up - or have heuretic value, as does Lavergne's conclusions from his Op-Ed, in light of the medical evidence. It is the 1 + 1 = 3 rule, it doesn't add up to the facts. That being said, there are no secondary nor tertiary references on the web that refute his claims. Therefore, one has to follow ones instinctual nature, or knowledge of the facts to try and expose errors that are detrimental to the facts, and hopefully add to the credibility of WP articles. That was my intentions, sans the attempt to disparage anyone. The only sources that dispute Lavergne's claims, are the medical issues and the Connally Report. However, the only way to show his errors are by deduction, which leads to NOR, which does not allow a dispute that 1 + 1 = 2; not 3. I'm not sure if this policy is good for WP, or the community, if one can point out the blatant errors, from an authors own words and webpage. Just my thoughts. Victor9876 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A change of that magnitude (since WP:NOR is core policy) would require a major overhaul. The place to propose such an overhaul is WP:VPP, though you should make a note at Wikipedia talk:No original research if you bring the policy up for discussion there. Best chances of success will probably be if you can show multiple examples of how the policy damages the project. If you reference this specific case, please be sure to clearly note that application of the policy to it is already under discussion at WP:BLPN and link to that conversation. Otherwise, you may seem to be "forum shopping". You'll want to be very clear that it is the policy that concerns you, and not the application of it to the specific article under discussion. If consensus is to change policy, then that may certainly affect the outcome of the BLPN conversation. Should it archive for inactivity in the meantime, it can always be brought back up once the WP:NOR policy change proposal has settled. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me confirm - Victor, your idea is to write that in an editorial, Lavergne wrote a hypothetical statement about how Whitman would have been treated by a court, which was wrong? Is that the idea? If so, let me step outside the "Original Research" questions, and ask: is it really that important? People are wrong all the time, and even historians are people; in the case of a hypothetical statement, does it really matter? Honestly, I'm sure most historians we write articles about have made some errors. (Here's one that was pointed out to me in an article I was writing.) We should only write about the important errors. The way we decide which errors are important are that others have made a big deal about them (for example of a historian who made some notable errors: Michael A. Bellesiles). But if no one else has written about the error in Lavergne's editorial, I don't think it's worth writing about in our article. --GRuban (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the entire article [[94]]. The entire article is a defense of others, for example, Rosa Eberly an associated professor at the University of Texas who disagreed with Lavergne's conclusion in his book, especially the "evil" conclusion he comes to. Ms. Eberly soon left the University of Texas and went to Penn State. I understand your remarks about all of us making mistakes, however, correct me if I'm wrong, your example is based on a writers error over a work of fiction in history, where Charles Whitman committed an act in history. In the article, Lavergne goes on to attack others, who do not agree with his conclusions, as well as the DSM-IV and how it is used. He even attacks a Dr. who suggested the Amygdala (our fright - flight defense mechanism), may have had a role. Lavergne dismisses the stress Whitman was under, the amphetamine abuse of Whitman, and most importantly, the Glioblastoma Multi-Forme tumor Whitman had. All of the above, plus other issues Whitman was under, can cause psychosis in themselves. The combination of the ailments and social and personal issues, does not correlate to "evil", and that misleading term has no place in an academic book, to be the cause of anything with modern knowlege of how those forces, can affect an individual or even individuals in some cases. It is a MEME of the 17th and 18th centuries, that began to be dispelled in the 19th century through todays sciences. As to the prognosis of the tumor alone, Whitman would have been dead within a year, if McCoy hadn't killed him on the tower. That effectively dismisses all of Lavergnes hypotheticals that could or would have happened, if he had been captured rather than killed. Hope this helps. Victor9876 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ADDENDUM - GRuban, didn't notice the link to Bellesiles, a most interesting read. Thanks! I see the difference now as opposed to my writings of the criticism of Lavergne's Op-Ed and book. I will try and find support, the only thing I have found is a criticism where one of Whitman's friends had a different point of view than Lavergne, and Lavergne had interviewed him. Meanwhile, I will take a break and concentrate on more positive issues, like "Drunks who drown while bobbing for apples on Halloween"! lol! Thanks again! 01:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Victor9876 (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Contributing reporters authors or not

For the New York Times article Paterson Weighs Race as Top Aide Quits in Protest, it states at the top "By DANNY HAKIM and JEREMY W. PETERS", but it also states at the bottom "David Kocieniewski, William K. Rashbaum and Karen Zraick contributed reporting from New York.".

Should David Kocieniewski, William K. Rashbaum and Karen Zraick be considered authors as well?Smallman12q (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• If you are referring to how the article's citation should appear, I would say no. It is not unusual for major newspaper stories to incorporate reporting from other reporters in addition to the main writers of the article. Presumably the New York Times has some kind of system to determine which of the reporters gets their byline at the top of the article and which ones get relegated to the "contributed reporting" line at the end. I don't believe the addition of the "contributed reporting" people is needed for bibliographic/citation purposes. On the other hand, if there is a specific issue with regard to the reliability of the "contributing reporters", since this is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard -- example: if Jayson Blair were one of the contributing reporters -- then that should be taken into account and such an article should be avoided for use as a source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's more of a MOS question than a RS question, but my inclination is no: no reason our footnoting needs to be more complete than the Chicago Manual of Style. THF (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm writing a bot to help fix up the citations, so would it be better if contributing reporters were included...or would that go against the MOS.Smallman12q (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there isn't any need to include them. Please leave them out. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

thedailybeast.com

I know that, as far as reliability goes, we no longer simply say "No blogs"... recognizing that there is a huge difference between joe blow's personal blog and a professional (or even semi-professional) news blog... and that we essentially judge reliability based on whether the blog has a reputation for good journalism. With that in mind, I just need to know... what is the reputation of thedailybeast.com? Thanks Blueboar (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, our article about it, The Daily Beast, says it's run by some fairly respected people, formerly of the New Yorker and Wall Street Journal, and contributed to by Tony Blair and Condoleeza Rice. The Guardian says: [95] "It is positioned somewhere in the middle of the Drudge Report and the HuffingtonPost, both in terms of content and political placement." That seems to be a reasonable guideline. If you look at our discussions about the HuffingtonPost, such as Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington_Post; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Media_Matters_for_America.2C_Huffington_Post.2C_and_NewsHounds; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Is_the_Huffington_Post_a_reliable_source.3F, there has been a bit on each side, but consensus seems to be that, we should separate out the editorials and opinion columns from the reporting pieces, and don't use for highly controversial information about living people without other backup. Though I would imagine that depends on the specific author. What is the specific piece of information needed to be cited to The Daily Beast? --GRuban (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's non-controversial... used in the article on survivalist James Wesley Rawles to support the statement that he sometimes publishes as "James Wesley, Rawles" (with the comma) ... (here is the diff.) Personally, I don't think that is something that really needs a citation (you can verify it by looking at the front cover of one of his books)... but since another editor questioned it, I thought I would ask here. Blueboar (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to refine the question, I am asking how to apply the heightened scrutiny obligation that exists under WP:BLP, which says "Be very firm about the use of high quality references." Asking, where is the line between "very firm" and "high quality" drawn between ordinary articles and BLP articles? SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, a comma. I think that interview with the author himself easily qualifies. As for the "line between very firm and high quality" I can only refer you to How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? and Wikipedia:BUREAUCRACY. Even if we did ever narrow down that line precisely here, for the comma question, it would be meaningless for the next question that came up. The point of WP:BLP is that we don't want to carelessly harm our subjects. We need to focus on that, not the fine points of how we phrase our rules. This interview makes it pretty clear Rawles (Wesley, Rawles) has no fear of his comma, and even a certain pride, so, the, comma, is, in. --GRuban (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Got it, I think. What you are saying is that editors can extend judgment as to both the quality of the source and the degree of contention of what is being said. And, less contention requires less quality. I think I am misunderstood by you here, because in this case on the talk page at that aritlce I wasn't asking for the removal of the "comma" statement, but rather asking if anyone knew of a higher quality source to improve the references. And, you realize the perhaps unintentional consequence of this policy is that for BLP articles favorable statements have a lower standard of sourcing than non-favorable statements. I had misunderstood that we were to strive for a general higher quality of sourcing for all statements in BLP articles. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Beast is certainly not a "blog", as it has editors and so forth. While it wouldn't be my first choice for a biography, something as minor as a comma, and coming from an interview, is hardly controversial. And as the "about the author" page for the book on Amazon uses the comma too, it seems to be correct information. If we really want to, we could do an additional primary-source cite to the Amazon review, and then cite Beast as a secondary source that discusses his preference for the comma. But I think Beast is fine the way it's being used currently. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not a blog. Dlabtot (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

filmreference.com

Despite the fact that we've discussed this site on these pages multiple times as being non-reliable, there are well over 1,000 articles using it as a source. On top of that, someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Resources keeps adding it back as a valid source. The info on that page says sites cannot be added to that page without a discussion on the talk page concluding them to be reliable, yet when it is removed it keeps getting putting back without any discussion.

I am putting this back here for another discussion, one which I hope will sort this out once and for all. If it's not reliable as we have been saying all along it needs to be enforced, perhaps with either the spam filter or some other method to get rid of it for good. DreamGuy (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that no topic will ever be sorted out once and for all. Dlabtot (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinion piece on www.opposingviews.com by the Illinois Family Institute

Would an opinion piece by the Illinois Family Institute on the www.opposingviews.com website be a reliable source on the Southern Poverty Law Center? On that website the IFI describes itself as follows:

The Illinois Family Institute (IFI) is an independent 501c(3) non-profit organization dedicated to upholding and re-affirming marriage, family, life and liberty in Illinois. For the past fifteen years, the IFI has worked to advance public policy initiatives consistent with Judeo-Christian teachings and traditions, educating citizens so that they can better influence their local communities and the state.

IFI works within the state of Illinois to promote and defend Biblical truths to foster an environment where families can thrive and reach their full God-given potential to serve and glorify Him--making the most of the opportunities afforded to each of us by His gift of life and liberty.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course an opinion piece isn't a reliable source for a fact about anyone but the author, but I suspect you know that. What's the actual information the source is being cited for? Their reaction to the SPLC calling them a hate group? --GRuban (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's being cited in the SPLC article as a response to being labeled a hate group. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters

See also discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Gibson_.28political_commentator.29. THF (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC on Media watchdog groups

I believe there needs to be a consistent Wikipedia decision on the use of partisan media-watchdog organizations. Newsbusters, a project of the Media Research Center, which is run by L. Brent Bozell III, is consistently deleted from articles on the fictional grounds that it is an "extremist" or "far right" organization (in fact, it, like Bozell, is mainstream conservative); it remains in only a handful of articles. However, the same editors that would delete newsbusters.org have little qualms about inserting fair.org into articles, though Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is on the Naderist left. Media Matters for America, which is mainstream liberal, is frequently cited, as well. I can see rejecting all three as sources; I can see accepting MMA and Newsbusters as opinion sources and rejecting FAIR as UNDUE except when it is cited by tertiary sources; what I can't see is the current Wikipedia quasi-consensus of deleting Newsbusters and regularly citing to MMA and FAIR. The effect of the double-standard by the same editors, intentional or unintentional, is POV-pushing throughout the encyclopedia: Newsbusters' POV is considerably closer to the median American voter than MMA or FAIR is. (Disclosure: In reading these articles, I learned that a MRC affiliate asked me to write two op-eds for them a few years back. I didn't realize at the time that it was associated with MRC. Go know.) THF (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency

RFC: Should Wikipedia treat MRC/Newsbusters sourcing consistently with Media Matters for America sourcing?

• Support consistency. The Media Research Center is the leading conservative media criticism organization. It's not a neutral source to be sure, but there is no difference between it and Media Matters for America: they both provide partisan takes on their perception of media bias. They have a notable point of view, and WP:NPOV explicitly states that notable points of view should be included in articles. I'd like to get consensus on treating the two identically, or a sound reason why it continues to be acceptable to include criticism from the MMA blog in articles, but MRC/Bozell/Newsbusters criticism gets scrubbed as a violation of one policy or another. COI disclosure: I'm going to pitch friends at MRC an article about bias in Wikipedia, so I'd make more money if Wikipedia continues to have a double-standard. THF (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support consistency. MMA and FAIR are routinely cited, often as providing criticism of conservatives. This is a problem, to me, when both identify themselves as "progressive" and MMA even goes so far as to claim that they "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" (by substituting their own. If you allow them, you have to allow Newsbusters. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. A classic example of false equivalence. Not all media criticism organizations are alike, just like all newspapers, journals, and books are all alike. Gamaliel (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• MMA doesn't even pretend to be impartial. That they term things that they disagree with as "misinformation", demonstrates their bias. At the same time, they'll ignore similar items if they are complimentary to liberals. They are no more neutral than Newsbusters. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying one is impartial and one isn't. Lots of sources are not impartial, lots of sources are biased. Not all non-impartial things are alike. Gamaliel (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Then on what basis should Newsbusters be rejected as a reliable source? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• For space considerations, I've answered your question at length in the section below. Gamaliel (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've responded to the answer. Nothing in Gamaliel's argument justifies treating MMFA better than MRC. They're both partisan watchdog organizations. THF (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• And the New York Times and the Springfield Shopper are both newspapers. Repeating an assertion of equivalence does not make your case. Gamaliel (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Gamaliel has canvassed the RFC. I didn't think it was appropriate to notified those which are sympathetic to your cause. Arzel (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• An RFC is designed to elicit opinions. I asked for opinions from three users whose opinions I respect. They are free to agree or disagree. You are likewise welcome to ask from opinions of whomever you choose. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support They are clearly ideological mirror images of each other. Arzel (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Parallels are sufficiently evident than using only one would violate one of the basic principles of WP - that of being able to balance positions. Were we to abrogate that principle, we would disserve the project. Collect (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per all the above, provided there's consensus that they are indeed the leading examples of their kind on either side of the debate, accurately reflecting the views of many. Barnabypage (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support consistency in application - else this boat will lean too far one way and lose credibility. I prefer it when everybody hates us. Rklawton (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I would prefer to see all three disallowed as sources, because they all cherry-pick and omit facts which are pertinent but do not support their narrative. And it is not a false equivalence (as asserted by Gamaliel) because there is no difference between MMFA's flacking for the Democrats and MRC's POV-pushing from the right. Horologium (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support although I agree with Horologium above that none are demonstrated to be relable sources. Auntie E. (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with due consideration to WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV MutantPlatypus (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose since this needs to handled on a case-by-case basis. As Gamaliel notes, this is a false equivalence. This seems similar to saying that Fox News and CNN are the same when in fact Fox News is much more politically biased. I do think it is important to note both sides, but sometimes a side skews the facts too much for them to be used without introducing "original research" correcting the errors. For example, it is not appropriate to say that both the right-wing view that global warming is not happening should be given the same weight as the "left-wing" view that global warming is happening. Similar statements go for "intelligent design". These are obvious, but more subtle disregard of science are also present in debates on financial regulation and healthcare as well. II | (t - c) 23:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Or CNN is more biased. Certainly more Americans trust Fox News than CNN. Given that this New York Times story explains why CNN so frequently cites to MMFA, I fail to see why we should bootstrap a partisan's use of a partisan organization into a double-standard on Wikipedia. THF (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - this is clearly a false dichotomy; to quote myself from another discussion: there are always going to be issues and facts that are more relevant to some articles than to others, and it's disingenuous to try and shoehorn material into or out of one article because it doesn't fit a predetermined mold. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we should do everything we can to discourage the dogmatic impulses of some to falsely equivocate very distinct articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose push-polls couched in the form of Requests For Comment. It's moot, anyway. The noticeboard doesn't make pronouncements, neither are the perceived consensus of particular RfCs useful as editing dictates. Questions of weight must be resolved on a case by case basis. Any of these organizations would in particular instances qualify as reliable sources and could be used with attribution. Dlabtot (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support consistency. We should support source consistently within reason. While a human interest or opinion piece should not have the same level of importance as a formal news piece unless it is clearly labeled as such we should not be able to exclude it. Conversely just because a reference come from a major publisher like Random House, Wiley or even the University of Chicago a source should not get a free ride. For example, The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations may be by University of Chicago press but that alone should not make it reliable. Similarly Wiley has a Lifestyles division that includes ...For dummies, Betty Crocker, Weight Watchers, Howell Book House, and Pillsbury so saying that is up to the same standards as the more academic Wiley InterScience, Wiley Plus, Wiley-Blackwell, or Wiley higher education brands is total insanity.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal

This seemingly simple RFC isn’t so simple when you really look at what’s being asked here. We’re being asked to make a declaration that two items in a category are equivalent. Is there really any precedent here under WP practice for this sort of declaration? Do we usually do this? Should we declare Science and The Lancet equivalent in the journal category? Le Monde and the Washington Times? Fox and Al Jazeera? What is the point and usefulness of such a declaration? It should be incumbent upon those who support this atypical declaration to prove both how they are equivalent, beyond merely asserting it, and why there is any point to this. It has been asserted by many that these two organizations are equivalent, but these assertions are not backed up by facts and are based on assumptions. In reality MRC is more akin to FAIR, and this comparison was often made in the years before MMFA existed. MMFA slipped easily into a preexisting analogy, but the facts do not bear this comparison out. This is just a preliminary look, I’m going to post this now before my entire day gets consumed .

• Composition: MMFA staffers include a number of professional authors and journalists such as Eric Alterman, Eric Boehlert , and Will Bunch, all of whose professional work has no doubt been cited in many WP articles. Their numbers also include a PhD in economics and a doctorate in communications and numerous members with long years of political experience. MRC staffers seem to have little in the way of experience outside the realm of professional conservative activism. Tim Graham was White House Correspondent for a Christian publication for a year, but I could find no others with professional journalism experience. The bio of founder, Brent Bozell, indicates no professional journalism or academic background. He is a syndicated columnist, but I wouldn’t make too much of that, since the same syndicate brings you Al Capp.

• Media citations: A sample of the citations of both organizations by the media, taken from Lexis/Nexis searches for (“Media Matters for America”) and (“Media Research Center” OR “Newsbusters”)

MRC:

	 The Washington Times (169)
	 The New York Times (14)
	 The Washington Post (14)
	 St. Petersburg Times (13)
	 The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) (13)
	 USA Today (11)  

	 Fox News Network (112)
	 CNN Transcripts (36)
	 Global Broadcast Database - English (Full Text) (30)
	 Federal News Service (16)
	 CNBC News (14)
	 National Public Radio (NPR) (10)
	 MSNBC (9)
	 CQ Congressional Testimony (4)  

MMFA:

	 The New York Times (27)
	 The Washington Times (27)
	 The Washington Post (24)
	 USA Today (11)
	 The Hollywood Reporter (8)
	 The Philadelphia Inquirer (7)
	 The Toronto Star (5) 

	 CNN Transcripts (33)
	 Global Broadcast Database - English (Full Text) (27)
	 MSNBC (20)
	 CNBC News (11)
	 Fox News Network (5)
	 National Public Radio (NPR) (3)
	 NBC News (3) 

When you look at these numbers, remember that MRC has been around 22 years while MMFA has been around for only five. That makes the disparity all the noticeable. MRC leads only in citations by ideological fellow travelers Fox News and Washington Times, and the numbers for the latter are skewed by the fact that the WT runs Bozell’s column, which ends with the words “L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center”.

• Reception and perception: Columbia Journalism Review, the most prominent and respected publication about the news media, has little respect for the MRC. A sample: CJR denounces them as “Propaganda Clothed as Critique”, while citing Media Matters as “a consistently useful resource”.

More to come, probably, but I think this more than makes my point. Gamaliel (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That probably speaks more to the bias of CJR than anything. I am not sure how anyone can claim that either has a moral highground over the other. Arzel (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The moral highground isn't a policy matter, unfortunately. Gamaliel (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Then the view of CJR really adds nothing to the discussion. Arzel (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it illustrates that the the most prominent and respected publication about the news media treats these organizations differently, so we should follow their lead as we follow the lead of secondary sources generally. Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Liberal leaning outlets quote liberal leaning sources more often. Who is surprised by that? Not me. 98.208.212.240 (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

An opinion piece by Brian Montori who praises NPR for being fair while noting that it's audience is almost exclusively liberal, rails on MRC for being funded by the right, and ignores that MMFA is funded by the left? Yeah, sounds like a pretty balanced piece ;) Arzel (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal to the Rebuttal

• First, your study is flawed. MMFA's citation count is artificially inflated because it was founded recently, and there was a rash of news stories about its creation by Soros, and then about its head, David Brock, who released a biography. That MMFA was in the news does not mean that its reporting, as opposed to its existence, has made news.

• Second, Columbia Journalism Review is happily and proudly biased left of center, going so far as to say that conservatives make bad journalists. It's hardly surprising that they like their ideologically sympathetic watchdog group and dislike the conservative media watchdog group that has criticized CJR for its bias.

• Third, you've cherry-picked quotes. The New York Times calls Media Matters for America "a highly partisan organization". That same story explains why they are cited so frequently on CNN: "James Carville, the Democratic strategist and CNN commentator, has read from its items on the air, not least, he says, because they just irritate the right to no end."

Your information provides no reason to treat MMFA differently than MRC. THF (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Lexis/Nexis came up with hits dating back to the years of MRC's founding as well. Should there not also be a rash of similar stores about MRC's founding? And whatever rash of stories there were, if MRC was truly viewed as important and significant, 22 years of reports and citations would far a one year statistical blip.

• Yes, I have, because I went to the top and picked the most significant source of media commentary. A case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't eliminate CJR's respect and prominence. You've just cherry picked yourself. I could cherry pick through years of the NYT or Washington Post or CNN or The Atlantic or whatever and find many more unflattering things to say about the MRC. Gamaliel (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• There's plenty of reason here to dispute the false equivalence postulated here. It should be incumbent upon you to back up your assertion if you want it to become WP policy. Gamaliel (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistently include or consistently exclude?

RFC: Is it permissible to include links to partisan media watchdog groups in BLPs?

• Include. WP:NPOV requires the inclusion of notable points of view about a subject. So long as these opinion pieces are recognized as opinion pieces, it is appropriate to have a sentence that links to notable criticism by these notable media watchdog groups, even though they are partisan. (It would be inappropriate to have an entire article taken up with such criticism, however, per WEIGHT. See, e.g., John Stossel.) WP:BLP is meant to exclude the bogus "Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster" conspiracy theorists, and to ensure adherence to NPOV, not to whitewash articles of reputable mainstream partisan criticism. Perceived media bias is a real issue, and excluding the only sources that specialize in commenting upon it would give readers the false impression that media bias is not an issue. THF (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Mixed include We have "conspiracy theorist" supporters in some articles (including BLP and BDPs) who say the allegation of a conspiracy or criminal act, no matter how far-fetched, must be presented at all times, even where the source is a clearly partisan source. I would therefore draw the line at such material implying a specific criminal act where no subsequent acts of any kind ensued and no prosecutions ensued of any kind. Collect (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Media bias real or perceived is certainly an issue which can't be ignored in BLPs. But if a partisan watchdog (anywhere on the political spectrum) is frequently putting forward fringe theories, doesn't that tend to imply that it is itself a fringe source, and not a good reflection of mainstream media criticism? Barnabypage (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Include - but limited to political views. It's useful to know how the left/right views a matter. However, I do not extend this "include" to fringe science theories or conspiracy theories. I have no use for wackos - except in articles about the wackos themselves. Rklawton (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Exclude It is easier to enforce a blanket policy of excluding opinion from media-watchdog sites than it is to deal with tendentious wiki-lawyers who will push the limits on what is and is not allowable criticism. If something is notable enough to garner mention in the article, it will be covered somewhere other than these sources, which exist solely to create spin for opposing ideologies. Horologium (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Include - but pay attention to the cautions and restrictions laid out at WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE). Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Exclude: These sources are involved in whatever controversy they are supporting or refuting, therefore they are WP:PRIMARY primary sources. They should only be included in content about the controversies, not content about the facts. MutantPlatypus (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand the WP:PRIMARY argument. If Source X writes an analysis Y of Jane Doe, that's surely a secondary source, right? Yes, it should be phrased in the text as "Media Matters said Y about Jane Doe" rather than stated as a plain fact, since Media Matters is not neutral, but that doesn't transform it into a primary source. I don't think anyone is proposing to use these sources as neutral arbiters of the facts, merely as exemplars of notable points of view about particular subjects. THF (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude, or include with balance. I've seen articles where people try to insert faux "awards" that MM makes up to promote their own POV (like "misinformer of the year"). There really isn't much balance to that. It's a made up award that is the opinion of some writer. If it is a legitimate criticism on an issue, that is a different matter. But both sides spin things their way. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Neither. Issues should be decided on a case by case basis. Citations of fact? Probably not. Citations of opinion? Maybe, depending on if this opinion is an outlier or representative. Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  Presentation of a POV in favor of one under some situation is a main reason this is being discussed. It is far better to have a policy that is clear rather than some arbitary measure which only results in edit wars. Arzel (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  A broad policy is what would be arbitrary. We handle things like I described all the time, no reason it can't be done for these sources. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude. Let the tabloids deal with the mud. Arzel (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Times identified as "unreliable"

This discussion is taking place over at the CRU hacking incident article. The editors are quibbling over the reliability of the Times of London. As usual, an uninvolved administrator would go a long way towards toning down the rhetoric.

Just read this discussion and the one below and it was interesting as I just recently had another editor lambast me for rejecting a particular Times article as a source. The reason for my rejection of it was that it was reporting on a court case, and the actual public court documents showed the Times article to be inaccurate. A generally reliable source was clearly not reliable. In another case an editor wanted to use a peer-reviewed article as a source for information outside of the expertise of the author (and the main topic of the article). The article had a number of clear errors that one might expect peer-review to pick up on, but since they were a minor part of the introductory section and outside the area of expertise of the journal it's not surprising they weren't. I come across this type of thing again and again, where ostensibly reliable sources can, using (more) reliable and verifiable sources, be shown to be unreliable on certain facts. I suspect it's ridiculously common with news media these days. While mechanisms are in place to deal with this kind of situation (primarily consensus) it's a cumbersome process and I feel it would be beneficial if wikipedia policies and guidelines more explicitly dealt with this kind of situation - even if just to give guidelines on how to deal with it. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Insider201283 is also challenging a direct quote out of the Western Journal of Communication because it cites a paper he doesn't like and saying anti-MLM comments out of Wiley books are not reliable while pro-ones are. He also tried to claim the paper in question was not scholarly and then tried to back track and then tried to again claim it was not scholarly.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Questionable source on "Pornography by region"

The source used for porn being banned in Ukraine is Romanian National Vanguard which is basically... well, I'll let you have a look for yourself at what kind of site it is (some kind of far right website), but is it reliable to use in Wikipedia? I don't think so.--Base and Spoiled Female (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously a source with an agenda but that doesn't rule it out automatically for all assertions - what statement is it being used to support, exactly? I had a quick look at Pornography by region and couldn't see it. Barnabypage (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's there. Are you blind?--Base and Spoiled Female (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not, I misread your original posting as saying the source related to a Romanian porn ban, so I was looking at the wrong bit of the page.

Well...I think Romanian National Vanguard is obviously a source that is going to be questioned at best, so your easiest route is to find another source that is reliable. Googling for Ukraine pornography ban brings up stories from the Huffington Post and the Daily Mirror in the UK (both reliable sources) as well as a couple from The Register (I don't know offhand if its reliability has ever been discussed). There are probably others if you dig deeper too. Barnabypage (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanian National Vanguard is an extremist site that would not be considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it is reliable in this case as it is right. See [96] as mentioned. So change the ref and problem solved.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Scienceblogs.com/Deltoid AKA timlambert.org is not a Reliable Source

This is related to the attempt[97] noted above[98] to de-list The Times of London as a reliable source. This blog[99]has been referenced to establish the Times as a Wikipedia "un-reliable source".

1. Verifiability[100] First, we must note[101] that it is a self-published internet blog with no editorial oversight.
2. Competence[102]The purported author claims to be a generic non-specific "computer scientist" who specifically notes that he does not write about his area of self-claimed expertise.
3. Neutrality[103] The author further states that his blog's purpose is "explaining what is wrong and why it is wrong" about articles "with political implications such as global warming, ..." His actions are partisan, and designed to be so. Related:[104]
4. Reliability[105] The blog is the notable focus of an academic paper which uses the blog as an example of poor scholarship at Wikipedia.[106]. The paper is referenced here[107] and is cited by at least one Advanced Placement AP teacher[108] who links to the paper by stating, "One of the (many) reasons why I do not accept Wikipedia as a reference in any circumstance, and why you should not trust it for anything more than the most casual, entertainment-level browsing:" (note:The blogs previous name cited in the paper[109] is timlambert.org, which is still an active redirect to the same sections at "scienceblog".)

In short, and for a number of reasons considered in their totality, the opinion blog noted here is not a Reliable Source suitable for use at Wikipedia.99.141.252.167 (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As regards, reliability, the "academic papers" being cited here are just unpublished web posts themselves, defending John Lott which pretty much says it all as regards actual reliability. And, responding to a point below, Lambert is in fact a co-author on the article you mention (I should know). I'm going to revert all the deletions so we can address them one by one.JQ (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold up on that john, I see you reverted one of the removals already citeing it is a bot?, do bots now post here as well lol. I am looking through the list and from what i see these are not only not rs the yare not really needed mark nutley (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Has anyone claimed it's a reliable source in WP terms for use in articles? It raises pointers to significant issues with the coverage of science by certain journalists, whose articles are clearly questionable. Something for more detailed examination, but not a rs in itself. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

After it was presented as evidence to usurp the Times I noticed it has been used as a RS, and is currently a supporting ref used in other articles.99.141.252.167 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Which articles? mark nutley (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ is not WP:RS, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/ is. Obviously and incontrovertibly. Dlabtot (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted these[110][111][112][113][114][115] but this one[116] is locked. Interestingly all but one had supplemental refs so with the exception of that article[117], no actual article content was effected.99.141.252.167 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I took it out, it was hidden in a valid ref to the telegraph mark nutley (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In a related note, the blog author, Tim Lambert has also been mis-attributed as the co-author of this article[118] (his name does not appear in the article byline which clearly attributes the text to Quiggin) and then liberally added to a slew of articles. Attribution has been corrected in these[119][120][121][122]. And another "Deltoid" showed up here[123]. No article text (except the removal of the name) was changed, nor refs removed when I corrected the attribution.99.141.252.167 (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Quiggan plainly disagrees with you (above). Why not ask him for clarification, rather than ignore him? Guettarda (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Quiggan" should correct the attribution in the published source. WP:OR argues strongly against individual editors contradicting published sources. I believe there are also rules restricting ones ability to add references to ones own research to Wiki articles. 99.141.252.167 (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And now these[124][125][126][127][128], these were inserted as "timlambert.org". 99.141.252.167 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Lambert is an academic scientist, who writes about science. And although he blogs outside of specific his area of academic interest, he is part of an invitation-only blog network selected by the editors of Seed Magazine. He's not some random blogger. Guettarda (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that 99.141.252.167 has removed a number of refs to Deltoid. I think that is an inappropriate thing to do while the discussion here is ongoing and hasn't reached consensus.Sjö (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really, regardless of what Guettarda says above a blog is not wp:rs is it? mark nutley (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's appropriate to remove the refs from BLPs. Elsewhere it's a judgement call. Better refs are better, of course, but you do have an academic writing in an invitation-only network. Certainly no worse than journalist-bloggers. Guettarda (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

They added nothing. Of the nearly twenty that I deleted or corrected I believe only two had any text changed, on one I simply added a cite tag[129] in place of a removed ref. Nothing reliable, verifiable, or even notable about the blog. The entries look more like self-aggrandizement than useful additions.99.141.252.167 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Um. yeah...you could say that about any source - remove it, replace it with a {{cn}} tag and...that means it adds nothing? Er, no. Guettarda (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I said it about one. More than a dozen had multiple refs already there. The blogger is a non-notable partisan whose stated mission is to support his political goals by "righting wrongs". It's not even close to suitable.99.141.252.167 (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Deltoid is frequently cited as a top 10 Science Blog. Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy is another. [130] Wikispan (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Note the text in your link, which is not to the top 10: "We’d like you to help us us to compile the definitive list, the Top 100 Science Blogs. Send the name and url of your favourites to eureka@thetimes.co.uk, with “Best blogs” in the subject line." It also clearly states: "Stimulating musings on the environment and the social implications of science, though Lambert’s background is actually in computing." "Stimulated musings" does not support inclusion as a reliable source. I'll also note the rich irony of using the Times to support the reliability of a blog which was introduced to impeach the reliability of ... the Times. _ 99.141.252.167 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The text reproduced above (RICHARDDAWKINS.NET) refers to a forthcoming reader submitted list. Deltoid was so-named by The Times. The fact both Richard Dawkins and Tim Lambert criticised its sister paper, The Sunday Times, is a tad ironic but beside the point. [131] Wikispan (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins is a mis-attribution. His site merely links to the list of 30, not 10, fan favs - the actual list was compiled by 'the Eureka staff'. Dawkins is not among them. Note also that this blog is also on your list[132] of purported Richard Dawkins endorsed reliable source science blogs. Is it too to now become a WP:RS? No, it shouldn't - nor should the site with the lego guitars. 99.141.252.167 (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not 'fan fav[ourites]'. Please acknowledge your error. I am quite aware that Richard Dawkins' website is not among them, hence the word 'reproduced' in my reply. Wikispan (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My sentence was crystal clear, this is the part of the sentence you removed, "- the actual list was compiled by 'the Eureka staff'. Dawkins is not among them." No error exists. I would however like to see if you also support as a Richard Dawkins endorsed reliable source this site[[133]] from your list. If not, then I think your argument has run its course.99.141.252.167 (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one[134] from your list of Richard Dawkins endorsed science blogs - and bonus, it's also hosted by the same scienceblogs.com that hosts Deltoid. Is it a reliable Source because it's from Scienceblogs or because both the Times and Dawkins "endorse" it?99.141.252.167 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(As an interesting aside I was curious how so many superfluous refs found their way in and I noticed a high correlation between the editor who introduced a number of these Lambert[135] refs and the public attacks Lambert apparently engaged in with another blogger named Watts. 212 mentions of Watts on his blog[136] with many occurring around June and July of 2009 - as were these edits here[137] for which the Ed. was twice warned on his talk page[138]. Note also this pointed peacocking within his first month here.[139] Curious correlation.)99.141.252.167 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Underminingdemocracy.org a reliable source or not?

There is a dispute on the Propaganda in the People's Republic of China page about whether "Kurlantzick, Joshua (2009). "China: Resilient, Sophisticated Authoritarianism". Freedom House. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)" is a reliable source on the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda work. PCPP (talk · contribs) argues that it is not, since "a) is not a suitable academic source as most of its material relies on original research b) is from an organization funded by the US government, and the countries reported happened to be political opponents of the US". I disagree. This is a question about the reliability of the source, not about whether the source has been used in a fully appropriate manner in the article. Please share your considered opinions. --Asdfg12345 00:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and it would be relevant to note who these people are. Here's Kurlantzick's profile; and Perry Link. --Asdfg12345 00:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

VH1 - sexy scientologists

Is a VH1 picture of someone labeled "Sexy Scientologists" a reliable enough source to describe someone as a Scientologist in the Wikipedia article on them?[140] Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)