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

When is YouTube a good source?

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

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

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

In stead of, for example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if the video is of a BLP subject giving information about themselves that is used to support material in their article? As long as it's unambiguously clear that it is indeed the subject in question, then wouldn't it be permissable to use for some info, like an artist discussing the techniques and materials they use, for example? Nightscream (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"I use the best materials in the world and possess the best technique. I name my techniques differently to what art historians and art theorists name techniques." cf: The tree shaping case. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not following. Can you clarify? Nightscream (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Individuals are often the worst source regarding themselves, they are habitually self serving, they are the perfect example of a PRIMARY and an involved source. They have no distance from themselves, and make outrageous claims on a regular basis that experts do not. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I make a point not to rely on self-published or primary sources precisely when the material in question is indeed potentially controversial or self-serving, like the awards that an artist has one. But when it's something completely innocuous or neutral in that respect, like where the person was born or grew up, what materials they use, that's not really self-serving, is it? Where else would information on what type of paper or which pencil leads an artist uses be found, if not from their own mouth? Nightscream (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding geography and self-identification: British Isles dispute; Eastern European disputes; regarding techniques and methods in fine arts: Tree Shaping dispute. Ethnicity and at least one art technique have so stewed the editing process with their controversial nature that arbitration has been effected. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the "Tree Shaping dispute" is, and it would help if you would tell me or link me. In any event, the types of pencils, markers, inks or papers that Adam Hughes uses is not controversial or disputed, a point that I thought I had made clearly enough in my last message above. That is why I question if there's anything wrong with relying on a YouTube video of a notable artist explaining the materials he chooses to work with. In what way is this controversial or disputed? How does one dispute the materials a notable flat-out says he uses? What source could possibly be used to contest what materials he uses when working in his own home? Nightscream (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Encyclopedia Britannica a reliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  text

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

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

See the second paragraph in this section that starts "See for example Talk:Albania#Encyclopedia Britannica is regarded as a trusted source by Wikipedia community ..." -- PBS (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Unreliable for proposed uses. EB is an unsigned tertiary aimed at the general public. There have been fundamental criticisms of its fact checking, analysis and thoroughness. EB is not a reliable source for most academic topics, as its purpose is pedagogical and not scholarly. The proposed uses relate to the history of Albania, an academic topic. EB is not reliable for this. See WP:HISTRS for appropriate tertiary sources to use in history articles (signed tertiaries published by academic historians or equivalent peers, in the scholarly press, or equivalent press as reviewed, that are aimed at other scholarly practitioners.) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Every article in EB is identified with an author, who is often a recognised expert. -- 202.124.75.249 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Frog (amphibian) identifies a "primary contributor" which is different to "signing;" Australian Cattledog has no named contributor. I'm sorry 202.… but you're not correct. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at EB1911 on Wikisource while not all articles are signed many are for example the third EB article is signed see: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Aagesen, Andrew" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. -- PBS (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

...its purpose is pedagogical and not scholarly.

So what? Exactly the same criticism can be leveled, and with even greater justice, against every single university-level textbook, and we routinely accept such sources as being reliable.

I suspect that you have confused "best possible source" with "meets minimum standards for being a reliable source".

The actual qualities that define a reliable source are not whether it's "scholarly" or "secondary". They are

1. It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
2. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).
3. It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.
4. It is a third-party or independent source.
5. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes.

EB easily qualifies on every single point.

Now—you could certainly find better sources. But the existence of a better source doesn't mean that EB becomes unreliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Secondary and Undergraduate tertiary textbooks do not possess a "professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something," fit to the claim. Historical claims emerge from a disciplinary process—this is very distinct from pedagogical purposes. What other fields are willing to accept in relation to undergraduate texts is another matter, but generalist encyclopaedia and undergraduate texts, in the area of history, routinely and overwhelmingly mischaracterise the findings of scholarship, the methodology of interpretation, and the scholarly debate. EB is not reliable for history. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Textbook publishers most certainly do have "a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something." How exactly do you think that McGraw-Hill decided whether to publish American History: A Survey? By asking some volunteers what they should do? Or do you think that they hired some professional editors to make that decision?

Additionally, I don't think you're understanding the issue around reliable sources in general. The source needs to be able to support the claim being made. There are no sources that are always unreliable. If EB is being cited in support of a historical claim like "Geroge III was a king" or "There was a plague in London back in the 14th century", then it's entirely suitable and reliable. If you're trying to support a complicated claim, then you need a source that's up to supporting the weight of the complicated claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To fit the claim. Pedagogy is not historiography. If you are citing EB for George III was a king, you aren't following a variety of article writing policies, and further, in the area of medieval history, EB is useless at representing the historiography of kings, particularly pseudo-mythic kings. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, since both Wikipedia and EB are encyclopaediae, it would be hardly correct to write the former based on the latter. In my real life I never saw that scientists used EB as a source for their research articles/reviews. I cannot tell for sure about history/liberal arts, I am not a specialist there, however, I have a feeling that they do not use EB either. I think EB, being a tertiary source, should be avoided when possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. I've never seen EB used as a source for serious books on archaeology or history. I've always thought it an unsuitable source for articles. A minor point is that EB of course has no NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well no, EB is a tertiary source that summarizes serious books on archaeology or history. Sure Wikipedia and EB are encyclopaediae, but they are not comparable, the former is written by amateurs who imagine themselves to be encyclopedists and the latter is written by professional encyclopedists who are often experts in their respective fields. EB is a reliable source for an overview of a topic, but obviously specific books on archaeology or history are preferable for detail when available. --Nug (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In the humanities field there are a few citations to EB, for instance Peter Kropotkin wrote Anarchism in the EB, at the time when he was a premier theoretician. It was a signed article of original research, which merely happened to be printed in the EB. Outside of that, no. Also, and I've said this forever: dog doesn't eat dog. We do not write an authoritative generalist tertiary source, by recycling other generalist tertiary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes Wikipedia does "eat dog" (and often decayed dogs), and so do others eg: the ODNB. Part of the problem here is one of methodology. Fifelfoo you seem to think that if it is not written as a summary by an editor of Wikipedia citing secondary sources it is tainted. But others think of Wikipedia as a repository of general knowledge and if that can be acquired by legally copying text from other sources, providing those sources are properly attributed (see WP:PLAGARISM) then that is acceptable. As we have tens of thousands of articles with text copied from PD sources and plenty of others that summarise and cite tertiary sources, this is a self evident popular view among Wikipedia editors (we have whole projects dedicated to such ports (eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography). In the long term this text can be augmented and/or replaced with new text that comes from summarising more modern secondary sources, but it the short term it gets information into Wikipdia that is then available to a much wider audience. Not only does it get useful text into articles it also creates articles with a structure that will be familiar to people who have read similar works, and even if the text is gradually improved with summaries of new sources, the structure tends to remain in place. Let me give you an example that I have written this week. I wanted some information on the Battle of Veillane on which Wikipedia did not have an article, so I looked up what was available publicly on the net and three days ago wrote a sub. That stub cites five sources four of which are tertiary sources. I do not think that Wikipedia would be improved by not creating or removing stubs such as this because they cite tertiary sources, instead Wikipedia will be improved when someone, who knows more about the battle than I, who edits my contribution mercilessly by summarising secondary sources. -- PBS (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A great many editors regret the wholesale incorporation of poor quality content from PD sources. It gets 100 years out of date content into articles, keeps it there, and represents violations of pillars, particular NPOV in relation to bourgeois imperialism. Perhaps you ought to consider more closely weight if you're citing online tertiaries. There are no sources therein cited that are tertiary appropriate for the notability of Battle of Veillane; and the single page citations to contemporary works are radically insufficient to establish notability. None of these has the Battle of Veillane as its topic, and therefore you should feel awful about your contribution there. Go read WEIGHT. Instead of improving wikipedia you've duplicated 19th century ideology for no good end. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This posting seems a little extreme to me. We should work according to community consensus, and we should be practical. There is no consensus that using tertiary sources should be forbidden, and there is no consensus that using old editions of EB should be forbidden. Arguing that using an old source is breaking NPOV seems like wikilawyering also (and raises some wierd philosophical problems). Let's be a little more nuanced? Instead of trying to make black-white rules on everything we should consider specific cases of using tertiary and old sources. I believe that is the real community consensus?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew and as for the non NPOV in PD sources it is made clear in the plagarism guideline that: "If the external work is in the public domain, but contains an original idea, or is a primary source, then it may be necessary to alter the wording of the text (for example not including all the text from the original work, or quoting some sections, or specifically attributing to a specific source an opinion included in the text,) to meet the Wikipedia content policies of neutral point of view and Wikipedia:no original research (in particular the restrictions on the use of primary sources)." -- PBS (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo. As to your comment on the stub Battle of Veillane I've post the relevant part of my comment and yours to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Battle of Veillane an AfD candidate? to see if the readers of that page agree with your point of view. -- PBS (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe noone will object if I summarise the dispute as follows: whereas the EB articles authored by reputable scientists or scholars can be used as a source for Wikipedia in the absence of better sources, it would be desirable to replace them with references to reliable secondary sources when such possibility exists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC) (@ Fifelfoo) During famines, not only dogs eat dogs, but even humans eat humans, so, whereas EB should be avoided, in the absence of better sources it is better then nothing. By writing that, I, however, do not support the idea to use EB in parallel with reliable mainstream secondary sources. When such sources are available, EB can and should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Penumbra (band)

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

Hi. Please sign your posts in the future with brackets and four tildes ~.

Your edits won't stand in the article if they are not sourced to a WP:RS. I'd suggest you check out WP:Five Pillars to start with. This Notice board helps readers determine whether sources are in fact reliable and can actually be used to support content in articles. So you might look for reliable sources to support your contention that the band is no longer active. (olive (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

Correct, if you have been reading sources and found this information by all means put it in Wikipedia, but mention where you got it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Making of Modern Israel

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

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

• polity [10] quotes blurbs from various reviews in some reliable sources.
• Israel Studies Review [11] (can't read the actual review, but someone took the trouble to review the book)
• The Australian Jewish News [12]

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

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

I found these links: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Sometimes Google doesn't give us the best results first time around and different countries may have different issues searching for sources. Stein appears to be mentioned in a few notable places. Of course, that does not make Stein reliable in general. However, there is a tier system of reliability in my opinion and, in this case, Stein certainly meets the threshold for inclusion as representing a prominent view on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He should not be treated as an authoritative source on what actually happened, but his views are worthy of inclusion with the typical considerations we give partisan sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Comments from reviews: "Stein’s work is in many ways a partisan account of the early years of Israel’s existence"[19]; "While Stein takes pains to declare himself a dispassionate historian, he is clearly making an argument"[20]; "He is unashamedly pro-Israel, and at times some readers may feel he is too one-sided"[21]; "He remains cocooned in his avowedly unashamed sympathy for 'Israel's general plight'."[22]; "Stein is a proud Zionist and never questions the murderous rampage of Zionist fighters against the British before Israel's birth"[23]. Thewre is barely a mention which does not note the author's bias, and the author himself states that he is "unashamedly sympathetic to Israel's general plight". This is clearly a partisan source, whether reliable or not. RolandR (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This should placate the editor who opened this discussion

• The book is from a well-known publisher Polity that publishes scholarly texts[24].

• It is subject to a vetting process and peer review which makes it compliant with WP:RS. It is readily available and verifiable per WP:V.
• The author has published a number of scholarly texts[25]
• The book has been listed as a “good read” on the Barnes & Noble website[26]
• And here is the publisher’s Synopsis and exhaustive list of peer review and accolades (cut and pasted):
  • "Israel moves forward. Palestine stands still. Israel builds its future. Palestine guards its past. Stein's work provides a good introduction to this sad saga for the perplexed and the uninitiated." History Today "This volume could very well last as required reading about Israeli history for the next decade to come." Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies "Stein takes us on a fascinating tour, highlighting major and lesser events in the history of young Israel." Democracy and Security "Balanced, well researched and will substantially extend the knowledge of any student of Israeli history." Birmingham Jewish Recorder "Leslie Stein explains in this eloquent, highly readable and well-researched study how the Israeli state overcame the threat to its existence and emerged as the most feared military power in the Middle East ... Stein's account of the events leading up to the 1967 war is one of the most masterly and lucid to appear in years ... There is little doubt that his study will be viewed as an indispensible authority on one of the most intractable conflicts of our time." Tribune "This book can serve as a refresher course for more knowledgable readers and a sound introduction for novices." Hadassah Magazine "There is little left uncovered in this up-to-date and meticulously researched book. Anybody wanting a quick and easily understandable account of Israel's formative years would do well to read this refreshing, informative and concise telling." Canadian Jewish News "He offers a good historic overview of the respective period, his book is elegantly written, easy to read and his knowledge of the material is broad." H-Soz-u-Kult "Any reader of this book, however familiar he or she is with the history of this crucial period, is bound to learn something." Jerusalem Post "The deeper into the twenty-first century we get the less we know about the twentieth. This ignorance has so distorted even educated people's grasp of the conflict between Israel and its Palestinian and other Arab neighbours that public discussion of it routinely descends into half-bias, half drivel. Leslie Stein's elegant and learned book is, first of all, truthful, a rare enough quality in this research area. Beyond that, it is well written and argumentative in the sense that his topic requires. The years 1948-1967 constitute the crucible of discord. Without a clear understand of these two decades, which this volume so amply provides, the citizen is in the desert with only mirages to (mis)lead him or her." Martin Peretz, Editor-In-Chief of The New Republic "With great verve and a robust appreciation for the Zionist achievement, Leslie Stein accurately captures the drama, excitement and danger of the fledgling Jewish state's first two decades, thus putting its current tribulations in perspective. Daniel Pipes, Director of The Middle East Forum (Pennsylvania) and Taube/Diller distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University "The Making of Modern Israel is an invaluable contribution to our understanding of one of history's most extraordinary and inspiring stories. Leslie Stein is to be commended for authoring what is certain to become an indispensible resource for scholars, decision-makers, and students." Michael Oren, Senior Fellow at the Shalem Center, Jerusalem and author of Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East "Continuing his masterful previous history of Israel before statehood, Leslie Stein tells the complicated story of the state's first nineteen years in this highly readable, admirably concise and eminently fair-minded account. Threading his way deftly through controversial minefields with sure footing, Stein manages to convey the best up-to-date scholarship with unusual clarity. This book is strongly recommended for the general reader and as an excellent introductory text for the classroom." Alan Dowty, Emeritus Professor of University of Notre Dame and author of Israel/Palestine "Anyone who wants to find the way through the internal politics and external wars that accompanied Israel in its early and formative years can rely on Professor Stein. He gives it straight. This ought to become a standard work on the emergence of Israel to the place it holds on the international scene." David Pryce-Jones, former senior editor of National Review, former literary editor of the Financial Times and of the Spectator and author of The Closed Circle--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The contentious information is :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(It seems it is a tertiary source).

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

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

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

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

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

• Stein doesn't really try to hide his partisan orientation. But I just want to call attention here to what he writes in his preface:

"Based mainly on secondary sources, this book is grounded in a wide study of the received literature, both in Hebrew and English. Hopefully its strength lies in a judicious synthesis of the published material yielding the reader a reliable and novel account of Israel's fateful and turbulent infancy. Although unashamedly sympathetic to Israel's general plight, I have not stinted in reporting the country's blemishes and occasional misdeeds."

Hmm. "Fateful"? "Occasional misdeeds"? So Stein has no training or academic credentials in history, right? And he's not done historical research himself to produce this book, i.e. his comments indicate he hasn't interviewed people who actually took part in the events he narrates, nor has he read, investigated, or compared primary source documents, either. What he did do was read the results of actual historical research and find a publisher for what he thinks is a "judicious synthesis" of what he read. So if any of us did exactly the same thing to produce our own "judicious synthesis" that was "unabashedly sympathetic" to the side we each prefer, how would that be different? And he's "unashamedly sympathetic" to the plight of Israel, but makes no mention of sympathy for the plight of Palestinians? Maybe that's because the conditions they live under are so much better than those Israelis live under? Unashamedly sympathetic, indeed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Per WP:HISTRS, Stein's absence of historical training, Stein's poor reviews (Shofar 29.1 2010 says, "for students and sophisticated lay readers. ... revisit in overly lavish detail the few topics which will be familiar to many or most readers, while neglecting topics which are prominent in Israeli culture and society but are somewhat less known outside of Israel." "On some topics, Stein's discussions might have benefited from reference to literary texts or recent scholarship." Don't use, it doesn't represent the standards of historical scholarship. Especially per IP91's review. Why not try Benny Morris One State, Two States Yale University Press ISBN 978 0300122817? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. How does one economist become "some historians"? Even if Stein is a reliable source, this opinion should be reported as "According to Leslie Stein..." or "According to one economist...". Zero^talk 10:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree. Nothing wrong with using a source like this in most cases, even if Fifelfoo is right to point out that it is not perfect. But for this subject obvious caution is necessary and it needs to be kept quite firmly in mind that the source is not ideal, especially if other editors are raising objections. For partisan (or arguably partisan) bits, attribution can at least be used, but other sources might be better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Is BET a reliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone? Anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller? --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm very skeptical of sourcing anything to basic cable infotainment channels, as opposed to legitimate news organizations. I am skeptical of their level of editorial control, reliability or reputation for fact checking, beyond doing just barely enough to avoid successful libel suits. I would not source things to E!, MTV, Spike, TruTV, BET...etc. That does not appear to be a universally-held view here, however. Fladrif (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what's so unreliable about this source. I reckon Harout72 just thinks he's right about everything and refuses to listen to other peoples opinions. --Jamcad01 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but if MTV.com or other similar network websites are considered reliable. BET must be too. Malcolmo (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As of now, the majority tends to say yes. Malcolmo (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not the majority that counts, what counts is why editors think the source in question is reliable. The comment made by Jamcad01 above is not an explanation as to why the source is reliable, he/she is simply another upset editor whose sources at the List of best-selling music artists have been turned down due to their questionable reliability.--Harout72 (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But in this particular case, the claim is not even far fetched. R. Kelly has certified sales of OVER 50 million. It is moreso highly unlikely his sales would be only fifty million, since he started in 1991. BET is not some blog. It is one the country's biggest network, especially in relation to African Americans, and African American music. 92.230.237.186 (Malcolmo) 14:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, to GRuban, the original research policy restricts what content can be added to articles. There is nothing wrong with using original research and a little common sense to determine what should be removed from articles. Regardless, one bad report doesn't mean the publisher as a whole is unreliable. Everyone messes up sometimes. If it were demonstrated that BET regularly screws up like this, that would be another thing. But in the other direction, demonstrating the reliability of BET's numbers is as simple as showing that they are cited by sources whose reliability is not in dispute. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Current Science

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

The line in question:

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

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

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

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

This is a borderline case. A couple of points to consider: (i) The paper is what the journal calls a "general paper" (i.e., broad discussion "of interest to readers outside the field"[27] rather than a research article or scientific correspondence. (ii) The journal's abysmal 0.78 impact factor speaks to its reputation in the relevant academic community. (iii) The fact that the paper was received on a Saturday (9 Feb 2008) and then accepted on Sunday (10 Feb 2008) is quite odd. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You also deleted another reviewed paper from Current Science [28]. That paper was received 17 March 2006; revised accepted 18 August 2006. It is clear that Current Science has a normal peer reviewed process. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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

"Current Science is a multidisciplinary journal and therefore research and review papers of general significance that are written clearly and well organized will be given preference. All papers, solicited and unsolicited, will be first assessed by a Reviewing Editor. Papers found unsuitable in terms of the overall requirements of the journal will be returned to the authors. The others will be sent for detailed review. Authors of these papers will be notified of acceptance, need for revision or rejection of the paper. It may be noted that papers once rejected cannot be resubmitted. Illustrations and other materials to be reproduced from other publications must be properly credited; it is the authors’ responsibility to obtain permission for reproduc- tion of figures, tables, etc. from published sources (copies of letters of permission should be sent to the editor)." [29] What is your next defense, that India is a country you don't like ?

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

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

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

For completeness I copy my last comment from Talk:Cold_fusion#Current_Science here:

"Current Science" is listed on Science Citation Index as one of "over 3,700 of the world's leading scientific and technical journals across 100 disciplines.". You cherry picked one article to come to your conclusion "...some low grade non-peer reviewed journal". Current Science is one of 3769 scientific journals indexed in Science citation index, thus the journal is not "low grade". On the contrary, it is evidence of the journal's reliability.

The dean of the University of Colorado Boulder Libraries [30] put "Current Science" on a list of "peer-reviewed open access journals".

I consulted WP:SCIRS, it reads: "This page does not address reliability in context of the social sciences, biographical detail, social or political impact or controversy, or related non-scientific issues, even when these are presented in the context of a natural science article.".

WP:SCIRS nevertheless had some interesting infos: "Journal articles come in many types, including: original research, reviews, expert summaries, news, editorials, advocacy pieces, speculation, book reviews, correspondence, biographies, and eulogies." According to Current Science they indeed have a long list of different article categories. Not all of those article categories go through peer review. The article in question is in the "General Article" category. Looking at several other "General Articles" it seems they have a much shorter review (1-2 weeks) in comparison to "Research Articles" where the review takes up several months.

So from this we can conclude that: 1) current science is on of 3769 leading scientific journals. 2) the "Research Articles" undergo peer review that takes up to several months 3) the "General Articles" mostly undergo a review that normally takes 1-2 weeks.

Maybe an uninvolved editor can comment on whether this is sufficient evidence that "Current Science" is a RS for the line as described at the start of this thread. Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

For completeness I will restate the argument against it: The only evidence it engages in peer review is some random list POVbrigand came across (which is an unverifiable list, the individual may have accidentally though it was peer reviewed, their own website doesn't say they engage in peer review). One of the articles in question was reviewed by the editorial board for only one day before being accepted, this suggests it is not a rigorous journal with good editorial control. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please also enlighten us why you didn't care to comment on the fact that Science Citation Index includes "Current Science" as one of over 3,700 of the world's leading scientific and technical journals across 100 disciplines. Why do you think your OR is better that the editors of the Science Citation Index ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read Current Science before, and I can say its reliability is questionable. The review process is completely opaque, and I have seem them publish utter crap in the past. The review process should never take one day. An serious journal would take time to find experts in the specific subfield, ask them for their comments, and then the editors would review those comments. That never takes a day. Three weeks from submission to acceptance is considered lightning speed for review in a top journal. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The article with the 1 day review is a "general article" category instead of a "research article". The articles that are published as "research articles" seem to have several months timeframe between "received" and "accepted" date. See for instance this paper received 17 March 2006; revised accepted 18 August 2006. That paper was also part of the deletion by IRWolfie. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust anything scientific paper, whether it's research or "general", that passed review in 24 hours. Just because the journal peer-reviews some of what it publishes, not everything therein has to be considered reliable. We're free as editors to decide through consensus that a particular article in a particular publication should not be used, when there is good reason (like clear evidence it was never actually reviewed). Someguy1221 (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at this (DOI: 10.1126/science.1218074) "Seeing the Superfluid Transition of a Gas" article from Science magazine. It never went to peer review. Can I now conclude that "Science Magazine is a low grade journal without peer review. There is no sign of quality control, the paper in question was never peer reviewed. Science Magazine claims to be a journal, but clearly the name is Science Magazine" - Such reasoning would be quite absurd, wouldn't it ? Unfortunately it is exactly the way that IRWolfie came to his conclusion. I might concede on the "1 day reviewed" article, but the general dismissal of "Current Science" by 1 uninformed editor is just not acceptable. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

When you're discussing such a contentious area as Cold Fusion, you should not be bringing in sources of questionable reliability. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I got that correctly. What is questionable RS, a) the "1 day reviewed" article or b) "Current Science" in total ? --POVbrigand (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The journal and particularly this section are suspect because of their poor and inconsistent reviewing standards. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a confirmation from "Current Science" that they have indeed peer review. Papers maybe sent out to two or more referees or considered by members of the editorial board or Associate Editors. Furthermore I have another confirmation from a notable Professor who has published several papers in the journal that the paper is fully peer reviewed.

The sentiment portrayed by some editors here in this talk against "Current Science", based on overestimation of one's own capabilities on judging a poorly understood artifact and possibly a general ignorance of a science community outside of Europe/USA, is pathetic. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• The question of the reliability of the journal is secondary - even if the journal is reliable that doesn't mean the paper has to or should be included. What you should ask yourselves is what has been the impact of the article - has anyone commented on it or criticized it? Is it referred to in review articles or textbooks? Respectable peer reviewed journals often publish articles that make questionable conclusions that are ignored by other scholars. If the scholarly community ignore a particular paper then so should wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a valid way of evaluating whether a paper should be in the article or not. I fully accept your way of reasoning in general. In the case of this paper the line to be verified is merely about a bit of history on cold fusion, that Oriani had reported excess heat. In this particular case the mention of that fact in an article in a respected science journal should be enough for verification.

However, what I cannot accept and what I believe any WP editor should not accept is the reasoning that some other editors here apply, that based on a poorly understood artifact a whole respected journal can be dismissed "Current Science is a low grade low impact journal without peer review.". --POVbrigand (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Amazon.com

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

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

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

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

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

NOTADVERTISING is entirely about the contents of our own articles, not about the contents of our sources. You may certainly cite an advertisement as a reliable source, under the same sorts of circumstances that you would cite a business's own website, press release, or other marketing materials. All advertisements and other marketing materials are considered self-published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So then there is no policy against using a link to advertise products as long as we can point to some information we can claim as relevant? Otr500 (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There's our RS policy of course, and Amazon gets its information from other sources and is not necessarily the most reliable source - and it doesn't always get it right. There's also been a problem in the past (but not in this link) with people trying to add affiliate links. I don't like Amazon links but I did a search and people seem to think that for DVDs they are one of the only possible sources. If this were a book I'd say definitely not, there are other sources. Much to my reluctance I'd say that if you can't find a better source it should remain. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Self published books

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The situation here is reminiscent of the perennial debate about Joe Baugher [31], a hobbyist who has apparently become an expert on airplane registry numbers, whose website is widely used as as a reference in publications, but who has never himself been published by a third party publisher within the area of his expertise. My own take is the same has here - WP:SPS requires more. Others contend thatWP:SPS should be relaxed, because Baugher is the best source available and there is no alternative source. It would appear that there is either an impasse or a detente about that issue in those articles, with Baugher continuing to be used as a source, and people continuing to complain about it. I take it that there are probably other, better sources available in this instance, so that same kind of argument may not be applicable here. It would seem that if there are other sources of higher quality, those are what should be cited in lieu of these. Fladrif (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philosophical Press, Cambridge does not appear to be a reliable, third party publisher. I can locate no other book published by this publisher. Shepherd states on his website that it "was published by a freelance agent sympathetic to my work". [32] Fladrif (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

To confirm that the sympathetic agent was not also a small-time publisher, I just searched Cambridge University Library catalogue, which seemed a likely source in this case, and I could only find this one book from "Philosophical Press". My search (I know because I used to work there) should give complete results back to 1976 if not earlier.

I think Fladrif has summarised correctly, and I also sense that the disputants, aware perhaps of wasting their own time, are hoping to waste as much as possible of other people's. Andrew Dalby 09:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you for looking into the matter. At least that book was not self-published. I don’t of course accept the “reading” of consensus by Fladrif that Shepherd’s books are unreliable. I have used his books now in two articles, and I believe to the improvement of those articles. The first article, Hazrat Babajan, was previously exclusively based on devotee-oriented publications, and the subject of that article used principally as a peg to fly the banner of Meher Baba. The edits I made, using further sources and references, which included Shepherd’s contribution, allowed Hazrat Babajan to be seen as a significant religious figure in her own right—a notable Sufi saint who had her own following and recognition. The use of Shepherd’s books in the context of an article to provide clarification for the reader, and for the improvement of that article, is something I will continue to do. --Stephen Castro (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• So, how do you read the consensus of uninvolved editors? What in my summary, which Andrew agrees is accurate, do you think misstates the NB consensus. It sounds like your version of NB consensus is that so long as you think a source is reliable and want to use it you're free to ignore noticeboard consensus on WP:RS and WP:SPS? Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Fladrif (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Also, "at least that book was not self-published" is a curious conclusion. When it is the only book published by a publisher, and the author identifies the publisher as a sympathetic agent, I would draw exactly the opposite conclusion. It is clearly not, even by the most fanciful of imaginations a "reliable third party publisher", which is the actual language of WP:SPS, regardless of the convenient shorthand often used here. Fladrif (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've been working on a response to post on the Talk Page, rather than here, and this will address my own concerns with this process in a comprehensive way. I haven't finished writing it yet, but I expect to post it within the next couple of days. This may cover the same ground as Stephen Castro, but probably in more detail. Simon Kidd (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have already stated on this page that I accept the commonsense comment of the experienced editor DGG re Shepherd’s books: “… the material here does not depend solely or even principally on him, he usually seems to be only a supporting source, often for what has another citation also, and I think they are usable in the context of the article under discussion.” I happen to agree with that commonsense view, and as I have extensive knowledge on the subject of the article, I will use my own editorial discretion in the sources used. I have tried to provide a balance of devotee and non-devotee publications regarding the subject of the article. I actually know Shepherd is a reliable source of information on the subject, and also the most comprehensive source available out of all the books listed in the Bibliography. --Stephen Castro (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Four Five neutral, disinterested, uninvolved editors with extensive experience at RSN conclude that Shepherd's books do not qualify as reliable sources. One neutral, disinterested, uninvolved editor with extensive experience at RSN concludes that Shepherd isn't notable, the books could not be used in a BLP, but his books are mostly being used only as supplemental citations for material already supported by other reliable sources, and the article in question is such a mess that whether or not you use Shepherd's books hardly matters. Consensus isn't a vote, but you're going with that ringing endorsement over the 80%83.33% landslide that says they shouldn't be used.Fladrif (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not count myself in the consensus, but I still count 5 opinions against (AndyTheGrump, Fladrif, Dmcq, Will Beback, Andrew Dalby) against one of DDG. Am I wrong? Hoverfish Talk 17:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Ever since that unfortunate incident using the lawnmower as a hedgeclipper, I get confused with numbers over three. Higher math. Fladrif (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Stephen Castro is getting at a valid point, although I wouldn't express it the way he has, and it has nothing to do with a head count. I will post an extended response on the Talk Page over the weekend - I haven't had time this week, due to work commitments. Simon Kidd (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, work and family commitments prevented me from completing my response over the weekend, but I am making progress with it and will post ASAP. Simon Kidd (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have finally posted a statement on the Talk Page. Simon Kidd (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruption
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since Fifelfoo has seen fit to hat my analysis as a "disruptive soapboox", I will copy the concluding points here in slightly modified form: 1. Fladrif states that the consensus of uninvolved editors is that "Shepherd's self-published books are not reliable sources under WP:RS". A little further down he says that it is a consensus of five against one. He doesn't specify who the five are, although Hoverfish provides the following list of those "against": AndyTheGrump, Fladrif, Dmcq, Will Beback and Andrew Dalby. By my count it is more like three (AndyTheGrump, Fladrif and Andrew Dalby) against two (DGG and Dmcq). Dmcq's position is ambivalent. And Will Beback's only comment was: "I strongly disagree with the view that if normally reliable sources sources can't be found for a topic we should lower the standards to use whatever is available. If the only good sources on a topic are self-published, or otherwise inadmissible, then we shouldn't cover that topic." Even if we accept that as a negative verdict on Shepherd (and ignore the fact that it raises some interesting issues for several of the NRM articles in Wikipedia), it is still four against two. But such a head count is not my major concern. 2. Before I turn to that, I want to finish examining Fladrif's attempt at a conclusion. He states: "While some editors are open to relaxing the requirements of WP:SPS, they note that sourcing is the least of the problems involved in the articles in which these sources are being used, and that it appears that there are better sources which do meet the requirements of WP:RS that should be used instead of Shepherd's books." This is misleading for several reasons. First, the "problems" referred to (by DGG) related only to one article (Meher Baba's critics), not to "articles" in the plural. Second, Fladrif consequently implies that there are "better sources" in all of the articles (plural) that cite Shepherd. Again, DGG was only referring to the article under question. It is quite simply inaccurate that other sources are more reliable than Shepherd in the articles that cite him. This point was made by DGG in 2010 in the context of the Sai Baba of Shirdi article, when he stated that Shepherd's published books are "considerably more acceptable than many of the other sources in the article". This was his conclusion as a non-specialist in the area, and it is confirmed by my experience, as outlined above. Stephen Castro made the point again, in response to Fladrif: "Doubtless those apparently 'better sources' being from publishers, quite often linked to a charitable trust, which specialise solely in books about Meher Baba, to the exclusion of any other subject. Such books are written by devotees of Meher Baba, for devotees of Meher Baba, and in the case of one multi-volume project, initially funded by devotee benefactors." But this point of Castro's was ignored, in favour of a digression. 3. The preceding point is important, because Fladrif accepts the reality that some editors are open to relaxing the requirements of WP:SPS, but he rejects this possibility not (as he did earlier) because of a "threshold test", but because of a mistaken belief that the other editors claim that there are more reliable sources in the articles that cite Shepherd. I have indicated that the opposite is actually the case. First, DGG said that Shepherd was more reliable in the Shirdi Sai Baba article. Second, Shepherd is no more unreliable than authors published by organizations associated with the subjects of NRM articles; indeed, in my experience, he is more reliable. Third, Shepherd is at least as reliable as Rigopoulos and Warren, who were both devotees of Sathya Sai Baba when they wrote their books, and Warren expressed her own misgivings about Rigopoulos' blind acceptance of statements by his guru. 4. Returning to the "head count", in the context of Fladrif's misleading statements I believe that such a count is meaningless. As a philosopher, I find that the whole discussion on this page lacks any rigour. Points are made and then not addressed (such as Shepherd's possession of primary source materials, raised by me and noted favourably by Dmcq), and even obscured by "hatting". Inaccuracies are purveyed, such as the one by Fladrif that I have just described. 5. As far as I can see, it is not a question of how many are "for" and "against", but of what arguments are "for" and "against". I believe that there are several arguments "for" Shepherd's inclusion in a handful of NRM articles. First, Shepherd has been cited in these articles for several years, and the only questions about his reliability have come from sectarian interests (SSS108 and WikiUserTalk, for example). Second, Shepherd is at least as reliable (and often more reliable) than other sources cited in these articles, as recognised by DGG. Third, Shepherd has been cited approvingly by academics in the field. Fourth, Shepherd is in possession of unpublished primary-source material. Fifth, none of the subjects of these articles is alive (thus avoiding any BLP issues). 6. Standing against these arguments is, I believe, only one argument, which has been referred to as the "threshold test". This is that Shepherd hasn't "previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Two of the contributors (DGG and Dmcq) make a case for relaxing this, based on the context of unreliable NRM sources in general. To my mind, a small majority in favour of a single "against" argument should not sway a minority in favour of several "for" arguments, especially in a process that exhibits such a lack of rigour. 7. In all of the above, I am not arguing for a wholesale purge of unreliable sources in NRM articles. DGG's argument is the most realistic here: "most sources in this general subject, with the exception of a few widely regarded works, are less than satisfactory ... all we can do is achieve the balance of opposing unsatisfactory sources. Actually, quite a bit of the world is this way. Sources are not reliable vs. unreliable - they are of varying degrees of reliability. We use the best of what we can get. The above is I think either generally accepted at Wikipedia, or in my opinion ought to be." We are talking about historical, not scientific, evidence here. Shepherd is one source among others, and it is the responsibility of article writers to satisfy themselves of the reliability of their sources. One way of achieving this is obviously by "triangulating" different sources, and not relying on a single source. For factual points, my own policy is to use the earliest reference first, if I have access to it. I would only use later sources if there was some question about the reliability of earlier ones. An example of my putting this policy into practice can be seen in my recent editing of Azar Kayvan (see note 2). 8. Furthermore, as per the reliable sources guideline (Statements of opinion), I can't see why Shepherd's books should not be regarded as reliable sources for his own opinion, which is an informed opinion that has been cited by Rigopoulos and Warren. As long as the standard scholarly convention is followed, inserting the inline qualifier "Shepherd claims that ..." or "According to Shepherd ..." and so on. 9. Finally, if an author like Shepherd is caught in the "net" of the so-called "threshold test", then I think it is time to take another look at this test. After all, the policies and guidelines have evolved to their current state to meet the various exigencies of providing reliable information. I would imagine that an author like Shepherd is rare, perhaps even unique in Wikipedia annals. He may be a "test case" for existing policy. The relevant part of SPS would only need to be modified slightly, perhaps along the following lines: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. In exceptional circumstances, a self-published author may be acceptable if he has multiple publications, over a sustained period, uses the scholarly apparatus, and is cited by other (preferably academic) authors." 10. In conclusion, Shepherd is a significant contributor in a relatively obscure area of academic interest. It is an area where sources tend to be unreliable in general. His books have been cited favourably by academics in the field, in spite of their own devotional biases. The distribution of his books across major libraries in the English-language-speaking world is as widespread as that of such academics. He has been accepted as a source in the NRM area by an experienced editor and administrator (DGG), in spite of long-standing (albeit intermittent) hostility from some sectarian editors. His own published books have been informed by unique primary-source material. And perhaps the most significant point of all, as well as the simplest and most obvious: no editor has ever demonstrated a single unreliable fact in any of Shepherd's cited books. This is one of the recommendations covered by the advisory comment at the top of this page. Smartse fails to provide, as per point number 4, any "exact statement in the article that the source is supporting", let alone that the source is unreliable. Simon Kidd (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC) I would simply like to point out that beyond the recently created article Critics of Meher Baba, references to Kevin R. D. Shepherd have also been included in the following articles: Holotropic Breathwork, Upasni Maharaj, Sai Baba of Shirdi, Azar Kayvan, Sheriar Mundegar Irani and Hazrat Babajan. Hoverfish Talk 22:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Also in several of these articles, references to the very books said to be by devotees of Meher Baba, in particular by Bhau Kalchuri, have been added by Simon Kidd himself. That there is a serious lack of notable secondary literature on Meher Baba is a well known fact. Even the reviewer of the biography article pointed this out. Hoverfish Talk 09:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Hoverfish, apart from the Azar Kayvan and Upasni Maharaj articles, can you please point out where I added "references to the very books said to be by devotees of Meher Baba", since you say that I added references to them in "several" articles, and I have no recollection of adding any others. In any case, I'm not sure what your point is. I've never said that Kalchuri or anyone else shouldn't be used in these articles, merely that I can't see why Shepherd is being singled out, since he's at least as reliable as many of the other sources, and probably more reliable (as DGG pointed out in 2010). A couple of the articles you mention are instructive in this regard. In Azar Kayvan, I corrected another editor who supplied the muddled quote from Kalchuri. In the footnote, I drew attention to the error in Kalchuri, which is contradicted by the more reliable quote from The Glow (as well as other evidence from Kalchuri himself). When Shepherd refers to this episode, he appears to use The Glow, since he doesn't perpetuate Kalchuri's mistake. In the Upasni Maharaj article (footnote 1), I pointed out that Shepherd contests the reliability of Narasimha's biography of the subject, based on a diary entry by Kishan Singh in September 1954 (published in The Glow). According to Singh, Meher Baba said of Narasimha's work: "Half of it is good and half of it absolute nonsense". Shepherd points out that neither Rigopoulos (The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi) nor Warren (Unraveling the Enigma: Shirdi Sai Baba in the Light of Sufism) show any acquaintance with the Kishan Singh diary in their accounts of Upasni. In these cases, I have only referred to the devotees' books in order to draw attention to their unreliability! All of this information could be useful to researchers in the future. Simon Kidd (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Machine-history.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I would discourage the citations to Scientific American articles on machine-history.com, even for articles in the public domain. First of all, those links would be convenience links at best. Since the articles have apparently been retyped to put them into HTML, one would have to check the original article in the magazine to be sure that they were correct. Second, Scientific American is a well-known magazine held by many libraries, and thus editors should be able to cite the original articles without that much difficulty. Third, if machine-history.com regularly violates other copyrights, then that's not the kind of site Wikipedia ought to link to, notwithstanding that in this case we would only be linking to public domain materials. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to admit that I don't have personal knowledge of whether the site does violate copyrights. So if it doesn't violate copyrights, please disregard the third reason above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Defense of site

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

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

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

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

• Violates other copyrights: I have never had a complaint on copyright, ever. Binksternet may be correct citing images on a informative article this one. I suggest are many violations at other sites. Ultimately, only a federal court can determine whether a particular use is, in fact, a fair use under the law. Over 300 words in a quote, thumbnails, for profit, educational. Consider http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html If there is some over the top violation ( which is by the way is totally somewhere else on the machine site)I would consider changing it. Anyway do not condemn the whole site. Please, depending on how tight you call it, I believe most sites violate 'Scribes' letter of the law. Now, congradulations, I believe /small> 09:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hoverfish, apart from the Azar Kayvan and Upasni Maharaj articles, can you please point out where I added "references to the very books said to be by devotees of Meher Baba", since you say that I added references to them in "several" articles, and I have no recollection of adding any others. In any case, I'm not sure what your point is. I've never said that Kalchuri or anyone else shouldn't be used in these articles, merely that I can't see why Shepherd is being singled out, since he's at least as reliable as many of the other sources, and probably more reliable (as DGG pointed out in 2010). A couple of the articles you mention are instructive in this regard. In Azar Kayvan, I corrected another editor who supplied the muddled quote from Kalchuri. In the footnote, I drew attention to the error in Kalchuri, which is contradicted by the more reliable quote from The Glow (as well as other evidence from Kalchuri himself). When Shepherd refers to this episode, he appears to use The Glow, since he doesn't perpetuate Kalchuri's mistake. In the Upasni Maharaj article (footnote 1), I pointed out that Shepherd contests the reliability of Narasimha's biography of the subject, based on a diary entry by Kishan Singh in September 1954 (published in The Glow). According to Singh, Meher Baba said of Narasimha's work: "Half of it is good and half of it absolute nonsense". Shepherd points out that neither Rigopoulos (The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi) nor Warren (Unraveling the Enigma: Shirdi Sai Baba in the Light of Sufism) show any acquaintance with the Kishan Singh diary in their accounts of Upasni. In these cases, I have only referred to the devotees' books in order to draw attention to their unreliability! All of this information could be useful to researchers in the future. Simon Kidd (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

|}

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

Blog sources in Dennis Ritchie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geo Swan has misrepresented my position. I agree that there are blogs and then there are blogs. I myself earlier cited Rob Pike's blog. My objections to the blogs in question are that they are run-of-the-mill and of little value compared to the many, far higher-quality sources available and that the quotes didn't even match up to the statements they were supposed to support. For more, please see the referenced talk page so you get both sides. Msnicki (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that I misrepresented Ms Nicki's position. I remain concerned over Ms Nicki's characterization of non-blogs as blogs. Geo Swan (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My userid is Msnicki. I am anonymous. I do not disclose my real name, identity or gender. I request that you not speculate. Msnicki (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Joan Shawlee

Hi. Based upon the request of another editor, I would like to know if this reference link is acceptable to confirm the actress in question's date of birth. Given that these records are based on those of the Social Security Administration, while they are not 100% accurate due to either human error (I have a sadly deceased personal acquaintance whose date of birth was January 17, 1935, but appears on SSDI as January 18, 1935) or false dates provided, it appears to be a reliable source, certainly reliable enough to use in the absence of any source. Thanks for your advice. Quis separabit? 19:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm the "another editor" (sounds vaguely naughty). I was noting my concern for its use in this particular article as a review of previous discussions on this board revealed a hesitance to fully accept the reliability of many of the online genealogical databases, and it contradicts the New York Times obituary that I had included as a reference. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand Ponyo's concerns but beg to point out that the Associated Press (AP) merely (and I don't know how) provided an estimated age due to a lack of info. Shawlee was not particularly famous and apparently had no close family or children to provide any date of birth so it was not pursued. However she died in 1987, and we all agree the world has changed a tad since then. In this instance there is no competing year of birth from any reliable or semi-reliable source, only an age estimation from the AP from a quarter century ago.

Just to add my two cents (or five cents, whatever the going rate is these days), it is a tad concerning that information gleaned from such sources as the U.S. Social Security Administration (Social Security Death Index), census records (ancestry.com), Burke's Peerage (thepeerage.org) and the General Registry Office of England and Wales (findmypast.co.uk) are apparently seen by other Wikipedia editors and my peers, whom I respect, as generally semi-unreliable sources. There are some editors who rely on Caskets on Parade/Book of the Dead (http://daggy.name/cop/bkofdead/index.htm), which is replete with errors. I believe, as a rule of thumb, then, that unless a competing date/year of birth is proferred from an equally or more reliable source that information gleaned from these sources be allowed to stand until/unless a valid challenge is raised,and then each case be handled on an individual basis. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that you have commented above about findmypast.co.uk and I will put in a reply up there. The case isn't quite the same (I think).

In general, I'd say, it is useful to be able to cite intermediate sources that mirror or reflect solid reliable sources that are otherwise inaccessible online. I think, if we are confident that the mirroring is reliably done, we should be prepared to use such citations. As we do, for example, with Google Books and archive.org. Of course it's much less attractive, and less useful to our readers, if these intermediate sites set up a paywall. In such a case, they are not in fact increasing the general availability of the information. So, without banning paysites, we should prefer sites that are free and contain reliable information. Andrew Dalby 09:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh I agree. I don't like having to spend my own money buying credits, etc. Findmypast.co.uk is £6 for like 50 credits or something (I don't remember exactly) and Intelius is $1.95 per individual search (it's cheaper if you buy a package, but I choose not to since I don't use it that often), but it is what it is. Sometimes curiosity or the need to confirm something leads me to have to pay. Isn't that what information is coming to anyway, like the New York Times's digitization? Yours, Quis separabit? 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmm ... I know what you mean; but we don't quite know whether it's going that way or not. The jury's out. There is also vastly more free information on the Web than there was, say, three years ago. Since we as Wikipedians are providing free information, our best friends are other good sites that provide free information :) Andrew Dalby 09:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hah, so the California Death index at Rootsweb [33] gives the same date but 1927 as a YOB. Perhaps a footnote would work in the article? – Connormah (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How is www.familytreelegends.com even close to being a reliable source for this date of birth? It claims she was born on 5 Mar 1926, and died in May 1987. The problem with that is the Associated Press article of March 31, 1987 saying she died March 22. So are we planning to ignore the fact they have her death date completely wrong and assume they have her birth date correct? 86.183.59.192 (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem with all primary sources, but sometimes citing a primary source is acceptable. If it is one filled with errors or there is some other reason for doubt, we can attribute it ("According to...") and let readers understand where it comes from. Note that I am assuming this site is one of those genealogical sites which contains lots of old published records. User generated content on such sites, such as family trees etc, is another more difficult matter. I basically think all Andrew Dalby's comments are about right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism vs. third party publication, RS or not?

Question: If a newspaper article is a blatant copyvio of a primary source (i.e., a verbatim copy of a primary source), can one claim that the newspaper article is a reliable third party source for the information?

Some context:

1. User:TopGun added several references to back a claim in the article Rashid Minhas.
2. I showed that the original source of the info is a COI/POV source (the subject's employer/Pakistan Airforce), and the other references either copied from it verbatim sans any attribution, or are from the non-RS Pakdef.info site (See here for the consensus on Pakdef.info's non-RS nature).
3. TopGun now claims that, since he considers one of the venues of the plagiarized content to be a notable news source, therefore the information has been "published" by a reputable reliable source, and hence can be used directly without qualifiers.

My question is: when a news article demonstrably plagiarizes from a primary source (and has no content other than the copy-pasted text), does it become (a) a third party source for the information, and (b) a reliable source for the information?

More details of the context can be found here. --Ragib (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A copyvio is not "cured" by saying "someone else committed it". If it is a copyvio, it is a copyvio. If we know it is a copyvio, then it is still a copyvio. Collect (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of a copyright violation, and to call it plagiarism is to misconstrue what is really going on. Having glanced at the RSN Archive linked above, I see more heat than light. I see this situation as comparable to the instances, which we see all the time here, of a press release simply being printed by a news organization verbatim, without it being identified as a press release. The best practice in such instances is for us to treat the publication of something by a legitimate news organization as a RS but, where we know it is a press release, attribute it even if the news organization does not. Fladrif (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If the work is a verbatim copy of a primary source, treat the work as primary (and note in the citation, what the source copied is). Republication of a primary source does not change its primary nature. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-publication of a press release is not necessarily a copyright violation. People issue them for the express purpose of getting them published, after all.

What changes when the periodical re-published the press release (perhaps verbatim, perhaps with minimal tweaking) is not the primary-secondary-tertiary nature of the source—it's still a primary source, and you may still WP:USEPRIMARY sources in limited ways—but the addition of editorial oversight and subjecting the content to the same (perhaps minimal) fact-checking that the publication normally employs. That means that it is technically a legitimately published news story (and still a primary source).

We have had a problem in the past with editors saying, "Oh, but I magically know that they didn't fact-check this paragraph in this newspaper story, so we can't use that material", and that's Not Okay. If the newspaper editor approved the story, then you have to assume that it meets their (possibly low) standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a confusion here. There was NO press release. The news site essentially lifted content verbatim off the Pakistan Army/Air Force's website without any attribution. --Ragib (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

An organization might issue the same text in several forms, for example, as a press release and on its web site. The fact that a newspaper article is virtually the same as an organization's web site does not prove, by itself, the newspaper didn't get the information from a press release. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No confusion. I didn't say this was a matter of reprinting a press release; I said that this was comparable to reprinting a press release. I think that, in this context, the issues and analysis at RSN should be pretty much the same as with reprinting a press release. Fladrif (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Because this noticeboard is not about copyright, which is a complicated subject, the most important thing to say is that yes, when something gets taken up and printed by an RS it does give it some respectability. I think the question of whether it becomes "secondary" is a good example of why trying to define reliability based on the primary/ secondary/ tertiary distinction is like trying to define a fixed point on something moving. It is often easier to define whether something has a reputation for being reliable than to say whether it is secondary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Karin Ikas, Gerhard Wagner, Communicating in the Third Space, 2008, p. 182.

The text is quoted in Adam Mickiewicz as a prove that he was "Polish-Lithuanian". See: Google Books. The text says "Polish-Lithuanian poet" and discusses what Mickiewicz writes about Poland and Poles, it dooesn't discuss his roots or Lithuanian language competences. The text doesn't define the meaning od "Polish-Lithuanian":

• ethnically or legally Polish and Lithuanian (modern)
• born in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, formerly in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Xx236 (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't "prove" anything of course. I don't suppose you could prove the validity of such a term. As something to cite, among other citations, during a discussion of whether Mickiewicz is to be called "Polish-Lithuanian" or not, this is very good, I think: highly relevant article, academic author specialising in the subject (this is the author), academic publisher. Andrew Dalby 13:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't about "Polish-Lithuanian". It's abouspan style="border:1px solid black;">t something different. There are many texts discussing the subject, eg. [34], [35],[36], [37], [38], why to use Wagner? Because a search "Polish-Lithuanian" lists it? Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Which sources to choose, and how many, is for discussion on the article talk page, I suggest. This is the reliable sources noticeboard; you asked about the reliability of one article. Andrew Dalby 14:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese Hawaiian Roots for Bio info on Brian Haberlin

Is this webpage an rs for this edit? Nightscream (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your second link above is mis-pasted, but I think I see which edit you mean. What a subject says about himself and his family origins on his own webpage or blog is potentially usable. To the extent that this is about family history rather than himself we simply can't know how historically reliable it is, but it's still very good material about his view of himself. I guess I would accept the material into the text but also add the source in the text, e.g. "According to Haberlin's family history site, ..."

Seems as though he is maybe editing the page himself? I don't (yet) see any POV or COI problem, though. Andrew Dalby 09:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You're saying that that blog is Haberlin's own blog? Nightscream (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I understood it to be his own family history site. Was I mistaken? Andrew Dalby 12:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, hmm, maybe it isn't his. I don't know now. And yet our user User:Ihaberlin is happily citing it ... there must be some connection ... I suggest a friendly approach to Ihaberlin, are you Brian Haberlin, is that your site, did you write that page? Because, if he did write it, that's OK. Any further question would be more for the BLP board than for us, but it is reliable material on his view of himself. Andrew Dalby 14:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that's his blog, yeah. I sent a question to that blog's webmaster, but haven't gotten a response yet. I'll try asking Ihaberlin himself. However, asking Ihaberlin if he is Brian Haberlin wouldn't be acceptable in itself, wouldn't it, since it would have to be verified some way. Right? Nightscream (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Nightscream, I'm hoping some other denizen of this page will look in here. I'm more familiar with people who have been dead 2000 years, I'm not the best adviser on BLPs and their special problems :) Andrew Dalby 09:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

IHaberlin says he's a relative of Brian Haberlin's and that the site is run by his family. Is the word of a WP editor sufficient for this? Doesn't taking at face value the word of a WP editor present the same problems that relying on a Facebook or MySpace page does (namely, that it's difficult to verify that the page in question is indeed that of the subject in question, and not a fan posing as the subject)? Nightscream (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In the case of WP editors, we assume good faith, and in the case of new WP editors we don't bite them. With Facebook and MySpace it's a free-for-all :)

You won't mind me saying that you seem to be on a different side of the conversation here than you are elsewhere on this page, where you write "when it's something completely innocuous or neutral ... like where the person was born or grew up ... that's not really self-serving, is it"? I'd be right alongside you in that other discussion above. And I'm just pointing this out because you and I both know what a difficult path we tread when dealing with BLPs which the subject (or a friend or relative, or just possibly an enemy) may come along and edit. In this Haberlin case, my feeling is, what's being added to our page is sourced, apparently a source that's close to the subject, and is not apparently controversial or POV. The worst that could happen is that Brian Haberlin would turn up under a different name and say, "no, that's not what I believe about my family". Then it becomes "controversial", and we immediately remove it unless a reliable-and-independent source is found. Until then, it looks OK to me. Andrew Dalby 13:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking at face value the assertion of a WP newbie that he is the subject of an article or a relative of his, without some sort of verification process, seems to be a lot more than just "good faith". It seems more like blind faith, and a very precarious precedent.

Sources have to be reliable regardless of the material. A video of the notable flat-out stating "Here are the types of pencils and paper I use..." is indeed reliable, since you can see that it's the notable subject in question. A WP username account, which can be created by anyone, is not. If the information regarding Adam Hughes were controversial, disputed, or presented a danger of being self-promotional or self-aggrandizing, such as which awards he's won, then the issue would be that we'd have to apply caution in relying on the YouTube video because it was a primary rather than secondary source, and not because it wasn't a reliable one. Primary or secondary distance of a source to the subject is an issue of WP:NOR, and not WP:IRS. Thus, there is no contradiction between my questions here and my position above in the YouTube discussion. Nightscream (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I expect I read carelessly. Andrew Dalby 12:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

S'Okay. I think discussions like this in which we clarify such nuances are valuable, and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to explain myself. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: See, I wasn't expecting this to happen, but now we have someone chiming in on that article's talk page saying that some of the information provided here about his ancestry and parentage is incorrect. So what do we do? Nightscream (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there you go. You were right all along. The source has now become controversial, and this is a BLP, so information taken from that source should now be removed from the text. I take it that means all of the "Early life" section (except perhaps his birth in 1962 in Hawaii: do we have any other source for that? [added later -- I can't see that we have any]). If User:Ihaberlin wants to dispute the question, the discussion should start right there on that talk page ... Andrew Dalby 21:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Does the popular science book "Trick or Treatment" qualify an analytic claim?

The claim is "There is no evidence that acupuncture points, meridans or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine exist." (sic) According to WP policy, such claims can only be justified with secondary sources. The claim is made in the intro in Emotional Freedom Technique. As such, it isn't just uncompromising, it also implies that any therapies suggesting acupuncture points and meridians as a mechanism are ineffective.

After someone else's edit was insta-reverted, I softened the claim to "There is little evidence that acupuncture points, meridians or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine exist." This was also insta-reverted.

To my mind, the original statements [39] were designed to be popular for the book's audience rather than a accurate scientific summary of research.

There are two notable reasons to doubt the uncompromising nature of both the claim and the original statements. Firstly, a Cochrane review concluded that a particular acupuncture technique is as effective as medication for nausea. [40]

Separately, a meta-analysis stated that electrical impedance studies are "suggestive" of a physical basis for acupuncture points and meridians. [41] Mindjuicer (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You're falling into a logical error when you state "...implies that any therapies suggesting acupuncture points and meridians as a mechanism are ineffective." That's not true. In theory a method can be effective, even when the explanation is nonsensical. Medical history is replete with many such cases. In this case the explanation is pseudoscientific since there is no proof of the anatomical existence of acupuncture points or meridians. If efficacy is ever proven for acupuncture, the explanation must be something else. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost all popular science books are secondary sources, including Trick or Treatment, and they are permitted for general statements like this.

You might like to read some of the explanations about how to identify secondary sources, such as WP:Party and person or WP:USINGPRIMARY. Being a pop sci book does not make the source primary, just like being a serious peer-reviewed journal article does not make the paper secondary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Implication means 'what is likely to be inferred'. And lack of proof is not proof of lack. Efficacy for one technique in acupuncture was concluded in a Cochrane review. Do you know what that means?

Also there's quite a lot of difference between pseudoscience and protoscience. The former is claiming scientific validation where there is none. Every validated and accepted science today started off as protoscience. Mindjuicer (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, Edzard Ernst is as close as you'll ever find to "the" authoritative expert on this topic. Lots of secondary sources are written by hacks and are consequently unreliable. This isn't such a case. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this claim is badly expressed. Obviously acupuncture points exist. They are points on the body. "Meridians" in a certain sense also exist, as lines drawn through the body. However, the concept of "meridian" in medicine belongs to an earlier period of science, or pre-science, or proto-science. This seems to be an appropriate source; we just need to summarise it carefully. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

He actually states it as plainly as it can be stated. You just need to understand what he means by "exist". The "idea" and "belief" definitely exists, but there is no evidence of their existence in the human body. They are not histological realities. Medical science is silent about their supposed existence (the only (pseudo)"medical" textbooks that mention them are alternative medicine texts which blend fact and fantasy). Claiming that they exist doesn't make them actually exist. They are metaphysical figments of the imagination. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

In the first post, I linked a secondary sources which concluded that research was "suggestive" that they do exist and are measurably by science. Furthermore, I linked an Cochrane review that proves as strongly as anything else in medical science has been proven that at least some parts of acupuncture work very well.

All this thread is doing is reinforcing my belief that, no matter what WP policy or science says, ludditism wins. Mindjuicer (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

1. When their existence is conclusively proven, then our articles will reflect that fact.

2. As to whether acupuncture works, that's still an open question. Sticking needles into people occasionally seems to help for some conditions, but it's not consistent, and it matters not where one sticks the needles, and that is indicative that the theory behind acupuncture is irrelevant. Keep in mind that acupuncture is more than sticking needles into people, it's got a whole package of ancient beliefs associated with the supposed existence of acupuncture points and meridians, and that sticking needles manipulates these areas. None of that is proven. It would be cool if there were a simple and consistent way to deal with pain by needling, but it hasn't been discovered yet. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You should probably read the Cochrane review as it contradicts most of what you wrote. If you don't know what a Cochrane review is, you should probably look that up too. Mindjuicer (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

He proudly proclaims himself a "true skeptic", has joined CSICOP and seems to be on a crusade. Personally, I prefer sources who are a little less attached to proving one side or the other. Mindjuicer (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the source based purely on primary sources or does it include the author's own opinions? I am talking about the latter. Clearly, some sources will be secondary in parts and primary in other parts. Mindjuicer (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you have strong personal beliefs about this subject. Under Wikipedia's policies, an editor's disagreement with a source's point of view is irrelevant. So your dislike of the source because one of the authors is a self-proclaimed "true skeptic", or because it disagrees with your own beliefs and experiences, is irrelevant.

The purpose of RSN is to determine whether the named source is adequate for the statement being made, not to figure out what WP:The Truth is about acupuncture. This source appears to be adequate for the statement being made. Additionally, it appears that many other reliable sources make very similar claims about the lack of evidence for any physical basis behind such points, including sources that are very much "pro-acupuncture", like ISBN 9780195383461 (p. 101), so the source is not only reliable for this statement, but the statement itself is very likely WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets put it this way. Just in 2011, review papers on accupuncture that he authored or coauthored were published in: J Pain PMID 21093382, Int J Cardiol PMID 21093944, Clin Rheumatal PMID 21331532, J Dent PMID 21354460, Chin J Integr Med PMID 21359919, Int J Cardiol PMID 21421272, J Acupunct Meridian Stud PMID 21440874, Eur J Gen Pract PMID 21463162, Chin J Integr Med PMID 21509667, Am J Chin Med PMID 21598411, and Maturitas PMID 21782365. In each case, the subject matter was appropriate to the journal. In 2010 the lengthy list included NEJM, CMAJ, Lancet Oncol, and J Neurol Sci. Each of these journals' editors saw fit to publish these reviews. Why should we consider him less printworthy than they did? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I already gave you a secondary source which contradicts the claim. Mindjuicer (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Simple, because those were peer-reviewed and judged by a reliable third party to be scientifically worthy of print. This is also known as 'science'. Mindjuicer (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you quoted your source very selectively. In context, it reads "The studies were generally poor in quality and limited by small sample size and multiple confounders. Based on this review, the evidence does not conclusively support the claim that acupuncture points or meridians are electrically distinguishable. However, the preliminary findings are suggestive and offer future directions for research based on in-depth interpretation of the data." (emphasis mine). In other words, "there is nothing yet, but let's keep looking". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also read that source, and I had the same impression of it as Stephan: zero conclusive evidence for the physical existence of any points or meridians at this time.

Also, it's not just a matter of finding one single secondary source that supports a claim like this; we have to present the typical mainstream view as being the typical mainstream view. The typical mainstream view appears to be that there's no physical basis for acupuncture points. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The operative word being 'conclusive'. But ToT doesn't make this claim. It makes an analytic matter-of-fact claim that no evidence whatseover exists. It is wrong and I have proven so in the first post. Mindjuicer (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha, I spy WP policy. :)

The original claim is outright wrong -- see reply above. I changed it to "There is little evidence that acupuncture points, meridians or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine exist" (emphasised change). If there's an analytic ie matter-of-fact claim, WP policy is that it must be justified by a secondary source.

A secondary source is defined in terms of the publication ie the classification is applied to the whole publication. But just as an editorial in Nature is not as reliably accurate as their third-party peer-reviewed articles, this moreso applies to a popular science/skepticism book, especially if the author shows bias, uses unscientific language and makes claims disputed by secondary sources.

I don't remember which guide this 'mainstream opinion of scientists' is in. But I doubt it's actual policy. I state again, the source of the claim is not a secondary source -- and as such policy states the claim should be matter-of-factly made in WP articles. Mindjuicer (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Trick or Treatment is a secondary source. You, on the other hand, are not any kind of reliable source. It consequently does not matter if you, or any other Wikipedia editor, can prove the source to be "outright wrong".
   (An analytic claim is one that takes information and analyzes it to produce a conclusion; it is not merely a claim that states facts. "I am wearing a red shirt today" is a matter-of-fact claim. It is not an analytic claim.)
2. The policy (not guideline) in question is WP:NPOV. Specifically, you'll want to spend some time with the WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI sections, both of which directly address the need to present the mainstream views as being the mainstream views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:PSCI is talking about pseudoscience whereas I'm talking about a peer-reviewed secondary source. Even if we were to apply it generally, here's what it says: "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community." ie pseudoscience should not obfusticate mainstream so my claim fits completely with that. WP:GEVAL doesn't seem to have any bearing on the matter. So to summarise, the initial claim is perjorative especially in its context. It makes an analytic claim based on a biased source (which is neither peer-reviewed nor published by a reliable publisher) and is contradicted by a secondary source. This is against the spirit of WP policy if not the actual wording. Mindjuicer (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

1. GEVAL says that "plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized". For example, the claim that there's something "suggestive" about acupuncture points is "plausible but currently unaccepted" in what GEVAL describes as "commonly accepted mainstream scholarship".
2. The publisher of Trick or Treatment is Random House (under their Bantam Press imprint). Random House is the largest general-interest trade book publisher in the world, and certainly does count as "a reliable publisher".
3. Your personal belief that the source is biased does not matter. Really: go look at WP:V and WP:RS. You will not find a single sentence in those pages that say "If you decide that the source is biased, then of course it's not reliable and you can reject it with impunity." Not. One. Single. Sentence.
4. Wikipedia doesn't care whether you believe that the claim is pejorative. We care whether the claim faithfully represents the contents of the reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

1) Your selective quote from GEVAL is highly distortive. The full quote is "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship."

For the 3rd time, I am not trying to legitimise any theory. I am trying to reduce the legitimacy of the analytic claim that no evidence whatsoever exists.

2) Random House is of low reliability compared to a medical textbook publisher, not to mention actual scientific journals. It would be a reaonable assumption that they care more about selling books than scientific validity.

3) I have already explained why the source is biased. Contend it from a factual basis rather than merely arguing any assertion about a source is inherently invalid.

4) Of course Wikipedia cares whether claims are perjorative. And I've already explained why it's not a reliable secondary source -- and none of those points have been countered.

Do I have to list all these arguments again for you to stop claiming my talk page assertions are OR???

Mindjuicer (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Mindjuicer, you're beating a dead horse. We include pejorative claims and biased opinions here all the time, as long as they're from RS, and in this case a very noted expert on the subject of alternative medicine and acupuncture. Do you even know who Ernst is? No, don't answer that, since it makes no difference. The source is perfectly good, but is on a different playing field than scientific research. It's a very noted opinion (in a book, hence it's ridiculous to expect it to be peer-reviewed), that happens to be based on extensive knowledge (much more than any of us possess) of the literature. Please stop your campaign. You're not going to succeed. Start your own website, edit SourceWatch, do something else. Just stop disrupting Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have proven the claim wrong.

I have explained clearly why the source breaches the spirit of WP policy.

I have shown that WP guidelines are subsumed by bias even on RS/N.

FYI, I have succeeded with everything I set out to do. Mindjuicer (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, even if you feel you have proven them "wrong". You further stand alone in your belief that you have shown that there is a breach of policy -- in "spirit" or in fact. If you feel that any policies are "biased" (against whom or what you do not say), you are welcome to work to correct the biases in those policies. Until then, the policies are our policies. If you've succeeded, your work here is done. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Another genealogy site - roglo.eu

Is this site reliable? It has no indicia of reliability, not even an About to explain what it is, who manages it, etc. The domain's registrant is listed as "not disclosed" ([42]). An IP has twice added an Ancestry section to the Joseph Fiennes article (this version). I have twice removed it because, regardless of the reliability of the source, it's an absurd section to have in the article. But it would be helpful to have confirmation that the source is also unreliable.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable for Joseph Fiennes ancestry; not reliable for any ancestry claim I can imagine. No editorial board, responsibility, policy. No evidence of fact checking. User sourced database. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

University of Texas at San Antonio and Univision Channel 41 "News of the Day"

The UTSA published a story about a prison program founded by Prem Rawat being run at the local prison [43] and Univision Channel 41, the largest Spanish speaking network in the US, followed up with a news segment about the program which included Prem Rawat speaking.[44] The clip with English translation can be found here.[45] I would like to include a section from the UTSA article in the Prem Rawat article but some editors say that these are not proper sources.[46] Advice please.Momento (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

UTSA didn't publish a story, they released a press release. It's signed by "Christi Fish Associate Director of Media Relations". In the video clip, it shows Rawat speaking in the background on a tv; the inmates are watching some of Rawat's old speeches, there is no indication that Rawat made any content for this program. Those speeches are from a DVD series (Words of Peace, made from speeches given in 2004-5) that has been running on the Univision channel for years, they was not made for this rehabilitation program. Also, these sources were only part of the issue, notability may also be a problem, as we were discussing (but that may not be an issue they can help us with here). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors please note that Maelefique (above) is not a respondent to this request, he is a highly involved protagonist in the discussion, come here to display his arguments. I have asked him to remove the above, but in the meantime, please follow the links and decide for yourselves. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a reliable source for the quote that is being discussed in the article's Talk page. Of course, that doesn't mean the source should be used or the quote should be included, merely that the source seems reliable if the material meets other criteria for inclusion. ElKevbo (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Maelefique, I've looked at the proposed text at Talk:Prem Rawat#Suggested_additon_to_the_article, but not at the source. Based on the press release, is there any information in that proposed paragraph that you think is factually inaccurate, not included in the source, etc.? You complain here, for example, that the speeches shown are from a DVD, but I don't see anything in the proposed text that says anything even remotely like Rawat made that material for this program. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That proposal has been pared down by the latest discussions on the talk page, so this may be moot, but yes, I have strong doubts that the university has accurate numbers for penal systems in 10 different countries, esp. if some of those countries are considered 3rd world (where the TPRF operates a lot of the time), where most governments fudge every number they can for their own benefit. And yes, the editor above started off by saying the program had Prem Rawat talking to these inmates. As you say, no he didn't, (Although he has, now, visited the prison once and given a speech to the general populace, at least that's my understanding). The original proposal contains the phrases "Rawat founded the Peace Education Program to help prison inmates"..."The program focuses on a series of modules with short video clips that address themes", I think that leads to the direct impression that he created that content for them, which is false. Oh, and before I forget, full disclosure, I'm a "highly involved protagonist", which I *believe* might be Australian for "someone that doesn't have the same opinion, and would just like the right question answered".-- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The original proposal doesn't matter to me. So it sounds like you believe that the published primary source is wrong, e.g., about how many inmates they personally worked with, and that therefore the information should be excluded on the grounds that... um, a Wikipedia editor says his intuition says that the source might not be entirely accurate? I don't believe I've seen that listed as a reason to completely reject a published source before, although it's probably a good reason to use WP:INTEXT attribution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the paraphrasing, but no. :) I think the secondary source is repeating what they were told from the primary source without analysis, since they are stating the same numbers, and they are not specific, they are generalized numbers (the primary source has 2 video clips about this, one states 700, the other states 1000). I further think that using the primary source without an independent secondary source may be problematic, especially so since this is a WP:BLP article which requires "particular care" regarding verifiability etc.. It may be relevant to know that the reliability of the primary source (the subject of the article) has been inconsistent with numbers in the past (but not with his foundation specifically that I'm aware of). Is it your opinion that this University press release constitutes independent verification of these numbers? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies; I thought the question raised on this noticeboard focused on the quote in the news article by the UTSA faculty member.

I think it's reasonable to question whether a news article should be relied on for very specific but little known statistics and facts. A middle ground between "use it!" and "don't use it!" would be to use it but clearly attribute it. If there are substantial reasons for questioning the information in this news article, I don't think it's a bad idea to omit the information until it's corroborated given the fact that it's unlikely in the extreme that the public relations office of the university verified the information. But we should have some sort of solid reasoning and evidence if we're going to withhold or contradict a source that is generally reliable. 00:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Maelefique, I haven't seen any secondary sources being proposed. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS: most news stories are primary sources. Secondary does not mean second-hand.

I'm not seeing any particular cause for concern about this. "They said they'd worked with 1000 inmates" simply isn't contentious BLP matter. You are allowed to WP:USEPRIMARY sources, so long as you are very careful not to exceed their contents. You are allowed to use non-independent sources WP:ABOUTSELF, even in BLPs. There is no policy-based requirement to provide independent sources for a claim that is as small as "They said they'd worked with 1000 inmates". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't consider a recidivism rate that claims to be providing a result of less than 1% of the national average to be an exceptional claim? By our own article on recidivism we could have expected as many as 600 of those 1000 to have been re-arrested, not 3 or 4 (and thank-you for your discussion on this topic, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just clear in my understanding and thorough in my points of contention). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess we are all invited here, OK. No one is providing any attendance figures for the overseas jail programs, and it would be nice to stop suggesting that someone might be: we are told only that the programs exist. Is there any serious doubt about that? The primary source for the Dominquez Prison recidivism rate is the Dominguez Prison itself, as expressed by their Chief of Inmate Programs, Capt Lorenzo Carter. The UTSA Dept of Criminology got that information from them and so they become a secondary source. Univision News got the information also, and ran a news segment on the success of the program, so they are another secondary source. Rumiton (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Which source cites Carter? I don't see that in the UTSA press release or the Univision piece.   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Both sources cited Carter's employer, the Dominguez Prison. Carter was representing the prison when he spoke, not speaking as a private individual. Rumiton (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A Reliable Source

Fast Question: Does Wiki consider [[47]], the blog page dedicated to everything connected to early (1950s and 1960s) Hanna-Barbera a relible source. Radiohist (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally blogs are not reliable sources, and I see nothing special about this particular blog in terms of its reliability, fact-checking, etc. However, there are exceptions depending on the context. What would it be used for?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that blog is not reliable source. That is an anonymous blog. Anyway the link to the page posted by OP does not work. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[48].Could be used to add, source info or facts that are not available on wiki articles that are connected in some way or another to Hanna-Barbera (Maurice Gosfield's, Bea Benaderet's, or George O'Hanlon's page)

No. It is a non-notable anonymous blog. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Continous reversion by a user who claims that all the references posted by me are not credible

I made edits in the article Kshatriya with a book written by RK Singh. Here is the link of the book [49] .

But User:Sitush reverted my edits saying that my reference is not a credible source. Please check the matter.

This book is not reliable for history. Its main subject is tourism policy. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a weak secondary source to me. However, the author says this is a "version" of the clan taxonomy. In the absence of a clarifying source, I'd suggest including this qualifier or softening the claim. Mindjuicer (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is published by Gyan. That is the point which I was making to the originator of this thread and which they have for some reason chosen not to mention. Nor did they let me know that they had raised the issue here, or point out that at least one other person working in the India-related sphere of en-WP has passed comment on it. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses

I see Med hypotheses as pretty much inherently unreliable, and shouldn't really be cited except to not perhaps in a BLP's biography list. A short discussion in RSN occurred here, but just in case, I might as well confirm it. Specifically, should the journal be used as a footnote in this case? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Editorially that journal doesn't (or at least didn't at the time of that paper) have peer review, so clearly is not a reliable source for medical claims. I note in that case there is already a reference; why is there a push to add additional references when it already has one? Yobol (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Yobol. MEDRS sources need to be conclusive and good quality. Hypotheses don't qualify. Otherwise the journal is a good source for an article about itself...;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic for this noticeboard
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The option of citing the book that the article summarizes: "Madness explained: Psychosis and human nature" instead seems to have been omitted. Actually, the push was to avoid WLU's removal of sources (without discussion) merely to camouflage the addition of a source in opposition to discussion[50]. WLU had expressed a determination to add his source BEFORE having read it: "I'll read and integrate it". (The camouflage worked - I didn't notice that WLU had added his source to multiple locations in the article. He also added a new paragraph dedicated to it's author, whom WLU has a long history of promoting.) Given that the text Bental was cited to support was critical of the DSM5, removing its citations would also have the effect of promoting WLU's preferred source. WLU chose not to address concerns that the author of his preferred source was also on the journal's editorial board, at least partially defeating the purpose of peer review. Notably, WLU only got involved immediately after I commented. BitterGrey (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC) This is not a place for discussing the content dispute, but to discuss the reliability of sources. The source presented is not reliable for use for medical claims. If you want to discuss other aspects of the dispute that is not related to reliability of sources, you will need to take it to a more appropriate venue. Yobol (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, while Med Hyp is an impossibly lousy source for medical claims, it might be acceptable for the particular sentence that it's supposedly supporting, which is not a medical claim. The sentence says "Although the DSM-5 may move away from this categorical approach in some limited areas, some argue that a fully dimensional, spectrum or complaint-oriented approach would better reflect the evidence" (emphasis added).

You could even use a plain old newspaper article for a statement like this, because it's just a claim of who said what, not a claim that these "some arguers" are correct. ("Argue", by the way, needs to be replaced by WP:SAY.) There's not really a more authoritative source for the claim that "somebody says X" than an actual, published document in which somebody is saying X. (I assume here, without looking at the source, that the Med Hyp article really does say that this approach would [in the opinion of the author] better reflect the evidence.) It would be a primary source for such a statement, but you can WP:USEPRIMARY sources. The only remaining questions there would be whether the statement is WP:DUE (probably) and the particular source is necessary (possibly not, and we want to avoid WP:Citation overkill). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would actually think this is mostly a medical claim - it is discussing the proper classification/diagnosis of various paraphilias. I would think how to properly diagnose a patient would fall under the general aegis of a medical claim. Yobol (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not actually a statement of how to diagnose a person. It's just a statement that experts have different opinions on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In which case we would be citing Med Hypotheses for a statement about what experts in the field think, something I don't think they have a great track record for (AIDS denialism, etc). Yobol (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion of "why bother" when it's both dubious and redundant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yobol, you'd presumably be citing this paper for proof that one expert(?) thinks this (that is, the author of the Med Hyp paper itself), not that experts in general think this.

I am certainly sympathetic with WLU's "Why bother?": it seems needless and even silly. Furthermore, citing Med Hyp is a way to convince knowledgeable readers that the claim is supported primarily by crackpots, which presumably is not BitterGrey's purpose. But I think the source technically meets the minimum standard for being a reliable source for the fairly weak claim being made. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well then I see your point. As even self published sources have an expert exception, Med Hypotheses would have such as well. As Med Hypotheses is little better than a SPS, if this source were to be used, it should probably in text attributed (a point which seems moot as this seems redundant to other, better, sources). Yobol (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe BG also mentioned that the point was made in one of the author's books which again makes me come back to "why bother" with this source when there are better ones to make the same point? I'm kinda surprised there's no general consensus in the RSN archives that Med hypotheses is little more than a blog posting, separate from the more general point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it is more than a blog posting. In a blog, you write it, and you publish it, with zero oversight by anyone else. At Med Hyp, the author writes the article and submits it; the independent, paid, professional editor decides whether or not to publish it. In terms of its editorial structure and therefore its reliability, Med Hyp is very similar to a magazine that publishes political opinions or the op-ed page of a newspaper. That means that it's perfectly adequate for supporting a statement that John Smith held ____ opinion, but it is not adequate for supporting a statement that Smith's opinion is the truth about ____ (or even that Smith's "facts" are even remotely accurate, just like you wouldn't blindly trust the so-called "facts" that you hear on certain talk radio shows). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Help finding offline sources

(I thought about putting in a resource request, but this is likely to a. get a faster and wider response and b. to better address the issues in question.) An IP address has been adding content to Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, Harvey Karman, and Jane Collective sourced to mostly-local papers that I can't access online because they are from too long ago. As I am already aware, being offline doesn't make a source unreliable; however, this user (if it is, as I assume, a logged-out IP of the article creator) has a history of citing content to sources that either do not support it or possibly do not exist, so I would really appreciate if someone would check if these sources a. exist and b. if possible, support the content cited to them.

"Nab 7 in abortion raid." Chicago Daily News, May 4, 1972

"Abortion Clinic Closed After Woman's Death," New York Newsday, October 1, 1988

"1st West Coast Abortion Conference Tomorrow," The Van Nuys News, March 30, 1973

CDC abortion surveillance 1972 CDC was collecting abortion data at the time, so this is particularly a "does it support what it's cited for" request.

"Walk-in Abortion Clinic Successful," Mansfield (OH) News Journal, November 3, 1970

"Seminar Will Center on Population Control," Albuquerque Journal, February 7, 1971

"Birth control, abortion bridged by new technique," The Los Angeles Times in The Anniston (AL) Star, July 19, 1972 Not sure what the user is referring to with the LA Times, because it's not in the 1972 LA Times archives that I can access.

"U.S. Exports Abortion Technique," UPI in The Kingsport (TN) Times, February 10, 1972

"Bengali women to get abortions," UPI in the The (Elyria, Ohio) Chronicle Telegram; February 10, 1972

"Man Convicted of Abortions on 15 Women," The Daily Courier (Connellsville, Pennsylvania), November 17, 1973

I hope someone can help out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are the first two: [51][52]. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Any luck with others? If the sources cannot be determined to exist, I will remove information cited to them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Route 66 (TV series)

1. http://www.nelsonriddlemusic.com/nr_bio_ex.htm
2. http://www.ericrecords.com/orchestral_2.html
3. 1962 Grammy Nominations.
4. http://www.emmys.org/awards/awardsearch.php
5. http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/W/htmlW/watersethel/watersethel.htm
6. http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Emmy_Awards/1962 Emmy Awards: 1962.
7. http://landscaping.about.com/b/2010/03/02/wolf-tree.htm Beaulieu, David. "Wolf Tree," About.com, Tuesday, March 2, 2010.
8. http://www.ohio66.com/angels/default.asp "The Strengthening Angels" – Ohio66.com.
9. http://tophatblue.livejournal.com/12971.html Route 66: "Fly Away Home (Part 1)" – LiveJournal.com.
10. http://tophatblue.livejournal.com/13646.html Route 66: "Fly Away Home (Part 2)" – LiveJournal.com.
11. http://tophatblue.livejournal.com/14348.html Route 66: "Sleep on Four Pillows" – LiveJournal.com.
12. http://www.infinity-entertainmentgroup.com/catalog.cfm?grp=6
13. http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Route-66-Shout-Factory-Acquires-Rights/16184

Do these above source meet policies and guidelines? --George Ho (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends:

"Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?"

"No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual."

You need to consider how the sources are used, not just the characteristics of the sources themselves. There are some (LiveJournal blogs, About.com pages) that are probably not going to meet our standards for reliability, and there are others (Emmys.org, Museum.tv) that probably will, but you're going to have to consider each one individually, carefully and in direct relationship to the exact statement that it is supposed to support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Passage #1 ("Theme song" section): --George Ho (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nelson Riddle was commissioned to write the instrumental theme when CBS decided to have a new song, rather than pay royalties for the Bobby Troup song "(Get Your Kicks on) Route 66". Riddle's theme, however, offers an unmistakable homage to the latter's piano solo (as originally recorded by Nat King Cole) throughout the number. Riddle's Route 66 instrumental was one of the first television themes<ref>[http://www.nelsonriddlemusic.com/nr_bio_ex.htm Nelson Riddle Bio].</ref> to make Billboard Magazine's Top 30,<ref>http://www.ericrecords.com/orchestral_2.html</ref> following Henry Mancini's "Mr. Lucky Theme" in 1960. The song earned two Grammy nominations in 1962.<ref>[http://www.nelsonriddlemusic.com/nr_tv_rt66.htm 1962 Grammy Nominations].</ref>

Genealogies on Wikipedia

Do genealogical articles (such as Romney family and Pratt family requires sources for the genealogical claims? Or is WP:PRESERVE paramount over WP:RS? The articles at this point are heavily unsourced genealogical OR and SYNTH as far as I can tell, and past practice has been that Wikipedia does not use commercial "genealogical sites" for sources. Ought this be changed? Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd start by suggesting that they need sources to establish notability. Everyone has ancestors (lots of them), but so what? If there isn't a source for the genealogy without resorting to WP:OR, we shouldn't have an article in the first place. And with regard to commercial "genealogical sites", given their propensity to scatter disclaimers over their 'data', I'd be inclined to treat them with scepticism until evidence to the contrary is proffered. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Posit that the "family" is notable - do claims made in the "genealogy" need genuine WP:RS sources, or is the existence of the family sufficient to obviate the use of sources for genealogical claims? Thanks. Collect (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think not. Genealogies are basically OR performed by various family members, which explains why different family members can come to different conclusions in their own genealogical research. If they ever stuck their heads together and did more serious and expert research, they might discover who is making errors and come up with a definitive, single, version. If such a version were conclusively endorsed by known historical experts in such matters, IOW third party sources, we might be able to accept such a version, but otherwise its basically OR which we can't endorse. We just need to be cautious and depend on third party sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course these articles need citations -- why would they be any different to the rest of the enyclopaedia? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question - Whereas the Romney family article, mentioned by the OP, is, as of now, reasonably well-sourced in its content, that pertaining to the Kennnedy-Shrivers contains en toto a mere half-dozen citations for its entire, exhaustive listings. Rather than WP's merely appending {{fact}} tags, per wp:PRESERVE, to so many of the names listed, would we be perhaps better off were we to jettis this article's pedigree table and many of the entries included in its various lists and start from scratch? What do other editors think?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reasonably sourced? About half at most - with a huge amont dependent on OR at best. The Pratt one? Virtually all unsourced per WP:RS. Huge leaps of genealogical research based on flimsy material - kuje Mitt Romney saying his or great-great-grandfather was Parley P. Pratt "maybe" and similar strong genealogical sourcing. The policy requires that the unsourced stuff be simply removed - that much is clear. Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com. Collect (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

    The policies require that unsourceABLE material be removed, not that unsourcED material be removed. If it is possible to provide a reliable source for the information, then you are not required to remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, WP:V states that "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." (my emphasis) Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• And WP:BLP has rather more strict words (not just "may be removed") - recalling that many of those in the "genealogy" are not yet dead. This is not a matter of simply saying "someone may be able to find a source" since the only source proffered in much of this is not WP:RS by a mile <g>. Collect (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Or not: BLP only applies to living people (I'll bet that Parley Pratt has been dead for a number of decades) and it only applies to contentious claims. And even then, BLP does not prohibit you from supplying a reliable source yourself. "The only source proffered in the article" is not the same thing as "the only source that's ever been published in the entire world". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, Collect would be perfectly justified in removing the unsourced material. Anyone who wanted to restore it would face the WP:BURDEN of finding sources to verify it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and there is no need for articles on notable families to carry the whole genealogy. They should concentrate on the notable family members, and if possible should be a narrative rather than a family tree. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, many (most?) notable individuals have only non-notable ancestors. Thus including a genealogy at all should only be done for the few that really do qualify. Roger (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The removal of notable wives' names (eg Ann Romney|Ann]], Lenore) names I thought was simple institutional wp:BIAS. But now that the name of principals have been removed, there appears to be an actual bigotry at play. But, pushing that impression aside and resuming an assumption of good faith, I offer the questions: The lede, as sourced, at Pratt family defines it as descended from P.P.Pratt, so what would justify removal of him from ensuing list? And the lede at Romney family (US) defines it as notable primary due to G.Romney, so what would justify removal of him from that article's list?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• The P.P. Pratt listing was contributed in the Pratt family article's very first edit in 2005, by User:Dr U and was there for five years, until its recent deletion. Yet in the article's current references #s 2 and 3 (Reuters use of info from Mormon studies scholar Brooks and the article by historian Bowman) are quotes referencing notable familial descents from, specifically, Parley Pratt.
• (And, as for the Romney family article, George Romney, Mitt, or both are mentioned in, for example, just about each one of the article's current first dozen references, so I don't follow the reasoning behind deleting their respective entries in the Romney family article's list, either.)
• WP is a tertiary source and can but rely on the available sources. So, the bottom line is, since the "Romney family" article's sources amply demonstrate that George's mom, Anna's, (paternal) grandfather was P.P. Pratt, this relationship between the two families is what the Romney family article should continue to reflect. Sure, per user:Collect's argument (taking it at face value--which may ohl=enr may not be a fool's errand)...it's absolutely within the realm of possibility--no matter how infinitely small--that George was misinformed/lied about this genealogy. Indeed, if a source is found that calls this relationship into question, then the text can and perhaps should be edited to shade in this doubt arising from the sourcing: eg, via "according to George" or some such formulation. Otherwise, WP should simply state the relationship, per the article's existing, ample sourcing on the point.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This diff is an open-and-shut case of improper removal of sourced content, when user:Collect deleted two citiations to a Jennifer Dobner and Glen Johnson Associated Press story when deleting the article's summaries about George Romney and Mitt Romney.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

.....Btw a google search of news sources turn up dozens of hits for "parley," "pratt," "romney." Here's ten I picked out at random:

1. (from 2 days ago) Nat'l Review
2. (from 2 days ago) George Mason Univ
3. AP
4. CNN
5. FOX
6. LA Times
7. Time
8. Boston Globe
9. NPR
10. SLC Tribune

Google Books produces 810 hits. Google Scholar even produces 180.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS does not mean that every article with "pratt" and "romney" in it is a source for specific genealogical claims. Nor does it mean that claims not found in a source suddenly become usabe in any article at all. I fear that is the problem here -- but Wikipedia != Ancestry.com. Collect (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Broad statements not hewing to the facts at hand may convince the ill-informed but Wikipedians as a whole will be more convinced by interpretations of logic and events supportable by actual fact.

1. Wrt the erroneous claim that Collect did not remove sourced material: Note the fact that, e/g: (A.) There is a Pratt family article because George Romney's mother belongs to a family that is notable in its own right; yet, despite the score of sources that establish this connection, Collect insist that the two families have no connection. (B.) There is a score of sources that George and Mitt are in the Romney article, some providing individual vitae--yet Collect removed both entries in that article's list, along with the additional AP source, providing an accouting of the Romney clan's genealogy, which source had been appended to both.
2. Wrt the erroneous claim (wishful thinking?) that Wikipedia does not provide notable genealogical information: Note the fact that, e/g, the following categories are among those included below the article on Wikipedia about the Dunham-Obama-Robinsons (a combined article under the rubric of "Family of Barack Obama" because neither the Dunhams nor the Robinson families are notable independently from their relationship to the current US president):

   -Obama family
   -African American genealogy
   -African-American families
   -Families
   -American families
   -Genealogies of individuals
   -Family trees
   -First Families of the United States

   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is not a reason to violate Wikipedia policies. You are using such sources as "jared-pratt-family.org" which are blatantly not "reliable sources" for a genealogy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, a url need not even be provided. But I provide two for each citation. Double. Twice as many as just one. An infinite amount more than the number..."required."

The material in question was pubished in the late 19th century by the Improvement Era magazine and the Deseret News newspaper. The Association merely hosta a transcription of the same. Thus one can access the originals, via the citations, or one can review transcriptions of the same. (Btw, the Pratt Association was founded in the late 19th century by mathematician and scientist Orson Pratt. The associaion's historian, Matt Grow, co-authored (with preeminent Mormon studies scholar Terryl Givens) the biography of Parley Pratt that was published by Oxford Univ. Press in 2011. An entity is considered a reliable source about itself. In this case, the entity only hosts a transcription. The orig- .. -inals are accessible via the citation, along with the transcriptions. How can you delete photographs of 19th-century newspaper articles and an official Improvement Era webpage that hosts a copy of the magazine's old article--merely because the Pratt Association also provides a copy of this information? Is the Pratt Association some kind of tar baby for you that forever mars anything it touches? Things that were valid sources suddenly become invalid merely because the Association also hosts a transcript? --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

When user Collect engaged in the pointy prank of the removal of entries for Mitt, George, Lenore, Ann, et al, from the Romney family article's list, he simultaneously deleted a citation that was attached to both of the entries for Mitt and George referencing an AP story that had been hosted on the Fox News website. The AP story goes as follows:

Gaskell Romney, Mitt Romney's grandfather, was not a polygamist. He married Anna Amelia Pratt, the daughter of polygamists and the granddaughter of Parley P. Pratt, the apostle with 12 wives. Their marriage took place Feb. 20, 1895, in Dublan, Mexico.

Gaskell Romney had moved to Mexico with his parents in 1884 amid the proliferation of U.S. laws prohibiting "unlawful cohabitation." Anna Pratt was born in Utah but had emigrated to Mexico and lived in one of nine colonies established by the church over the border.

Gaskell Romney and Anna Pratt had seven children, including George Wilcken Romney, the former Michigan governor. He lived with his parents in Mexico until 1912, when the family returned to the United States.

George Romney married Lenore LaFount, who does not appear to have polygamy in her family tree. The couple, now deceased, had four children, including Mitt Romney.

If Collect has a source calling into doubt that Helaman-Pratt-daughter Anna begat George R., he should bring it to the fore (and we'll inform celebrated genealogist Gary Boyd Roberts, who henceforth can asterisk the same!).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA and note that the material I removed was unsourced or improperly sourced for the full claims as made in your genealogy article. Please finally read and understand WP:RS and the fact that a source must back up the entire claim being made. The edit you cite as being improper removed a link you created for the "Pratt family" - which was unsourced. It removed Miles Alonzo Romney which was unsourced. It removed Thomas Cottham Romeny also unsourced. It removed Vernon Romnay which was sourced to "politicalgraveyard.com" which is a site run by a single person and is not RS. And so on. Most did not even have an attempt at citing a source. Curiously enough, Wikipedia likes to have claims being sourced. This is not a "pointy" obsession of mine, it is not a "prank" - it is the rules. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

How does a family article that had been on Wikipedia for 6 1/2 years belong to me (who has hardly touched the material at "Romney family")? I am pointing out to the community that you had removed, for whatever your rationale and motivations, notable, sourced data from the article on shaky grounds.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to impute ownership only that this is the article at issue. Moreover, the fact that an unsourced or insufficiently sourced article existed for any period of time does not change what Wikipedia policies state. Lastly, WP:RS is not "shaky grounds." Collect (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the original question of this posting, I think the answer is clear enough? Yes, articles about families should be verifiable and they should not be original research, just like every article. Of course we have many articles with no obvious sourcing, but they do not all necessarily need to be deleted. Many can be verified, and verifying is better than deleting when possible. Deleting things should not be justified by saying "its the rules". Every edit we do should aim to improve the encyclopedia. Consider WP:PRESERVE and WP:IAR. If a deletion is contested then in any case it should not be rushed through. Use the talk pages or noticeboards like this one. There should be no rush to delete.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Op-Ed used for statements of fact

Is this Op-Ed[53] by a schoolteacher suitable for statements of fact. Specifically this section on Saudi Arabia [54] Darkness Shines (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Editorial, one person's experiences, no particular reason that person is representative, etc. --GRuban (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have the same opinion. Before even asking of an op-ed is reliable, the evidence is anecdotal. The alleged assailants are limited to the children in her classroom, and beyond their own victims, the only others referred to are one acquaintance of the writer and two coworkers. Even if we took everything in there as fact, it would be original research of us to imply general trends based on mere anecdotes. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is, instead of attributing the statement as opinion (to which I would have agreed to), Darkness Shines is blanking the section. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2)And this schoolteachers opinion is notable because? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why does this author's opinion deserve to appear in the article? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Relevance, given that it has been published by a reliable third party. I'm in full support of rephrasing to attribution, but that option was never discussed on the article talk page where DS asked to blank the section. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So, the opinion of a single writer, based on anecdotal evidence, establishes due weight? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

1) That would be a discussion for the article talk page (since here we are proving its reliability only), 2) I think that section can be expanded above that for that to have the weight it has at the moment. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the facts ("Some Saudis have behaved badly") are probably more or less accurate; it would actually be astonishing if racism were entirely absent among 100% of the 27 million people in that country. But this certainly isn't the best source for a claim like that, and it's certainly not an adequate source for indicating that it's a significant enough problem to deserve being mentioned. After all, you could presumably write that sentence about every single country on the face of the planet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Think about what statement of fact it could be used to back up. "One schoolteacher writes that some of his students admitted to behaving badly, and implies that means all Saudi Arabians hate all foreign workers." Not relevant. Also, re-reading that editorial makes me doubt its strict veracity, since this sentence seems pretty extraordinary: "Some said that their favorite pastime was to catch cats, kill them and skin them." I find it hard to believe that would be the sort of thing students would casually admit to their teacher. Should we now put it in an article to back a statement that Saudi Arabians mutilate animals? Surely not. I strongly suspect some poetic license was taken. --GRuban (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• While I have your attention, would some of you comment on this [55] edit. Is reverting in unsourced, POV OR against the rules here or not? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Will add back after backing up with more sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You just reverted in another Op-Ed as a source for statements of fact [56] 15:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Darkness Shines (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You have so far made zero (or previous no consensus) attempts on talk page to discuss the content you are editwarring to remove. You need to discuss the content if it is op-ed, or how it needs to be phrased or kept. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, I'm afraid Darkness Shines has it right here. In general, editorials can not be used for statements of fact. If the editorial is by a notable person, you could use it to give that notable person's opinion, but you would have to consider seriously whether that person's opinion would be relevant for our article. If it were the opinion of a major government or religious figure, perhaps, but not for minor writers, schoolteachers, etc. We're talking about countries of hundreds of millions of people, it's not surprising that we could find one minor writer or schoolteacher to hold almost any opinion, from the world being flat to the United Nations being controlled by aliens. --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll obviously add that back with publications signed by experts or the publishers.. but don't think editwarring was the right way to go. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Then how come you are on 3RR? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You've crossed that. Don't sermon me on that. I guess this topic is resolved. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I am on 2r actually. The topic is far from resolved. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources on Cary Sherman

Except for the first source on Cary Sherman, which is primary, i'm not quite sure about the other four. At the very least, they seem to be very specialized, small sources that seem to have been picked in order to have specific, potentially negative, information in the article. Silverseren^C 05:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like User:Cusop Dingle took care of it. Silverseren^C 15:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Mandyk Khasman

I CSD A7'ed this article. It was protested on my talk page, and I gave it a closer look. The article itself makes no claim to notability that I can see. The issue, however, is the three sources on the article. They are in a foreign language. This makes it hard for me to judge whether or not they qualify as RS. At least 2 of the three look likely to be in depth articles on the subject. If they are RS, then he may very well be notable for the coverage alone. From the WP article, the subject is from Ukraine, so the language is likely whatever the common language is of that country (Ukrainian or Russian). I'll also ask for assistance on a Ukrainian Wiki-project... - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian. They are about the subject. The reason for notability isn't straightforward, it's basically that the Ukrainian Insurgent Army has been accused of being involved in Jewish massacres, so the fact that a Jew served in it seems of interest. See Ukrainian Insurgent Army#UPA and Jews. In any case, they are non-trivial articles about the subject, probably meeting WP:N, and certainly not speedy-able. --GRuban (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources are in Ukrainian; Russian has no letter "і". First 2 sources are national newspapers (first source is a part of the Ukrayinska Pravda-group) and most def. RS; 3th source is the Ukrainian Youth Association, not sure if "Youth Associations" are ever RS.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. So we have at least 2 RS on him, and a round-about reasoning as to why he is actually otherwise notable. But at a minimum, these together IMHO do make it ineligible for CSD. If someone wants to start an AFD debate, notability could be hashed out there once and for all. I know that I will not be bothering with that at this point. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I could find out from Google translate, that the person was provided with a wheel chair by a group. Is there any other grounds for being notable?? I guess the person does not meets the criteria of notability. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 17:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that the notability is questionable, feel absolutely free to start an AFD discussion. I'm only declaring that he's not A7-eligable, which is a much lower threshold. At the moment we have two reliable sources, which is enough that they may by themselves show that he meets the general notability criteria, whether or not we may think that he meets any other reason for notability. He's of enough interest to papers there to get multiple in-depth articles.

As for the reason they are interested, see GRuban's explanation above.

I really have no idea how an AFD would end up. But I suspect at this point that it could very well end up as a Keep. But I'm just one opinion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Coasterpedia, also known as Roller Coaster Wiki as reliable source?

KoopaTroop and I both think that Coasterpedia should be a reliable source. He and I both work there, and know that all information is carefully found and written. Also with several users, the content is constantly being checked. Ruler of Coasters  Talk  17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wiki wouldn't be used as a source (in-article citations), so this is probably the wrong place to bring this up. KoopaTroop (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If it is an open wiki then I do not see how it can meet WP:RS. But why use a wiki? There are no shortage of sources for roller coasters[57] Darkness Shines (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:COI Roger (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikis and other user-generated content are never RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikis can't be used as reliable sources. Instead, use published sources to describe roller coasters. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

dinosaursandman.com

At Ica stones an editor keeps inserting this self-published source. He's been told in edit summaries, on his talk page, and I believe on the article talk page that it doesn't meet our criteria, but he still keeps adding it. Are those of us who think it doesn't meet our criteria wrong? It's [58] - note that it's a rebuttal to a Fortean Times article & I'm guessing they wouldn't publish it, but that's not the point. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Totally fails all tests of reliable sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Lolwut? It's self-published but not somehow by the Ica Stones for incontroversial claims somehow made by the Ica Stones, so it doesn't belong. The purpose of the source ("Did Man Walk With The Dinosaurs?") is contrary to mainstream science, which is what this site sides with. Also, Rrrr5's edit summary "Part of this site endorses a theory I dislike, therefore we can't cite it" isn't valid on Wikipedia. is a strawman argument that sounds a bit WP:IDHT-ish. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, not a reliable source; WP:PARITY exists to prevent sources like this from being used to justify fringe claims. Fails on so many levels. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I first read it as "Dinosaur Sandman". Archosaur Ambien, anyone?--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The editor inserting it was blocked for 3RR and then came back with a sock to put it back in again, guess he doesn't care if it's a reliable source or not. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I preferred the film version. Equally reliable, and has Racquel Welsh. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable paper; unreliable writer

What do we do when we have a paper that is presumptively an RS, but we know that the writer of the article in question, appearing in the paper, is not reliable but rather is questionable. For example, would we rely on an article in The New Republic that was written by Stephen Glass?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The reliability calculation has many factors and is unique to each situation. One thing to look for would be corrections or other responses from the editors. Stephen Glass's reporting was carefully reviewed and the editors determined which articles had problems and which didn't. The fact that he made up some facts didn't mean he made up all of them. So even with that example the answer depends on the exact source and the assertion it's being used for. How do we know that this writer is unreliable?   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Which would be nice if we knew whichfacts weren't. Not all problem articles had full corrections made, which means use of such articles is problematic at best, and another source would outweigh it by an order of magnitude. I believe it is dictum that a person once convicted of perjury will not be believed on any issue at all? Collect (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. And this noticeboard doesn't answer hypothetical questions. Epeefleche, do you have a specific question relating to the use of a particular source as a reference for a particular statement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no useful generalizable answer to this question. The specifics of the case must be examined. What writer, what citation?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Given the above, I should come back when I have more specifics. I noticed that we have articles that list, inter alia, journalists who engaged in fraudulent activity. See, for example, Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair and some (though not all) of the other entries at List of hoaxes#Journalistic hoaxes and Journalistic scandal#See also. I was considering that -- if articles by such authors in RSs are not themselves considered RS material -- I would look to see if we have any such refs at the Project. But before I started looking, I thought I would check here as to how such refs would be considered at the end of the day. It seems that some editors would accept a Stephen Glass article as an RS ref in certain circumstances, and others might instead view him as having rebutted the presumption of reliability by his actions. Perhaps the issue is premature for this page, as a couple of editors suggest.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Stephen Glass' articles have been corrected or retracted by the New Republic, as have Blair's by the Times. Reliable sources are reliable not because they never print errors, but because they have a system in place to prevent or at least correct errors which do make it into print. We shouldn't be citing retracted work (unless we make clear that it was retracted). And we should strongly question the reliability of sources which fail to retract or correct errors when they're identified. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. One issue (premature for this noticeboard, I understand) is whether or not the work of an author such as Glass or Blair loses the presumption of reliability (even if published in an RS) once he has been revealed to have written articles of this ilk. As to your point that the RSs have retracted or corrected these editors' error-ridden articles, we have the challenge that our online sources may carry the older articles. And don't necessarily indicate that the pieces that contain fabrications have been corrected or retracted by the RSs in question. See, for example, this article in Highbeam Business, which our wp article on Glass suggests (pointing to a questionable RS?) and which a NYT article indicates was one of Glass's fabrication-laden articles. But I understand that some editors consider this discussion premature.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • That's an excellent example of why we need to link the original source, not a copy of it hosted at marijuanalibrary.org or HighBeam. But I think you've identified a real problem, and I didn't mean to dismiss it. The problem isn't unique to Wikipedia - for example, a recent survey of the scientific literature found that retracted papers continued to be cited at an impressive rate, even after their retraction. The bottom line is that we need to be careful with sourcing. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• There is no useful generalizable principle to be found by discussing Glass or Blair. Even for evaluating an article by one of those two there is no generalizable principle. What source, what citation?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliability is an attribute of the publication not the writer. We expect that these publications will publish retractions for errors or false information. TFD (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UT/p>C)

Reliability can be an attribute of a publication or a writer. See the policy page. Perhaps a useful point to remember is that our policies do not say that we must include all things which can be reliably sourced. The policy works the other way around. So whenever we have reasons for doubts about a source, we can rightfully aim to avoid being controversial. Having said this, the area where this can go wrong is if a controversial source is a well-known one which needs to be mentioned in order to avoid breaking WP:NPOV.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Britons in Hong Kong

The question here is whether the British government (specifically, a footnote in a British parliamentary paper) is a reliable source for the claim that there are three million British expatriates in Hong Kong. The problem is that the source gives no explanation of how it came to this number. It's reasonably easy to see (though of course this is WP:OR) that the only way they can get this number is by including British National (Overseas) status-holders in their estimate. Only a few tens of thousands of Hong Kong people were born in Britain or otherwise have British citizenship. Which leads to two questions:

• 4 million people in Hong Kong's population were born in Hong Kong [59]. Many of them are BN(O)s, but they are well outside of any reasonable definition of "expatriate". It seems difficult to consider as source as "reliable" if it so grossly abuses the word "expatriate" that it would apply it to a man living in his native city. (Of the remaining 3 million of Hong Kong's population, 2.5 million were born in China. You might, in a fit of POV, describe them as "Chinese expatriates", but certainly not "British expatriates".).
• The source in question, the British Parliament, has a clear incentive to present a slanted view of the issue in order to avoid criticism over human rights issues. These people whom they call "British expatriates" do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, precisely due to the vote of that same Parliament in 1981. The United Kingdom has not ratified Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights precisely in order to avoid giving BN(O)s the right of abode in the United Kingdom [60]. The UNHCHR has criticised the British government on precisely this point, describing British nationality law as "reveal[ing] elements of racial discrimination" [61]. Again, in my view this shows that the source, whether deliberately or otherwise, is trying to be misleading, by describing Hong Kong people as "expatriates" of a country (Britain) in which they have no right of freedom of movement.

Please see the background discussion at Talk:Britons in Hong Kong. Thank you 61.18.190.15 (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

we shouldn't be using primary sources here, and we certainly can't use 'webcache.googleusercontent.com' as a source at all. Having said that though, the rest of your arguments are WP:OR. And instead of asking us to trawl through an article talk page, can you please let us know what is being cited for what? Agreeing that "the British Parliament has a clear incentive to present a slanted view" over something is hardly grounds for asserting that anyone else's view is less slanted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

My question is very simple. The article contains a statement "There are three million British expatriates in Hong Kong". This is the statement at issue. I do not consider the British Parliament to be a reliable source for this statement, and I would like to know other people's opinions on whether it is a reliable source. The rest of my comments are my reasons why I think the British Parliament not a reliable source for this assertion: because they are not independent of the issue they are presenting. I already admitted that my comments are WP:OR --- but these comments are not in the article anyway, I am just making these comments in a discussion page in the context of trying to evaluate the reliability of a source. The webcache.googleusercontent.com --- it's just Google's auto-generated HTML version of an Excel file published by a Hong Kong government department [62]. Most people don't like downloading XLS files and firing up Microsoft Excel so I gave a web-viewable link for your convenience. It's not cited in the article anyway. 61.18.190.15 (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

UK government is reliable for statements like this. Even if it has an incentive to slant information it is not going to publish outright untruths. Consider also, though, that the UK government did not carry out the actual research, that this is something of a throwaway or aside. What to do next is to search for other sources, probably to present alongside this one, not instead of it. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Even if it has an incentive to slant information it is not going to publish outright untruths." An "incentive to slant information" means that no, it is not a reliable source. That it will not "publish outright untruths" does not make it reliable. - SudoGhost 02:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Most sources have a POV, but this does not make them unreliable. We can not forbid the uses of sources with a likely POV. We should use all sources with judgement. POV statements from organizations talking about their position are normally used with words like "according to".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

While I sympathize with the skepticism of a source that doesn't disclose its methodology, we need (good) reliable sources if we're going to contest demographic data provided by the British Parliament. The distrust of one (or more) Wikipedia editors is not sufficient to discard this source. ElKevbo (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The government which actually runs Hong Kong conducts a census every five years. The last one (2006) found a total of 24,000 Britons, less than 1% of the British Parliament's nonsensical figure [63]. The greatest population of Britons ever recorded in Hong Kong was about 160,000 right before the handover. 61.18.190.15 (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic

A bit on Austrian hacking incident in My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic#Other arenas cites an Equestria Daily screen shot of now-inaccessible news article page from Kurier's website. I want to replace it with three pages (1, 2, 3) from Austrian public broadcaster, ORF. But since I can't understand German at all, I need your help to expand that sentence a bit.

Also, can any of you check the reliability of the other Equestria Daily pages cited except exclusive interviews, and all the non-English sources cited in the entire My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic article? JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 07:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

SouthCoastToday.com

Is this article in SouthCoastToday.com a RS for the line "On September 22 of last year, NASA held an LENR forum that included presentations by several scientists including Dan Bushnell - Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center and Dr. Joseph Zawodny." in the article Cold Fusion ? --POVbrigand (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

familysearch.org

Is familysearch.org a :"relaible source" in Romney family"

:::*[[G. Ott Romney]] (December 12, 1892-May 3, 1973) was born in [[Salt Lake City]], the son of George Ernst and Hannah, and died in [[Alexandria, Virginia]]. He was the third head football coach at Brigham Young University, coaching for nine years from 1928-1936. His national positions included Chairman of the National Recreation Policies Committee, National Director of the Recreation Section of the Works Progress Administration or WPA, assignments with the American Alliance of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, and membership on U.S. President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]'s Council on Youth Fitness. During [[World War II]] he served as Chief of Recreation and Club Unit Services to the [[United States Armed Forces]] through the [[Red Cross]]. He married Ruth Harding in 1919, and they are parents of three children - two girls and one boy.<ref name=AF>[http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp "Ancestral File page on George Romney"], Ancestry of G. Ott Romney. Family History Department, The Church of Jesus Latter Day Saints. Retrieved December 5, 2011</ref><ref>[http://www.byucougars.com/staff/athletics/g-ott-romney "G. Ott Romney Staff Bio"], Brigham Young University. Retrieved December 5, 2011</ref>

Also are "staff bios" and the like RS for genealogical claims in the same article? Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither would be reliable sources for the article, because there is no evidence that there is fact-checking of the biographical information. FamilySearch does provide copies of primary sources that would be reliable, for example birth certificates, but they would be of little or no use for the article. TFD (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. A lot of material in Familysearch is user contributed without oversight. A lot of it is not, but it is sometimes hard to sort out which. Anyway the Ancestral Files are certainly based on user contributions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley

I came across a citation:

Charles Cawley, Medieval Lands, Earls of Kent, Holand, retrieved on 2 May 2010

in Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter.

On further investigation it turns out to be:

• Cawley, Charles (3 June 2011). "Earls of Kent {1352}-1408, Holand". [http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/Intro.htm Medieval Lands]. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help); Unknown parameter |publiser= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help) (Contents)

As can be seen by this search Medieval Lands is used as a reference in over 500 Wikipedia articles.

The introduction says:

It must be emphasised that many areas still remain to be checked as the research is still incomplete. When consulting the documents, it should be assumed that any information which does not include references to primary source material falls into this category and should therefore be treated with the appropriate caution.

Also:

The "back-to-basics" approach to primary source material has produced many surprises. It has enabled numerous new discoveries to be made and many challenges to traditionally accepted family relationships to be proposed. By way of example, browse for Æthelberht King of Wessex (ENGLAND, ANGLO-SAXON and DANISH KINGS) and the wives of Péter Orseolo King of Hungary (HUNGARY, KINGS). The approach has also highlighted many cases where little supporting source material has so far been found, despite extensive research, indicating the possibly dubious nature of some supposed connections.

Is Medieval Lands a reliable source? If not then can it be used as a WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? -- PBS (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any indication that this website is reliable for history. I can't see who the authors are or any affiliation with a university or reputable research institute. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The author appears to be Charles Cawley; the site states that "Charles Cawley is a retired corporate lawyer who now devotes himself full time to historical research".[64] So not a historian or an authority on medieval genealogy. RolandR (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• per WP:HISTRS, nope. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We can't cite it as a reliable source because (so far as I know) Charles Cawley and his site aren't referenced as scholarly by academic sources. If I'm mistaken there, and they are so referenced, then that would change.

We can certainly cite it under "External links" -- it is an extremely useful site to serious readers because it cites primary sources scrupulously and because it says honestly where the sources have not yet been found. I don't know any site more useful for someone who's beginning to investigate a medieval family connection. If we only have 560 links to it, that's far too few, because many such people would start from Wikipedia and would be helped by a link to Medlands. Andrew Dalby 10:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not rs, it is hosted by a genealogical website which is run by amateur volunteers. TFD (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK then the unanimous consensus from the few who have expressed an opinion here, it is not suitable as a secondary source how about for those facts in the source, where the source cites a reliable source under the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT rule? -- PBS (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's a middle way among the requirements of Saywhereyougotit, Reliablesources and Wereallydontmuchlikeprimarysources, I don't know what the middle way is. My method has been (a) if I have time, to check the sources that Charles Cawley cites, and cite them; (b) in any case, to ensure that Medieval Lands is among the external links. I expect someone else will come along with a better solution :) Andrew Dalby 12:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As it is not a personal website, given the description of how it is made I see no problem to cite the entries which name the primary sources, as these are the checked ones, (and the other ones comes from non primary sources as I understand it) but then we are basically dealing with a good collection of primary sources. There is no absolute ban on using primary sources, but they are not ideal. When it comes to medieval genealogy I would say this type of imperfect source should not be shunned too much. Even professional writings on medieval genealogy are often full of assumptions and traditions, and the best ones often also just collect primary sources and let readers see the options. So that is probably what we will end up with too in some such cases. (I see no reason to prefer blithe reproduction of traditions such as can be found in well-known publication such as Burkes or whatever, just because they are well-known and frequently cited.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Musicradar.com

Is this a reliable source for this page? Because one user keeps on saying it's unreliable and refuses to listen to other peoples opinions about it. He keeps saying it's not a news service so it's unreliable. This is ridiculous. What makes news services so reliable? --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The site seems to have an editorial board, but the reviews look like user-generated content. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't user generated content. It's all full of expert writers. --Jamcad01 (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pratt family

Much of the "genealogy" which was unsourced or not RS sourced was removed. However, all of the material, including all of the unsourced and non-RS sourced Romney family information is now being inserted via {{Selected Jared Pratt descendants}}

The issue now is - is this "family tree" exempt from WP:RS? I removed it as not being sourced, but it has been re-=added now more than once, and I would like outside views thereon. Collect (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I changed "not" to "now" here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:V: "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question." That applies to templates included in articles, and this one in particular. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Citing inscriptions

Hi, I was wondering whether inscriptions can be used as a source (like in Kavšek Bridge - ref no. 3; added by me) and how to properly format the reference in this case. There seems to be no mention of inscriptions in the main Wikipedia guidelines and in the Manual of Style. There was a story in the Wikipedia Signpost some time ago, but nobody has added a summary to the Wikipedia namespace. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your citation is reasonable. You need to include more information though (even if obvious from the article), about the location of the bridge. Additionally, you need to indicate the author (even if "corporate" or "institutional") of the inscription if known. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me too. There is a problem like this with things like gravestones, signs in museums, birth certificates and other places which don't fall in the usual categories easily. Just try to be fairly complete. Dmcq (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If the article is using WP:Citation templates, then you can use {{Cite sign}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Bentham Science Publishers

Is Bentham Science Publishers a reliable source? And is this book in particularly reliable for a fringe theory (specifically aquatic ape hypothesis)? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hell, no. Bentham Open is sort of a running joke among those in the know about scientific publishing. A e-book published by Bentham is as good as self-published for WP purposes. Claims that articles and books published by Bentham Open should be dismissed as false. If the authors really had anything of scientific value or interest to say, they would have found a reputable publisher. In fact, it can be assumed that the book was rejected by reputable publishers before the authors resorted to e-publishing using Bentham. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That all tailors nicely with its proposed use in supporting the AAH being a non-accepted fringe hypothesis. Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

twitter references

First, a bit of background. XLinkBot is set to revert external links (not references) to sites that generally fail our policies and guidelines. It is set extremely soft, as sometimes the generally-bad-websites are actually appropriate, and such editors are asked to re-insert that. XLinkBot does not re-revert upon re-addition.

As one of the operators of XLinkBot, I am watching the feed of XLinkBot - XLinkBot is mentioning to me, that it can't revert an edit because the added external link is used as a reference. In the last 30 minutes, I have seen only three cases where XLinkBot mentions that the link is included as a reference - and all three were twitter.com links. That made me wonder:

• (33): en:user:92.7.85.175 - \btwitter\.com\b (http://twitter.com/#!/BretEastonEllis/status/168505561128775680) is included inside of a reference on Patrick Bateman, please manually check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476430225&oldid=475029925 .
• (43): en:user:72.204.73.48 - \btwitter\.com\b (http://twitter.com/#!/offspring/status/168625201934897152) is included inside of a reference on Noodles (musician), please manually check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476432965&oldid=474487523 .
• (45): en:user:Ali99911 - \btwitter\.com\b (https://twitter.com/#!/ApsaraAwards/status/162405412744855552) is included inside of a reference on Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai, please manually check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476433472&oldid=476432749 .

I have reverted 2 of these, and have removed the twitter ref of the third (as the other references take care of the info).

XLinkBot can however be set to revert on specific sites (rules) to revert references as well (rules defined in User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList). After these three, I was very tempted to add twitter, as most of the references are hardly useful as a primary source (2 of them are re-tweets and I don't even know if there is an original). Any thoughts on this - should we try and inform new and IP users when they use twitter in a reference that it is generally not a suitable reference and point them to WP:RS/WP:V? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe this notice board is for (mis)use of sources in particular articles. I believe any action that applies to all articles should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm .. looking at other sections here, I doubt whether that is the case. WT:RS would be to discuss the (wording of the) guideline, the noticeboard WP:RS/N for discussing references and whether they comply (generally) with said guideline. That does not necessarily have to be 'if this reference suitable for this page', but also general 'do we find this site a reliable site to generally use'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Asking whether Twitter in general is a reliable source is a bit like asking whether the World Wide Web is a reliable source. However, it seems reasonable to assume that all Twitter posts are self-published and hence reliable only for statements about the posters. However, we would also need to have some kind of reason to believe that the alleged poster is indeed the person or institution they claim to be. So the range of situations in which we could possibly use such posts for anything. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think generally a confirmed twitter account is acceptable as a primary source in the same way an official website is. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but as I say, that is reliable only for a rather restricted set of assertions. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So is any source really, it is only reliable as far the context permits it to be. The bottom line is no source is reliable unless it is deemed to be after the context is considered, so the term "reliable source" is indeed a misnomer before the fact, even something like the New York Times. However, generally we speak of reliable sources in terms of sources that are potentially viable reliable sources, and the New York Times falls under this category, and a confirmed Twitter account also qualifies as a potentially valid primary source, so we really shouldn't have a bot removing Twitter links because it is possible it is being used in the correct manner. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is, the bot would only revert the editor once and leave a post pointing towards the problems .. they can then always re-insert. If that goes right for 99% of the cases it is a small price for all the work that we don't have to do. It keeps Wikipedia better referenced, and reliable and, often, more relevant. Now a lot of that just stays. And this does concern, in many cases, BLPs. This is not on a site where it is more often the opposite. I mean, it is possible to misuse a CNN reference, but there it will be 1-2% misuse (and even less abuse), and 98-99% correct. Here it is maybe 1-2% correct, 10-20% misuse, and 80-90% abuse (note above, one of the tweets is of the type 'question? Answer!' - there is not a single proof that Answer was given by the subject, this could very well be a fabrication, and hence fall in the category abuse and maybe a BLP violation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I know about the problems, and the limits of Twitter. It is at the very best a self published source which is then only suitable for that type of statements. And then, most of those statements that are true and self published etc. fail that they are not encyclopedic anyway. Here comes my favourite Twitter example again: Britney Spears: For 'In 2011, Britney had cake with her father on his birthday', the Twitter feed I saw would have been a perfect reference. It is similar to the YouTube story: there are only few copyright violations on YouTube if you look at the total amount of video's, but of the ones that are of interest to Wikipedia, that fraction is significantly higher (the number of copyright violations on videos which are by no means of interest to Wikipedia in any form is likely close to 0; note that it slowly does get better nowadays).

The question basically is .. how often do you guys (who may have more of a look at references then that I do .. though my gut feeling is not good) actually see statements with Twitter references where you think 'OK, suitable' in comparison to statements that you blindly revert (as I would almost have done for all three of the above, I only checked one to see there were reliable references in the list). My guess is that if I tell XLinkBot to revert Twitter references (reverting IP accounts and non-confirmed editors), that the error rate will be in the order of 1-2%, maybe even less. Thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As I've said on other occasions, a 'confirmed' twitter account is only marginally more acceptable as a primary source than an unconfirmed account. Aside from those cases where we know their twitter accounts are run by a ghost writer (50 cent, britney spears) there are far more that we don't know - and while that could apply to their "'official' website as well - there is far more room for editorial oversight and error correction by the BLP on a website than there is in a hastily sent out 140 character tweet. It only acts as a primary source for what the twitter account has said not for what the BLP has said.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476822804&oldid=472835819
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476822972&oldid=476214918
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476824287&oldid=476823496
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476824332&oldid=475878902
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476825789&oldid=476824845
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=476825933&oldid=476814227

6 more examples, all crappy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Is World Gazetteer a reliable source

Is World Gazetteer a reliable source [65] it is used as a source in many articles such as List of most populous metropolitan areas in Pakistan, List of metropolitan areas in Asia, List of metropolitan areas in the Americas, Metropolitan areas of Mexico, List of largest cities and second largest cities by country.

However it's reliability has been put in to question a number of times for example here, here and [66]. For a time it was used as the main source in the List of metropolitan areas in Europe article but it was decided to be unreliable and changed mainly because they didn't agree with it's stating that Liverpool/Manchester is one metropolitan area.

If found to not be a reliable source then many articles will need to be altered as it is used as a source in a large number of articles. Eopsid (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't see where it gets any authority from. There's other places like the CIA factbook and countries own ordnance survey sites and books which can be all considered as authorative without using something like this. Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hephaestus Books

Hephaestus Books is a publisher that mass produces books which are little more than collections of Wikipedia articles. Authors have expressed dismay at how these books are misleadingly titled [67][68], and of course we shouldn't be using their books as sources. This has come up before but I couldn't find the relevant discussion or a list of the companies that do this sort of republishing. Gobonobo ^{T C} 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

One discussion is at [69]. Collect (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Collect. It looks as if Hephaestus is just another print on demand company recycling Wikipedia content like VDM Publishing and Books LLC. Is there an equivalent to Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for publishers where we can list republishers? Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks maybe? Gobonobo ^{T C} 19:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ask there - I suspect that someone there might agree that it is an idea whose time has come. Collect (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Collect, regarding circular references. RS/N isn't the appropriate group to directly maintain such a resource though. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I started Wikipedia: Republishers. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this source self-published?

Someone is trying to introduce extended discussion of this source into the Soviet offensive plans controversy. Does this source fit a reliable secondary sources criteria, or it is self-published?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Self-published ("Mark Solonin. Historian's personal webpage." & "Personal site of historian").--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In looking at the article, though, the citation is really to Solonin's book and to the website. If the main source of the data is the book and the book is not self-published, then the cite would not be self-published. I have no comment on the merits otherwise of inclusion of the material in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please follow the instructions at the top of the page. Particularly the request for a full citation of the works under question. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Self-published" is completely unrelated to whether a source is primary or secondary. Please read WP:USEPRIMARY and WP:Secondary does not mean independent for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

VulgarMedia.com

User:Publicmoney keeps adding the site VulgarMedia.com as a reference to articles about school districts in Texas. The site, hosted on WordPress, does not seem to establish itself in any form as a reliable source, but rather a "blog" presented in a professional, advocating manner. I removed the sources once per WP:ELNO, but PublicMoney protested[70] and added them back in saying that the website was verified and that my "personal opinion" that the site was a blog was incorrect. PublicMoney has made no other edits than to contribute this "source" to articles. Others reviewing this matter would be appreciated. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 17:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the links before I was aware of the discussion here. Concur with nsaum75; this is a simple four month old blog, filled with someone's personal commentary and OR. There is no indication of authorship, editorial control, or expertise. The site is a proxied domain based on wordpress, and the person adding the material likely has a conflict of interest. The rest of the material added with the blog seems neutrally worded and supported by the other reference given, so i did not remove that. I would question why the author chose to use his own lower percentages instead of those given in the source; but the math and wording of the addition are valid. Kuru (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You can see my comments here [71]. Thanks! Teitho (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Amazon.com for publication/release information

Does citing Amazon.com in order to support the publication info (date, publisher, etc.) or release info for a film or TV show violate WP:NOTADVERTISING? I cite Amazon sometimes in order to support such info, but on editor is arguing to me that this violates WP:NOTADVERTISING because Amazon is a vendor whose sole purpose is to sell things. My position is that just because Amazon is a vendor does not mean that this is our intent in citing it, since we may have a function for an Amazon item page that is distinct from Amazon's function for it. Such links, after all, are always placed in the Infobox and External links section of the articles for such companies, so that would seem to underscore the fact that different people can have different uses for a given webpage or website: The page on the website of a vendor may have a business function for that vendor, but it obviously can, in some limited instances, have encyclopedic value for Wikipedia. The same would hold true, I'd imagine, for WP:EL, which says the same thing about links included in the EL section not being purely promotional. Any thoughts? Agree or disagree? Nightscream (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please follow the instructions at the top of the page. We do not deal with hypotheticals, but in concrete reliability issues. (In particularly I would suggest that deposit libraries and the bibliographic page / credits / object cover are suitable places to find bibliographic information. Amazon's bibliographic perfection is far from inerrant) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Until something is released, it falls into the "crystal ball" category. Amazingly enough, sometimes things are not released on time, or ever. Collect (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What Amazon says about such things is perhaps notable enough that we could use them with an "According to Amazon.com..."?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Looney Tunes Show

While looking for reliable sources that first season of The Looney Tunes Show, this site was brought to my attention. My natural instincts are that this is unreliable as it appears to be a blog run by a guy named Peter Vidani who doesn't appear to have any real ties to the show beyond a simple fanbase. Although, there was a message by one of the show's writers Tony Cervone mentioning the season finale but with no mention of a source. Still I can't be for sure, so what's the verdict? Sarujo (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable, it is an unedited blog. The post purporting to be content authored by Tony Cervone cannot be reliably demonstrated for wikipedia purposes to have been written by Tony Cervone, and is published on an unedited blog, and is therefore unreliable. Thanks for your question, sorry about the delay in answering your inquiry. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Voice Chasers.com?

Does anyone have any knowledge of this site and its reliability? I wanted to use this to source voice actors. It doesn't SEEM user edited but maintained by a group. I have sent a message to ask where they source info from but thought i would ask here in hte interim if anyone has experience with it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a blog, there is no evidence on whether they check their information for accuracy, and they do ask readers to send in updates to the database. Not clear whether these updates are then checked or sourced. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the input Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oral Citations

This relates to research done by a WMF fellow on oral citations. Are oral citations now accepted on en.wiki as reliable sources? They seem to have been used in this article, maybe others as well. Cheers, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe. Have they been published in a reliable source? (It seems that the answer is "no" in this particular instance.) ElKevbo (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• My inclination is that they aren't good enough for notability, but are good enough to be used as sources. Even in academic research audio sources are acceptable: notability though is an entirely separate matter, and must be decided separately. In this case specifically I do not feel that it establishes notability, as the person interviewed has no academic authority in the field. He is simply a layperson, who has played a game of unknown notability.NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• I guess the question is whether Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hall Ball would suddenly be notable if one of the hall residents mentioned having played it in an interview. The issue isn't whether audio sources (WMF funded or not) are "enough", but whether they establish notability. I think in this case, as with Hall Ball, the answer is no. And would still be no if the interview transcript in question, proving that one interviewee claimed to have played the game, appeared in Nature. Pakaran 05:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Primary sources cannot be used to demonstrate notability. The "oral citations" in this case are primary sources, and the person being interviewed is not an academic authority on the subject. In the absence of multiple, independent, secondary reliable sources, notability is not established as per en.wp standards. Primary sources can only be used under very limited circumstances. There are two other articles incorporating "oral citations": Dappa Kali and Neeliyar Bhagavathi. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed. In general, oral citations cannot be checked for accuracy. They are therefore akin to primary, or even self published sources. Because of that, at best they might be used as statements of opinion, but not as statements of fact. That being said, the research raises an important point, what to do when languages simply do not have sufficient printed material? It could be that some day there will be a system developed for establishing fact-checking and accuracy in oral citations, which would open up a new venue of reliable sources. Until then though, I would not consider oral citations reliable.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• In the other two articles that I have mentioned, one of the interviewee is a school teacher from a village, and the other is a person who has a house in a village. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but commons user Aprabhala is not a professional or academic ethnographer; they're a commons content creator. Aprabhala's content would need to have been published through a minimally reliable ethnographic recording structure prior to being mirrored on commons. Aprabhala's respondent might be an appropriate respondent, but Aprabhala has removed any credibility of their respondent's content by uttering the audio file in an uncontrolled manner. Audio files are just as publishable as any format. Recordings of appropriate respondents could either be primary, or secondary, depending on expertise and involvement; but, you can't just dump audio on commons (an unedited wiki, produced by the public) and have it as acceptable. Also those files appear to be copyvios as the respondants (the copyright holders and authors) don't appear to have released the work from the low quality bibliographic information listed—the English transcript makes this violation of the respondent's copyright obvious. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• The respondent in Hindi does say that they do not have any issues with their work being published on Wikipedia, but that release information is neither specific enough nor in writing. So your argument holds. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• What if the person I interview has been in an academic or professional capacity with an organization and can hence give information that is not documented so far in written? Like interviewing a museum director or an on-field researcher working with tribes? Noopur28 (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest you get them to release the work (their speech) via an appropriate commons licence. It depends claim by claim. An expert of Australian Professorial standing: ie a senior end career researcher who is internationally field significant at the discipline level; yeah, off hand statements and characterisations by them in the course of an interrogative interview are relevant—particularly where no higher quality source is available. Early and Mid Career academics, of lesser standing, are more likely to make claims that are not publishable, ever. Academics are generally appointed, and promoted, on their capacity to write research findings. When academics do not write and publish research findings either their research is "black" as in government secrets, or their research is irrelevant, untrue or methodologically FRINGE.
  • On the other hand a museum curator discussing an object (or museum!) who isn't making extraordinary claims is a professional doing what they're paid to do. Similarly practicing folklorists, or community elders who are repositories of knowledge, have systems of verifying truth. Now, these don't hold up to high quality reliable sources, like academic publication; and often community truths are falsehoods. So you can say, "Elder X, who is the repository for the Y oral tradition, states that..." and attribute their expert opinion; but I would suggest not writing an article in Wikipedia's voice claiming the facts that X claims.
  • And for goodness sake: get proper copyright releases, and publish them in an edited / reviewed context before mirroring to commons. Establish a society of edited community speaking if you have to. Indicate standards. Indicate rejection and acceptance standards. Commons is not a site of first publication. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, Commons IS a site of first publication. The huge majority of documents in Commons have not been published before. Yann (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
      • First publication? For documents simply uploaded there? Mind you, why do we have so many documents there that haven't been published, is Commons being used as web storage? Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Commons may choose to host what ever it pleases: it is an open wiki with its own governance community. "Stuff I found on Commons" is not an acceptable source for wikipedia. Stuff only ever uttered on commons is [in such a vast majority of situations that it nears all situations] not acceptable source material for wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
        • And with an ethos not always shared with other Wikipedias I gather. I don't know what we do about that, nothing I guess. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Commons may need to consider that it isn't a GLAM level repository of cultural data. I'd be happy to curate within my competence audio content on a edited expert supervised common repository of first publication. But commons ain't that repository. Something to take to meta if people really feel the need to publish oral reports from oral communities. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

convenience break

• It seems that everybody, including the questioner, is ignoring the motivation of the Wikimedia paper Oral Citations. If I read this correctly, it is about non-Western languages where there is a lack of books and other types of sources that Westerners consider to be reliable. For these languages, many of Wikipedia's rules and much of the discussion above seem hopelessly culturally imperialistic. It is not that there are not reliable sources in these languages, just that the Western or "more developed" world's standards of what is reliable do not apply. That said, I don't think that oral citations will fly on the English-language Wikipedia anytime soon, with some exceptions.

Some set of standards needs to be developed - probably for each language or each country. I'd suggest setting up a separate organization in each country - the Wikimedia Foundation might help on this or even provide all the money (I'm very generous with other people's money) - but it's a different purpose than Commons and will certainly have different rules. Setting it up separately in different countries will allow local conditions to be considered - which is what the research paper was all about.

There's a surprising exception to all this. See StoryCorps, a US organization that has recorded about 40,000 interviews over 9 years which are on file with the Folkways department of the Library of Congress. They are also broadcast on NPR radio stations. There would be no problem quoting from one of these as far as I can see. This might be the exception that proves the rule: if you get a well financed, Western style organizational structure and file your results in a major Western library, then you can use oral citations! Smallbones (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be wary of the Folkways material actually, as it is all primary source stuff in an area where that sort of stuff is tricky to use. And use of oral material to get around publications issues doesn't fix those issues; indeed, it just exacerbates them. Oral accounts directly published in Wikipedia, were they in English from the start and from English-speaking, western countries, would be discounted on principle, and I think rightly so. Adding translation to this doesn't improve the material. We must accept that the English Wikipedia may not be able to cover non-English material that well, and I don't think we are forced to lower our standards of documentation simply because some other source does. Indeed, that's one of the constant sources of friction here: that people want to cite English-language materials whose standards are poor (e.g. credulous herbalism material). That said, I wouldn't be absolutely opposed to oral material, properly recorded, from widely acknowledged authorities in the field in question. That essentially amounts to us acting as the publisher of a secondary source which can then be cited. Meeting all the steps of that standard, however, is still a pretty high hurdle to jump. Mangoe (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see you question the use of the "Folkways" material - but I was a bit inaccurate. There's a Smithsonian Folkways project for music (only?) that works with the LOC, and then there is The American Folklife Center] at the LOC which works with StoryCorps. The 2 "Folks" may or may not be "completely" separate. But Folklife with StoryCorps is not about music - so likely doesn't have the same problems. They do have problems as far as accessing the bulk of the material, and the type of material they do publish seems quite unencyclopedic (I'll say "touchy-feely"). Nevertheless, I'm going to add material from their story on NPR to the article on Electrolarynx. It qualifies under our current rules for RS being on NPR, has a written version that is easily checked, and most importantly in this article, has a person talking with an electrolarynx, so that you can hear what it sounds like. Perfect for this situation.

Nor do you address the big issue here of "cultural imperialism" - though that clearly does need to be worked out with new methods or institutions and probably changes in policy as well. A long row to hoe, but we shouldn't completely write it off at this level. Smallbones (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't address cultural imperialism because it has POV problems both ways. If you're going to take the relativistic view implied by the rejection of "imperialism", then I would say that, well, we aren't these other cultures, so we don't have any obligation to conform to their standards. The non-relativist viewpoint (that one set of standards is what everyone suffers under) is really what we do have here, and frankly I'm willing to defend it as being objectively superior. And the consequences of accepting that is that there will be subjects which we cannot treat because good enough sources for them don't exist (which is to say, there may be sources, but we don't consider them adequate). If (to use the example at hand) the quality of scholarship on Indian folk religion is poor, then we may not be able to write much about it. I can tell you that we have constant headaches over herbalism, even with western material, because it's difficult to pick out anything that relates with any authority what represents actual and historic practice, and it's even worse with aryuvedic material. Mangoe (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I too am willing to defend Wikipedia's epistemology as superior to a free acceptance of oral reports. However, I am willing to accept that interviews conducted by: minimally trained sociologists or ethnographers; with expert-in-field respondents who are repositories of oral knowledge; that are published in an authoritative manner; that do no violate the respondent's copyrights; that do not "ram-raid" the oral culture to expose that culture's IP to imperialist commodification—may meet the reliable sources criteria of wikipedia as appropriate secondary sources, or occasionally as appropriate primary sources. I'm going to ask for a couple of comparisons below in a new section. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I do suggest that everybody actually read the research. I don't think it applies especially well to the English language Wikipedia. But I do think we should address the question posed by that paper. There are 200+ language versions of Wikipedia. Perhaps 50 of them have extensive book, newspaper, and magazine publishing - things we'd accept as reliable sources. So what are the 150+ left out languages supposed to do? Just translate from the 50 "published languages" - that would indeed be cultural imperialism. Say that they don't have, in their own terms, reliable sources - ditto. So do you have an answer for them? Don't think it matters? - ditto. Smallbones (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If they want to use a shitty epistemology/methodology like the Dutch encyclopaedia, then I will frown upon them and others may follow. If they want to use a less stringent epistemology/methodology like the French or Germans, then I will be less pleased with their work and others may follow. If they wish to meet the epistemic and methodological standards of the en. culture, while making use of repositories of oral knowledge, then they will need to develop a systematic method to ethically collect and copyright release oral records, and a method to utter them in the sense of publication in a mode that demonstrates standards equivalent to the demands of reliable sourcing. Even then, they'll have problems with the en. epistemology when they interview "non-experts." (I am willing to consider culturally acknowledged elders and the equivalent as experts on their culture's meaning systems and values; and, occasionally even external reality). And that means something a great deal better than dumping audio files onto Commons. It means requiring a "closed wiki" from the foundation for these purposes, and accessing enough people with certified professional capacities to authorise documents to authorise the publication of such works as reliable. The choice is of course a choice for the movement, the foundation, and the editorial communities of various encyclopaedia. I'm testing the waters below with a request regarding systemic bias areas of knowledge, using a highly Imperialist approved methodology and epistemology, publication mode, copyright status, and ethical criteria. Lowenstein in many ways represents a "best case," particularly given the academic praise of her work in review. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think for most of these languages it would help to say "You can do this if the collector has a Ph.D." If they don't have extensive book publishing, they probably don't have many Ph.D. or even universities. But individual language versions or country chapters could probably work something out. Let me put some fairly randomly chosen names on things to better illustrate, though my knowledge of details is limited. Say the speakers of Soranî or of Kirghiz want more articles on things on their own turf - a perfectly reasonable thing to do with Wikipedia. But the 5 million Sorani speakers are in a very difficult spot in the world, and perhaps they don't have their own university or even a Sorani language press. What should they do? I'd say if they could get an online depository, and a part-time editor-in-chief to review everything, they might be able to collect oral histories from "elders" or well-known leaders, even if there were only a 2-day seminar attended by a dozen Wikipedians on how to properly collect and transcribe the interviews. They wouldn't care that you'd look down on them even more than you do on the Dutch. We're pretty far afield from the usual en:Wikipedia questions here, but I think we can send the questioner off with something a little better than "we've got good rules and don't try to change them." Smallbones (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the Dutch editors have a problem (and some of those seem to come to en. because of our structure of knowing from texts). If a language community sorts something out, then I'm happy for them as long as they're part of the broader encyclopaedic project. But Foundation might like to liase with UNESCO and establish multilingual edited repositories for minor languages. The Foundation may end up becoming a useful tool in helping language communities to codify their own structures of knowledge, knowledge officialdom, publication, etc... and that would then become the Kirghiz or Soranî reliable publication system. Boot strapping a textual revolution for a language community is important work... past attempts (I'm mainly aware of the Soviet "Own language" attempts, during periods of less Great Russian chauvanism) have had mixed results. The minimal criterion, even if it doesn't meet our criterion, is permanence (as opposed to ephemerality), invariability (ie: editioning, versioning), utterance (multiple geographical site availability), identity of work, identity of publishing/utterance, identity of authorial authority. These are important things for an encyclopaedia as they're bound up in what a "text" is officially, and encyclopaedias are textual objects (even if the form of textuality is braille or audio files, or video). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of Australian professionally recorded and curated Oral History for Australian economic and social history articles

Wotcher. Wendy Lowenstein was an oral historian of Australian working class people. In particular there are three works which I want to use to expand articles, and to create a new article 1970s-1990s systematic attacks on the Australian working class by capitalism. Oral histories are needed as Australian working class people don't speak for themselves through a reliably sourced literature, and the Imperialist academic literatures of Industrial Relations and Labour History submerge the authentic proletarian voice and knowledge of the people. Subsequently I want to use Lowenstein recordings held at the National Library Australia to advance these articles. Some of Lowenstein's books were originally self-published, then published commercially after success. Others were published by reputable class-warfare presses with a history of not doctoring the contents of their publication or demanding a political line. Lowenstein herself has been praised for her capacity to find, uncover, curate, select and present representative oral history samples from Australia's hidden and downtrodden proletarian experiences.

• Wendy Lowenstein & Tom Hills Under the hook : Melbourne waterside workers remember working lives and class war, 1900-1980 Prahran, Vic. : Melbourne Bookworkers in association with the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, 1982.
  • http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/218626?lookfor=Under%20the%20Hook&offset=1&max=84
  • Widely reviewed in the academic literature
  • For MUA, Dockworkers, Hungry Mile, the scab union (to be written), Dog Collar Act, class warfare, Australian ruling class, etc.
  • The primary interviewees are late career or post retirement expert dockworkers.
• Wendy Lowenstein Weevils in the flour : an oral record of the 1930s depression in Australia South Yarra, Vic. : Hyland House, 1978.
  • http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/69032?lookfor=weevils%20in%20the%20flour&offset=1&max=1101
  • And various other presses; widely reviewed etc.
  • For Great Depression in Australia, rabbitoh, class warfare, backyard abortion, the Australian communist eviction struggles, Australian petits-bourgeois during the Great Depression
  • Interviewees vary in professional capacity to speak, but trend between mere workers, and professionals reflecting on professional experience (Doctors, Communist Party activists, Labor Ministers, Union Leaders, late career professional farmers, etc.)
• Wendy Lowenstein Weevils at work : what's happening to work in Australia : an oral record Annandale, N.S.W. : Catalyst Press, 1997.
  • http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/15108?lookfor=weevils%20at%20work&offset=1&max=10
  • For 1970s-1990s systematic attacks on the Australian working class by capitalism and other more recent class war articles. Also possibly for other "life under wartime in Australia" articles on more specific incidents and underground knowledges. In particular, Michelle and Marcus's stories (60-66) on The Commonwealth Employment Service's brutalisation of the unemployed in the 1980s and 1990s. Michelle is a published author in unemployment studies in Australia and Marcus is a submitter to Parliamentary inquiries on unemployment and Australian work and economic structure.

Could other editors please comment on the reliability of these oral records being used. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume that the article oral history would describe Lowenstein's work. From your description, her books would be as reliable as other oral histories. The problem I see is that the histories would be primary sources. There is also the likelihood that events from years ago may not be recorded properly. These recordings are source material that writers could use to help write this neglected history, but until they do that I do not see that we could use them. However as primary sources they could be used to add color to articles. "Neutrality" is also an issue, because articles must provide more weight to mainstream opinion. TFD (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Lowenstein's work is as described at that article. Lowenstein's books are primarily a series of tightly edited interview transcripts, with titles added by Lowenstein. Sometimes the interviews are only the respondent, occasionally with Lowenstein's response. Lowenstein makes no or little effort to analyse respondent reports with her own historical narratives; outside of the introduction and occasional connecting segments of text. Some of Lowenstein's respondents are arguably EXPERT for professional practices in the past. Most respondents are not arguably EXPERT. The books are dominated by respondent texts; rather than the more analytical oral history where the analysis predominates, and respondents are only summarised or quoted to evidence a social science/humanities claim regarding the oral testimony. Lowenstein makes no explicit evaluation of the truth-value of the respondent's works, other than through selection and edited presentation. Again thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A non-trivial query indeed. The original recordings are certainly "primary sources" while the published works are "secondary sources" by the idiosyncratic Wikipedia definition - the problem in any case is that any given oral history pretty much stands on its own as opinion of the person being interviewed. Best use would probaly require treating any given interview as an example of one person's experience, and not trying to extrapolate much further than that. "Mainstream opinion" is thus a bit of a straw issue - as long as the individual quotes were not used to make general statements there should be no problem on that account. Is this what the quey was about? Wikiversity would possibly be a better venue for an article if one wishes to draw conclusions from disparate single interviews where the conclusions were not explicitly drawn by another author. Collect (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, if I'm going to conduct original historical research, I'm going to try to publish it myself through the scholarly publications systems :). But when I'm bludging and I've got Lowenstein beside me, does Lowenstein enact enough professional conduct to make these primary sources secondary; to make these involved sources third party sources? Does Lowenstein as a professional conducting this research transform the interviews into material suitable for wikipedia's notability and/or reliability guides? The other issue of using them as "illustrations" rather than proof is also interesting. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong in using them, just be careful to not overreach. I am unsure if Imperialist academic literatures of Industrial Relations and Labour History submerge the authentic proletarian voice and knowledge of the people is entirely accurate though Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The main value of this sort of research in labour history, it seems to me, is to provide impressions and analyses of those really close to the events. So an interview might yield "at this point morale was still really high", rather than "the strike was formally ended on 14th February". Interviewees may, for example, get one strike muddled with another, while still having an overall view of how the movement developed. Therefore this kind of research often won't yield good fact-by-fact info of the kind we love in Wikipedia. Best solution is to attribute. "According to an interviewee of Wendy Lowenstein...". HTH. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Copyright question: who owns the copyright in an orally delivered statement not read from a written or other tangibly fixed format? When it's recorded, there's obviously copyright in the recording, but who owna it? The recorder or the speaker? DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• No. Oral citations are Original Research by definition.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we use a source that tells us 'in effect' what a newspaper said?

Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've reverted "London Times described Khadilkar as a most dangerous extremist, and his play Keechak-Wadh (??????) a cleverly veiled incitement to murder European officials" but has been replaced with: [72] "The Encyclopaedia mentions that "the London Times, in an eloquent outburst against this play, said in effect, Khadilkar is a most dangerous extremist, and Kichak Vadha is a cleverly veiled incitement to murder the European officials. It agrees with this description of the play admitting that "the article had correctly judged the obvious message of the play". The play was subsequently banned." from [73]. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't got the The Times article, but the two views could be compatible. I'm guessing that the review in The Times said that the play was well written and of high quality, but also highly seditious. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Which did you read? The Times or the Encyclopaedia? Cite and summarise the one that you read. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

My public library subscribes to the Times archive, so I have been able to find and read the original article from 18 January 1910. The Times does not use the language and phrases ascribed to it in the comments above. The correspondent describes the play as a "pernicious influence", and outlines the plot in detail. Noting that it is an allegory, s/he explains how the play supports the "Extremists", who believe that "violent methods" will be necessary when the constitutional measures favoured by the "Moderates" have been shown to be ineffective. The correspondent regrets that the authorities cannot prohibit or prosecute the play, since this would "multiply a thousandfold" sales of the text, and concludes that "a theory evolved in the West may not fit in with the facts in the East, and it is more important to protect the lives of the officials than to give unfettered license to Extremist publicists". Unless the Times published another article attacking the play, then it did not use the language cited, though such an assessment could be read between the lines of the article. If anyone else wants to read the article, I have posted a copy online.[74] RolandR (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cite the Encyclopaedia, characterise the Encyclopaedia's analysis of the meaning of the Times against the Encyclopaedia article author's name. Those quotes appear to be an indicator of voice, but not of verbatim, summary of the Times article. It may be worth citing and quoting elements of the Times article. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

no, I would use only the actual article, unless you want to add the Encyclopedia one as its comment on the article. "Read between the lines" and "in effect" mean, "this is not what was said, but what I think was meant". It is an interpretation of the Times, and of no authority as against the original. The London Times said what the London Times said. It did not say he was a dangerous extremist, and he cannot be described as such on the Times's authority. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's right. As I note above (twice), the Times does not say what was claimed. Since we know that the source cited misrepresents the Times, we should not regard it as reliable, and should omit it and its interpretation. RolandR (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(od)The key is "in effect", the Encyclopaedia is summarising the article, the article is quoted by Chirol[75], what everyone here seem to be doing is wp:OR, from a primary source. The Times article claims that there is evidence of incitement in form of assassinations, the article calls the playwright an "extremist publicist". My quote reads "the London Times, in an eloquent outburst against this play, said in effect, Khadilkar is a most dangerous extremist, and Kichak Vadha is a cleverly veiled incitement to murder the European officials." It says that there should be one set of laws in Britain and another in India... Gosh are we going to look at original sources to judge whether a source is reliable? Especially when we are dealing with interpretation and not objective facts such as dates etc. Update: The Encyclopaedic Dictionary(2007) is not cited as it has been flagged, it is the Encyclopaedia of Indian literature (1987) which has been cited by me. Note: Looks like Dossal et al[76] have made a factual error in that they inform that the article's by-line is "A political correspondence", the image provided seems to show that the by-line is "From a correspondent", would you declare Dossal an unreliable source? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not "original research" to quote an archived newspaper article. In this case, we can see that the encyclopaedia misquotes the Times, and tendentiously interprets the article. We should therefore not use it as reliable a source for the content or meaning of the Times article which, I repeat, did not state what it is alleged to have stated. RolandR (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"You see", it is you against a multi-volume work. Do you "see" my point? We can only edit using reliable sources. What is the basis to call The Encyclopaedia tendentious? Interpreting primary sources is bad practice. Do you mean The Encyclopaedia is a fringe source, what is your evidence? You should cite a reliable source that says The Encyclopaedia depicts a fringe view. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I quote wp:rs "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves..." (emphasis mine) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we've established here that the Encyclopaedia here has established for itself a reputation for inaccuracy! Gad, this has turned into another case for why "verifiability, not truth" is a bad way to state the matter. We don't have to use the Encyclopaedia text when it is patently incorrect, and it's particularly a problem to use it in order to misrepresent what the Times said. Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A few get together and trash an encyclopaedia? Kangaroo court? Apart from a clear violation of a well-established Wikipedia policy. No interpretation of primary sources", See {{primary sources}}, primary sources = original research Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

But I am not interpreting what the Times said, I am reading and quoting it. The Encyclopaedia quotes it as stating something it does not state, and ascribes words to it that it does not use. It is emphatically not original research to state that the Encyclopaedia is wrong here, and thus unreliable. It would indeed be original research for me to interpret the Times article as bearing a meaning beyond the actual words it uses; but I am not doing this. If an ancyclopaedia states that the sun is green, it is not original research to say "No it's not, go out and look at it". Similarly here, it is perfectly correct, and indeed required by Wikipedia's rules, to point out that the Times does not say what has been ascribed to it. It would be a breach of policy to use the encyclopaedia as a source for the Times own words and views, when we can see that this is incorrect. RolandR (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What WP:NOR actually says is that we cannot put our own research into the text, not that we cannot evaluate sources rationally. There is never an obligation to put manifest error into the text. Period. Mangoe (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(od)The Encyclopaedia is not quoting Times verbatim, it is summarising the Times article, why is this so difficult to understand, the Encyclopaedia states and I quote "...Times said in effect...", so it is your opinion against an encyclopaedia's summary? Take your pick. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually for the play the London Times is a secondary source and quite quotable, whereas the London Times for itself is a primary source. IMO the London Times article can be used in writing about the play. It is a good source. Please go ahead, I can safely say that there isn't anything in the article that would contradict the summary. In the mean time please help find reliable sources so that the fact refimprove tag can be removed.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. See this summary of when newspaper stories are likely to be secondary. For Wikipedia's purposes, a 100-year-old review of a play is likely (but not guaranteed) to be a mixed source that contains both primary and secondary material, or perhaps a largely primary source. (It is also an WP:Independent source and a non-self-published source, but those characteristics have nothing to do with whether it's a primary or secondary source.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Op-Ed used for statements of fact II.

I removed the WP:NEO Pakistanophobia from this article as it appears to not exist. There are no hits for the term on Google books for instance. TopGun restored it and sourced it to two Op-Eds. Are these Op-Eds reliable for this [77]? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Instructions at the top of this page: follow them. In particular a full citation (and possibly also links) of the works in question, and a link to any talk page discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot links to the sources. First Second Talk page Darkness Shines (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We also ask for citations. Why? Because I can read in a citation more information than I can in an anonymous link name. Please give the Op-ed author, the op-ed title, the newspaper name, the year, etc... Fifelfoo (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to be funny? You really can't click on a link? Jerral, A. R. (December 06, 2011). "Americas Pakistan phobia". The Nation. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); "Pakistan-phobia... By Dr. Asad". Pak Tribune. 20 December, 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) But there you go. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be funny. Your discourtesy and failure to follow the instructions at the top of the page cost each RS/N editor who inquires into your RS/N query time. Check the page: we aren't here to clean up after you, we offer a voluntary service investigating reliability. Part of that is that you step up and meet our needs. In particular we have a large number of RS/N editors who are capable of reading appropriate citations, and appropriate citations mean that they don't need to spend up to 15 minutes (worse case scenario I've personally experienced) hunting through a crappy website or newspaper to determine what the object of inquiry actually is. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I was not being discourteous, it is as easy to click on a link to the articles in question as to click on a link from a citation. I would not post a link which goes to nowhere for gods sake. But if you feel berating me is easier than looking at the sources go ahead, and we can leave a letter to the editor and an Op-Ed to be used as sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Calm down you two! It's a perfectly reasonable misunderstanding. Rich Farmbrough, 23:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

I apologise for becoming officious with you Darkness Shines; I'm sorry for the irritation and upset that my behaviour caused. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for being cranky, call it a bad hair day. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• AR Jerral's byline claims he is "a retired brigadier and political analyst." Innovative social science research such as the coining of new technical and theoretical terms does not occur in newspaper columns. The emergence of widespread new popular conceptions of politics does not occur in singular Op-ed columns. Jerral's Op-ed is not sufficient for notability; it may be marginally reliable if scholarly accounts exist of this "term". Jerral's claim to be a political analyst does not substantiate any EXPERT argument here: experts publish in peer-reviewed journals. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Dr Asad Khizar Malik's doctorate is not specified in their letter to the editor. The neologism does not appear in text produced by Dr Malik, but in text produced by the newspaper's sub-editors. Newspaper sub-editors are not social scientists publishing in an appropriate forum, nor are they key indicators of the widespread popular use of a new word as a major conception of politics. Further: letters to the editor from persons claiming to possess a doctorate (or forfend: be a medical practitioner of a certain occupation and grade) are not reliable for the existence or content of a social science term nor for the existence or content of a widespread popular conception of politics. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So that would be a no then? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No for both. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor

Is this a good source for the claim in LMFAO (group)? Come to that the Wall Street Journal gossip column actually misrepresents the TMZ (who are the source I was thinking of removing to start with) video. Should we even bother with trivia like this? Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

• Please follow the instructions at the top of the page, particularly the one about providing a citation. The citation presents RS/N editors with sufficient orienting information to begin their considerations. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In February 2010, SkyBlu was involved in an altercation with politician Mitt Romney on an airplane during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. The rapper stated that Romney attacked him from behind, putting a "vulcan grip" on his neck. SkyBlu was arrested by Canadian authorities as a result of the altercation but released when Romney refused to press charges and caught a later flight. The altercation was mentioned in a video showing SkyBlu being escorted off the aircraft by authorities where SkyBlu and RedFoo give an account of the incident.

The CSM citation isn't any good for the reality of what did or did not happen. That's a blog, that at that time was frequently humor/gossip with little or no effort to verify facts. I guess it's a good source for the fact that the guy made those claims -- but there's little doubt that he made those claims. Trivia like that doesn't belong in an article on Mitt Romney, but that probablu won't stop it.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations

This is the full paragraph. Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

• WSJ represents Sky Blu as bringing up the "Vulcan" phrase, where it's actually Red Foo. Looks entirely derived from TMZ.
• TMZ is generally frowned upon
• CSM only cites TMZ
• NY Daily News is, I think, not generally considered a RS. It too cites TMZ as the source for Sky Blu being the "assailant".

Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

OK given that this is all sourced to TMZ and the secondary sources are unreliable I pulled it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

TVaholic

Here's another one, is it reliable? Sarujo (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No; unedited blog. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Using the abstract or full body of an article

Hello I’d like to ask for a favor to the board, it’s a simple question. Some days ago I observed that in the Potato article it says three times that "the cultivated potato was originated in Peru" which I consider breaks the neutrality of the article because for other sources I’ve presented including the ones used to back that claim it is also considered that the area covers a region of western Bolivia. [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]

Consulting with one of the editors this source was presented to me, which undoubtedly is a reliable source but it seems we reached a bottleneck with the way we interpret this source, the abstract of the source says:

• Our analyses are consistent with a hypothesis of a “northern” (Peru) and “southern” (Bolivia and Argentina) cladistic split for members of the S. brevicaule complex, and with the need for considerable reduction of species in the complex. In contrast to all prior hypotheses, our data support a monophyletic origin of the landrace cultivars from the northern component of this complex in Peru, rather than from multiple independent origins from various northern and southern members.

But later in the body of the article I found, what I consider a clarification regarding the actual frontiers of the area defined:

• The topology of the entire data set is in concordance with the morphological (21), RAPD, and RFLP results (22) in defining a northern (species from Peru, together with S. achacachense from northern Bolivia) and southern (species from Bolivia and northern Argentina) clade of the S. brevicaule complex. This geographic split does not exactly follow country borders, but very closely so. For example, the northern clade contains S. achacachense PI 558032 from the department of La Paz, Bolivia bordering Peru, and the southern clade contains S. leptophyes PI 458378 from the department of Puno bordering Bolivia.

My friend Marshal dismisses my observation saying that an abstract cannot contradict the article so the only information valid is the one in the abstract, while for me I don’t think it’d be contradicting itself but that clarification would indicate that the area where these scientists traced the origin isn’t exactly following the national borders and covers a portion of the Bolivian territory as well. That’s why I bring the question to this board hoping someone would analyze the source and provide us a more experienced opinion on the matter.

Additionally if it’s possible I’d greatly appreciate if someone could determine if the sources I presented are effectively outdated or not.

The source is A single domestication for potato based on multilocus amplified fragment length polymorphism genotyping by David M. Spooner*, Karen McLean, Gavin Ramsay, Robbie Waugh, and Glenn J. Bryan, PNAS 2005 [84]. The discussion and other sources cited can be fully read here and here. Any advice, explanation or interpretation would be very welcomed, thank you in advance. Teberald (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• The source is the article, not the abstract. Abstracts are not appropriate to read or cite from, when an article is available. Even if the article is unavailable to you, it is inappropriate to cite the abstract. It is certainly inappropriate to cite a source without having read it in full and digested the variety of statements within it. So no, don't cite the claim from the abstract, cite the claim from the body of the article having read and considered the full article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quickness of your response and would you consider the first sources I used are outdated or are they still valid? I mean these ones [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] Teberald (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please supply full citations for the sources you want us to look at. See the top of the page, or a style guide for academic writing, for how to format a full citation. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, when you use a paper as a source for the author's opinion, it becomes a primary source and you need to establish the degree of acceptance of those opinions. Generally papers are good secondary sources for opinions of earlier writers. For example, a paper will say, "While most writers believe x, I shall argue y." While we can use the paper as a source that most writers believe x, we do not know what weight, if any, should be given to y. See WP:MEDRS which explains the proper use of sources in medical-related articles. TFD (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry using the templates they'd be:

• Hawkes, John (1987). "The evolution of cultivated potatoes and their tuber-bearing wild relatives". Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 36 (1): 189–208. doi:10.1007/BF01986960.
• Miller, Joseph; Spooner, David (1999). "Collapse of species boundaries in the wild potato Solanum brevicaule complex (Solanaceae, S. sect. Petota): molecular data" (PDF). Plant Systematics adn Evolution. 214: 103–130.
• Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation, Board on Science and Technology for International Development, National Research Council (1989). Lost Crops of the Incas: Little-Known Plants of the Andes with Promise for Worldwide Cultivation. Washington D.C. United States: The National Academies Press. ISBN 10: 0-309-07461-4. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Francis, John Michael (2006). Iberia and the Americas: culture, politics, and history : a multidisciplinary encyclopedia, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781851094219.
• International Potato Center. "Potato".
• Luján Claure, Lauro (1996). "Historia de la Papa" (PDF). Revista Papa, Órgano Informativo de la Federación Colombiana de Productores de Papa, FEDEPAPA (16).

I have some doubts about the last one, it's in Spanish but says it was first published in the journal "Potato, Informative Organ of the Colombian Federation of Potato Producers FEDEPAPA" just in case.

And thank you also TFD for the link it was quite useful to help me to give the journal articles a proper use.Teberald (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Hello. I would just like to point out that I find Fifelfoo's claim awkward ("Abstracts are not appropriate to read or cite from"). Abstracts are part of the article (a summary, and generally also used as the introduction). Citation guidelines exist for referencing abstracts, and it's certainly not inappropriate in academia to reference abstracts.

Teberald's question, which is quite clear after reading his message, is for someone to provide an analysis of the source itself. Given the question, the responses provided so far do anything but answer it (Potatoes are not medicine; well, not conventionally).

My view on the matter is that the information found within the body of the article, when read along with the abstract (you're supposed to read them; it's not just a randomly filled space), clarifies the position that potatoes originate in southern Peru. Added that, after finally being able to access the article, I found the following quote:

• Page 5: "A 'single' origin is here supported to mean an origin from a single species, or its progenitor (S. bukasovii), in the broad area of southern Peru."

The book Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology (Academic Press, 2009), a secondary source, has also presented the findings of this article.

I hope this helps. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know what institutional or disciplinary culture you come from, but from a humanities perspective, you are suggesting something both ludicrous and obscene. We don't cite summaries of texts we've read, and the divergence of the abstract form from the actual content is often quite remarkable due to constraints, non-specialist target audiences, and the short form. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it surprising that you honestly believe that it is "ludicrous and obscene" to cite or read abstracts (unless you are recanting your claim about "reading" abstracts?). The purpose of citation is to bring forth the information used during the research process, either as a direct citation within the text or in the bibliography. If the abstract was used during the research process, it should be mentioned. As long as the information is backed up by stronger material, no need exists as to why anyone should fear citing abstracts.

I also do not appreciate you questioning my credentials. In any case, I assume that the following sources must have only read the abstract as well?

• Jai Gopal and S. M. Paul Khurana, Handbook of potato production, improvement, and postharvest management (Psychology Press, 2006), page 7: "Spooner et al. (2005) supported a single origin of potato from a wild species progenitor in the S. brevicaule complex in southern Peru."
• John Reader, Potato: a history of the propitious esculent (Yale University Press, 2009), page 25: "In particular, DNA sequencing has enabled a team led by research botanist David Spooner to trace the origin of all modern potato varieties to a group of about twenty morphologically similar wild species, known as the Solanum brevicaule complex, grown by farmers in Peru more than 7,000 years ago."
• Alison Krsgel and Alison Krögel, Food, power, and resistance in the Andes (Lexington Books, 2011), page 34: "Recent genetic analyses of wild species of the potato point to a single point of origin for the tuber's cultivation to the north of Lake Titicaca, approximately seven thousand years ago. The research botanist David Spooner argues that all modern-day varieties originated from a widl species known as Solanum brevicaule complex, thus contesting the multiple-origins argument."

I believe these sources are recent and secondary enough to certify the origin of the potato's domestication in southern Peru. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion primarily concerning the use of abstracts

Abstracts are certainly NOT part of the article, and they are absolutely useless as sources. Their only function is to give potential readers a crude idea of what the article is about so that they can decide whether to read it or not. Data and conclusions in abstracts very often does not reliable reflect the content of the article. and often flat-out contradicts it. That is because they are often not updated properly as the content of the article is revised, and therefore contain information from previous drafts of the article that has since been rewritten or corrected. I've translated hundreds of scientific articles and prepared them for publication. I almost always throw out the abstract provided by the authors and write my own version by cutting and pasting from the article itself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This exact question was recently discussed in great detail here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_100#Using_sources_which_one_hasn.27t_actually_read. It's quite long, but it looks to me like consensus is that an abstract is not quite the same as the paper itself, but is still a scientific work written by the author, so citable. --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the input there was from people who are not familiar with the scientific publishing process. Abstracts are NOT part of the article, they are not peer-reviewed, they are often written by someone else than the author (I've written hundreds), and they often do not accurately reflect the content of the article. They are intended SOLELY for the purpose of helping the potential reader decide whether the article is worth reading, and using them for any other purpose cannot be justified in any way whatsoever. They absolutely are not intended to be a citable source of scientific information, and are thus completely useless as reliable sources on WP. Consensus cannot trump WP:RS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't read all of the responses after my last post, but it has been kindly brought to my attention (from Teberald) that there might be a "problem" between me and Fifelfoo. However, just as I wrote on Talk:Potato, I know Fifelfoo from past discussions and I also know that he is an expert regarding source citations. Yes, I disagree with him regarding the abstracts, but that's all. I have always valued Fifelfoo's advice, and I am not angry with him (or anyone at the board) by that matter. I appreciate the work done here by the RS/N, and all other noticeboards, because they play one of the most important roles in the development of the project. Again, I have no problem with Fifelfoo, and I apologize if my prior statements made anyone else think a problem existed. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sometimes heat is a waste product from work between productive editors, its okay, and its okay to differ. Given I "bought" in on the issue of abstracts, I'll be answering the more substantive question now that there's citations available. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've read the responses from Dominus, all I can state is that I am disappointed he has such a terrible perspective on abstracts. However, he certainly is right on stating that most abstracts tend to be "bad", but that's just because most people don't know how to write them (and they should, considering it's what most people end up reading anyway). For example, not to pick on Dominus, but "cutting and pasting" is one of the worst ways to write an abstract. I have met many people who do that. The purpose of the abstract is to summarize the information from the article, not simply to cut and paste important points.

The key assumption here is that the abstract is indeed a summary. (From my perspective) It is perfectly correct to cite an abstract, but I'll only concede that it's risky as the information within the body of the article may contradict it. If the information within the abstract is indeed contradicted, then that makes the abstract unreliable. However, that is the necessary premise for the unreliability. Abstracts should not simply be dismissed as "un-citable" for no good reason. And, as I wrote before, people should not be discouraged from citing all places where they got their information (even if it came from an abstract).

In this case, the Spooner (2005) article's abstract is validated not only by his own statement within the article (Page 5), but also from the three sources I have presented (all which interpret Spooner in the same manner). It also shows that Spooner's research has been notable, and has been positively received by the scientific community (I haven't found anyone which contradicts him; added that David Spooner seems to be a notable figure in his field of research). Given the information, it is not necessary to cite the abstract; but if that was all there was cite, then there would be nothing wrong with it.

And, again, this is just my view on the subject (well, not just my view, my colleagues would agree with me; but you get the point). I understand that discrepancy exists as to how abstracts should be used. This is not the first time I have heard that abstracts should not be cited, so Fifelfoo's and Dominus' position is not random (I don't know what the general academic consensus is on them, or if there even is one). Ultimately, the important point is that of using the most reliable information when conducting research. If one cites the abstract, one runs the risk of being fooled into wrong information (which another editor/researcher can dismiss with better sources). Best Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of an abstract is most definitely NOT to "to summarize the information from the article", but to give the potential reader of the article a rough idea of whether the article is pertinent to their interests. The METHOD by which it does this is summarizing the information from the article. Using the abstract for a purpose for which it was not intended cannot be justified. You yourself wrote that "most abstracts tend to be bad", and that "it's risky as the information within the body of the article may contradict it", and you imply that they have to be verified by comparison to the article itself. This is an excellent argument for NEVER using abstracts as sources, even if they are "all there was cite".

As for the consensus of the scientific and academic community, it's unaminous: Abstracts are compeltely worthless as citable sources for scientific or scholarly information. I've never encountered a scientist, editor or reviewer who believes otherwise, and I have never seen an abstract cited in all of my 29 years in academic publishing, at least in my field, and doubt that such a cite would pass peer review. As for your last sentence, it is against WP policy to shift the burden of providing a reliable source from the person providing the source to the persons who find it unreliable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Anent use of abstracts, I saw one used virtually in toto in an article - and this was defended as normal practice on Wikipedia. [91] and the abstract was presumably of the exact type of article for which such abstracts here appear to be not properly used as sources. Collect (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The only guideline I can find is at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Links to sources which states "However, you may provide the DOI, ISBN, or another uniform identifier, if available. If the publisher offers a link to the source or its abstract that does not require a payment or a third party's login for access, you may provide the URL for that link." It is rather vague, but I interpret that as abstracts may be linked by use of an identifier: ArXiv, ASIN, Bibcode, doi, JFM, JStor, MR, PMID or the like. Abstracts should never be linked to the title as the source (and neither should reviews of the source, which I see fairly often). Note that the use of identifiers is considered "not important to cite a database such as ProQuest, EbscoHost, or JStor..." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This may be getting a little beyond the point, and perhaps we (as in the WP community) need to come to a consensus specifically on the usage of abstracts. By which I mean, to actually have a guideline, like WP:ABSTRACT or something of that sort.

You keep telling me that abstracts are not summaries, but sources support my position:

• Abstract (summary) article: "An abstract is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject or discipline"
• Google Books ([92]): 10,600 hits of "abstract is a summary".
• Google Books ([93]): 4 hits of "abstract is not a summary".

Abstracts don't have to be verified by the article's body, but they should whenever possible. That's what I meant.

Given that citation guidelines exist for abstract ([94]), it serves to demonstrate that abstract citations do happen and are not prohibited by the academic community.

That you haven't encountered someone (other than myself, apparently) that certifies the usage of abstracts really weakens your argument about the scientific community. I have met both kinds of opinions in the past, and they are both valid conclusions given their premises. Those of us who advocate abstract citation are not doing it to encourage people not to read an article, but rather to encourage people to provide evidence for the material they have researched. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

An abstract should be an accurate summary. Experience shows that oftimes problems do exist. I recall being given an "Executive Summary" for a contract which was, simply put, a lie. Wikipedia does, indeed, need a strong position on when abstracts can be used, for what purpose they can be used, and what amount of the abstract should be allowed as a quote rather than going to the actual article. Collect (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the common problem I find is that the "concept" often does not meet "reality". However, given the situation, should a consensus be reached where abstracts are discarded as unreliable? What about those abstracts (like the one from David Spooner) that are accurate? What if only the abstract is available for citation? The guideline would have to be as comprehensive as possible. However, I think that we can all agree that one is absolutely needed (And "WP:ABSTRACT" linking to "WP:CONCEPT" should be changed towards "WP:ABSTRACT" becoming its own page and guideline).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Style guides may give guidance on how to cite an abstract, but it is up to us to determine whether an abstract meets our verifiability policy. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As Fifeloo, Collect and myself have pointed out, and you yourself admit, abstracts cannot be assumed to be accurate summaries of the actual article. They often contain significantly divergent information, usually left over from early drafts of the article, or innacuracies because of the fact that they are condensed.

The Purdue writing lab "guidelines" you link to are not authoritative except for "homework" purposes, at the discretion of the instructor. I doubt whether any professor at Purdue would allow the sources listed on the page for a serious undergraduate thesis. As such, they are irrelevant for our purposes.

Also, you've painted yourself into a corner. The only way you could know that the Spooner abstract is accurate is because you have verified it against the actual article. On WP, a reliable source is need to verify any information. If the source itself needs to be verified, it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. This may need to be clarified in WP:IRS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a separate guideline: a section in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources will do nicely. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I have not admitted that abstracts are not to be assumed as reliable. In fact, my argument is that given the definition of what an abstract is (a summary, as verified by the 10,600 hits in GoogleBooks), we should assume that they are reliable unless proven to the contrary.

My usage of links is to provide evidence for my position; however, it seems easier for you to complain about them than to provide something other than your opinion into the discussion.

I am not in a corner. If you read my prior posts, you will see that four independent sources verify the information from the Spooner abstract. Given Spooner's notability, I would have used the abstract alone for citation (him and his team being credited). However, the only reason any check took place in the first place was because the information was challenged by another user (my friend Teberald).

Ultimately, on the principle of WP:AGF, and given the correct definition of an abstract, my conclusion is that abstracts should be assumed as reliable until proven otherwise. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

AGF should only be applied to the motivations of Wikipedia editors, not to authors of sources. It's a cultural norm for Wikipedia editors intended to foster community and cooperation among a large and diverse group of people and as such it's a completely inappropriate to apply it a priori to other contexts. ElKevbo (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, as you should have learned in grade school, when you assume, you make an "ASS" of "U" and "ME'. Your assumptions are invalid and cannot be defended. Your "dictionary work" is completely irrelevant, as the question at hand is not WHAT an abstract is, but WHAT PURPOSE it serves, and the purposes it serves eliminates it as a reliable source here on WP.

As for AGF, it doesn't have anything to do at all here. AGF extends only to other editors here on WP. It does not extend to sources or their authors or anyone else. In fact, as far a sources go, the rule to follow is "guilty until proven innocent". Spooner's notability is completely irrelevant here. Anyway, nobody has made an assumption of bad faith here against anyone, so the point is moot.

You have now been told by Terebald, Fifeloo, Collect and myself that abstracts are not reliable sources. You have failed to present any valid justification for your dissent. Time to drop the WP:STICK. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand what strains your mind, but I suggest you calm down. My assumptions are not invalid, and your aggressive comments will not scare me into thinking otherwise. No real academic consensus exists on the part of abstract usage (at least no evidence from your part has been provided up to now). What you diminish as "dictionary work" is at least verifiable, whereas your opinions are nothing more than that.

WP:AGF has plenty to do in this discussion of reliability. If an editor tells me that all he has found to verify his position is the abstract of an article, and the article itself is unavailable for whatever reason, then I shall assume that his edit is being done in good faith and will not argue against him citing the abstract.

Finally, drawing out random user names will not validate your position. Teberald came here with a series of questions (only one being partially answered up to now), and Collect has been kindly guiding the discussion on the right path. Fifelfoo stated his position and got on with his life. We agreed to disagree on the abstract, and that was that. You're the one here that is (for whatever reason) venting your anger on a simple discussion regarding abstracts (unecessarily using obscene language and "scream" capital letters).

So, take your own advice and drop the stick which you have carried into the discussion. Life isn't a battlefield. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

From past discussions on this noticeboard I believe there is no consensus about whether abstracts can be used. In my opinion abstracts are often at least as carefully written as articles, and by the same authors. In such cases, picking one random sentence from the body of an article might actually be less likely to give a good context-insensitive summary than citing the compressed abstract. I guess in other cases, abstracts are sometimes just blurbs, perhaps not even written by the original authors. So it is probably not possible to have a single rule.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion primarily concerning the reliability of sources relating to Potato speciation and geographic origin

It would help if separate to discussing the role of abstracts, if editors critiqued the sources given in the discussions above regarding the potato, so as to assist article editors in understanding the reliability of various sources and the weight to assign claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Spooner article is definitely reliable. Abstract is definitely not. Hawkes is a little old, but probably reliable unless contradicted by a more recent source using more advanced molecular techniques. Judging from the titles and publishers, I would be reluctant to use Ad hoc, Francis, IPC and Lujan as relaible sources on the origin of the potato. Though these sources may discuss the topic, that is not their primary focus or aim, and they'd only be repeating information that had been published elsewhere in more specialized literature, without much critical evaluation or vigilance on the part of the authors, editors or reviewers. Citing them would be like citing information from the Introduction section of a scientific paper- not a good idea, especially if it contradicts more specialist work. I would be intersted in what sources they use, though. It would be nice to find a recent review article. That would be the ideal source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hawkes (1987) is contradicted by Spooner et al. (2005). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Then go with Spooner. Molecular biology methods in 2005 were WAY more advanced than in 1987. Spooner does not contradict Hawkes, as far as geography is concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read the Spooner 2005 paper, which is clearly the most reliable of the sources provided. The conclusion is: "Because 21 of the 22 examined accessions of cultigens are in Grade A (Peru and immediately adjacent northwestern Bolivia), it suggests that they originated from populations in this geographic area." This is pretty much consistent with Hawkes hypothesis that the potato was domesticated somewhere "around Lake Titicaca on the border of Peru and Bolivia", although I get the impression that Spooner is thinking of a slightly larger area that extends further into Peru and Bolivia than just the immediate Lake Titicaca area. In either case, both Hawkes or Spooner say that the area in question extends on both sides of the present-day border. The best phrasing would therefore be that "the potato was domesticated near what is now the border of Peru and Bolivia" or "...in what is today the highlands of Peru and Bolivia". This agrees with both Hawkes and Spooner. It's also is consistent with the Simmonds, Iberia and IPC sources, as well. Saying that the potato was domesticated (only) in Peru or (only) in Bolivia is not supported by any reliable source.

To be very clear, the statement that "The Peru-Bolivia border seems to have been the closest they got until Spooner's research which specifically places the origin in southern Peru" is not supported by or consitent with the Spooner article, and is OR/SYNTH, and an abuse of the source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not reading the source correctly. First, Spooner mentions that the cultigens originate from the "geographic area" of Grade A. Then, Spooner specifically mentions which area. Moreover, this understanding is validated by several other sources. Examples:

1. Spooner (2005), page 5: "A 'single' origin is here supported to mean an origin from a single species, or its progenitor (S. bukasovii), in the broad area of southern Peru."
2. Jai Gopal and S. M. Paul Khurana, Handbook of potato production, improvement, and postharvest management (Psychology Press, 2006), page 7: "Spooner et al. (2005) supported a single origin of potato from a wild species progenitor in the S. brevicaule complex in southern Peru."
3. John Reader, Potato: a history of the propitious esculent (Yale University Press, 2009), page 25: "In particular, DNA sequencing has enabled a team led by research botanist David Spooner to trace the origin of all modern potato varieties to a group of about twenty morphologically similar wild species, known as the Solanum brevicaule complex, grown by farmers in Peru more than 7,000 years ago."
4. Alison Krsgel and Alison Krögel, Food, power, and resistance in the Andes (Lexington Books, 2011), page 34: "Recent genetic analyses of wild species of the potato point to a single point of origin for the tuber's cultivation to the north of Lake Titicaca, approximately seven thousand years ago. The research botanist David Spooner argues that all modern-day varieties originated from a widl species known as Solanum brevicaule complex, thus contesting the multiple-origins argument."
5. Jaspreet Singh and Lovedeep Kaur, Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology (Academic Press, 2009), page 157: "More recently, Spooner et al. (2005a) have provided evidence for a single domestication in Peru from the northern group of members of the S. brevicaule complex of species."

I initially made the same mistake of thinking Spooner meant all of Grade A, but he is actually being more specific than Hawkes. In essence not really contradicting him (rather, more accurate), but technically providing new evidence that contradicts the old. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The only paper that counts here is the Spooner paper. The others are irrelevant.

I've read the paper yet again, and nowhere does Spooner say that the potato was domesticated only in Peru. He says that it was domesticated "in the broad area of southern Peru". This is not synonomous with "in southern Peru", and does not exclude the part of the range in northern Bolivia, especially considering that he specifically cautions that the ranges do not exactly follow political borders, and that he still has problems clearly distinguishing the species involved from other members of the northern clade. He even gives another caveat when he says "assuming present-day distrutions".

Sorry, but your conclusion that the potato was domesticated on only one side of the present-day political border is one that Spooner did not make. Nowhere does he mention narrowing the range within the northern clade to exclude Bolivia, or even narrowing it at all, except to exclude the southern clade. The safest wording is still "the potato was domesticated near what is now the border of Peru and Bolivia", which is true even if it was domesticated only in Peru or only in Bolivia, or both.

Or much, much better: "... in the Andes Highlands near Lake Titicaca". After all, political borders have no significance in geobotany. In fact, that is the version that I would use, as there is no real value in mentioning specific countries at all, especially if it leads to nationalistic bickering. The one thing we know for absolute sure is that neither Peru nor Bolivia were even around when the potato was domesticated, so the domestication of the potato had absolutely nothing to do with either country. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. You're reading the Miller & Spooner (1997) article!

Here is the link to the Spooner et al. (2005) article: [95].

It says "Full Text (PDF)" on the right side. Click on it and that should link you to the information.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...but how could you have read "in the broad area of southern Peru" if that was on the 2005 article?

Also, the aforementioned quote is quite specific. Southern Peru back in the day remains southern Peru nowadays. "Southern Peru" does not include Bolivia. All of the other sources, including Spooner, had a perfectly good opportunity to include "Bolivia" in their concluding analysis (as in: "in the broad area of southern Peru and northern Bolivia"). None of them did it. The sources clearly use the term "southern Peru", and trying to claim it means otherwise is an inappropriate usage of the sources. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I read them both back to back, but in the second post, I made sure that everything was in the 2005 paper. And again, the other sources you listed are completely irrelvant. Sorry, but I don't buy what you are selling, especially with regards to political borders. I do believe that you are going beyond the intent of the authors of the article. And I'm beginning to sorta get the idea that your motives might be nationalistic, which is where my good faith starts wearing thin. Just a friendly reminder that that sort of stuff does not go down well here. In fact, I'm tempted to change the wording in the article now to "the Andes Highlands near Lake Titicaca", but I'll wait a few days until other editors have their say, and remain open-minded for now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You should explain why you think the sources I present are irrelevant. They all have the same view on the Spooner (2005) article: Domestication took place in present-day southern Peru. That's exactly what the sources state, and that's exactly what should be in the article.

I'm also seriously starting to doubt your motives on this discussion. Your claim of "the Andes highlands near Lake Titicaca" is the one that has no verification from the sources. Spooner clearly writes "in the broad area of southern Peru". Why that confuses you is beyond my understanding.

Modern political borders are being used to define specific areas. I haven't read a book that writes that stonehenge is located in a European island; they use "England" to define the present-day location of the monument (even if England didn't exist back then). And when they mean England, they mean only England (not Scotland or Wales). That's just how it is. Trying to accuse me of nationalism will get you nowhere. Again, watch your WP:Wikiquette.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

They're irrelevant because they don't have a view of their own.

Actually, all of the sources are consistent with "the Andes highlands near Lake Titicaca", Spooner included.

Next, you seem to be ignoring the word "broad".

And I'm well aware where the borders of WP:Wikiquette lie. I chose my words with extreme care. I've been jerked around by nationalist editors many times in the past.

Like I said, I'll wait a few days until other editors have their say, and remain open-minded for now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the words "southern Peru". Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've taken this to the language board (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language), to see what is their understanding of the sentence. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet another source to verify my position (this one is actually really detailed):

1. Gavin Ramsay and Glenn Bryan, "Solanum," in Wild Crop Relatives: Genomic and Breeding Resources: Vegetables, edited by Chittaranjan Kole (Springer, 2011), page 264: Spooner et al. (2005) published a large-scale study using amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers. A total of 438 AFLP polymorphisms were assayed on 362 wild and 98 landrace accessions of potato from the Commonwealth Potato Collection and the USDA Potato Genebank at Sturgeon Bay. Cladograms were presented using Wagner parsimony methods, and these demonstrated a clustering of the majority of the accessions in the study into two clades representing the northern and southern S. brevicaule complexs, the main groups of species found in Peru and Bolivia plus Argentina, respectively. All the land-race accessions in the study clustered with the northern group and in particular a group of species from southern Peru. [...] Together, these studies indicate that the original domestication event took place in central or southern Peru at an altitude of around 3,000-4,300 m, that the original domesticates formed hybrids with other Andean wild species after migration under domestication, and that backcrossing has yielded new combinations of mostly Peruvian nuclear DNA with a range of different cytoplasms, including a relatively distant event to generate the nuclear-cytoplasmic combination found in most Chilean and European potatoes.

There is more information. Ramsay and Bryan have done a huge analysis of all information (not just Spooner), and here is the link to GoogleBooks ([96]). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and we also have this source:

• Himilce Novas, Everything you need to know about Latino history (Penguin, 2007), page 35: "Archaeological discoveries indicate that the potato was cultivated in Peru more than seven thousand years ago, and DNA tests on potatoes have pinpointed a narrow region of origin, southern Peru, and not a wider area stretching from Peru to northern Argentina, as was thought until very recently.

Is this enough evidence, or does anybody want to keep wasting my time more? Hugs.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 07:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Penguin mass market paperbacks with the title "Everything you need to know about..." are not adequate sources for the speciation and geographic origin of species of "potato." Fake wikilove doesn't paper over battleground statements. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If I'm making battleground statements, please go ahead and report me to the board. Here is the direct link: Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. I trust your decision, just as I trust your analysis of the Novas source.

Now, back to the topic at hand. I wonder if David Spooner wrote another article after 2005? After all, such a notable botanist should have further tried to present his research to other places. Well, I wonder...oh, what about the following:

Mercedes Ames and David Spooner, "DNA from herbarium specimens settles a controversy about origins of the European potato," in the American Journal of Botany (2007, [97]): "Potatoes were domesticated in the Andes of southern Peru about 10,000 years ago. They had a monophyletic origin from a wild species of the Solanum brevicaule complex in Peru (Spooner et al., 2005a; Spooner and Hetterscheid, 2006)."

NOTE: This article didn't even mention Bolivia. I wonder why?

Is this source valid or not? Should we try to contact David Spooner? More hugs.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This looks like one of those discussions which really should be considered as a wording question, and people should try harder to find consensus. It should be possible to use the main article which everyone seems to agree on, in order to make an uncontroversial sentence or two. If it is really difficult, you might be forced to quote the original article exactly ("in the broad area of southern Peru", an area which may or may not include a bit of Bolivia!). OTOH, if such a quote would be felt to miss something important in the context, then ADD something about what else was in the article, rather than trying to argue the more controversial approach of saying that a direct quote would say something wrong. Aim for what is most easy to agree with. For example "based on the fact that most cultigens came from Peru and immediately adjacent northwestern Bolivia". BTW some of the posts in the above discussion are a little argumentative IMHO: it is obviously relevant to any discussion of how to read one expert article, to see how other published experts read it, and it is also clearly not true that only a Penguin edition is being used to do that - nor that Penguins are so obviously unciteable either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew. I think the statement you propose ("based on the fact that most cultigens came from Peru and immediately adjacent northwestern Bolivia") does accurately present what the sources are stating. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the Ramsay and Bryan (2011) source

I have another question:

• Gavin Ramsay and Glenn Bryan (2011) seem to have evaluated Spooner (2005) and other sources, and they have reached the conclusion that potatoes were originally domesticated in central and southern Peru. While their research is more recently published (last year), it may be too soon for other experts to have included it into their analysis (I haven't found another source which mentions their research). On the other hand, Spooner's research (of 2005) seems to have had a wider usage (as demonstrated by all of the authors, including the Penguin source, which are essentially dealing with his project; some directly, others indirectly).

So, is the source reliable or is it unreliable due to it being so recent? If it is reliable, how could it be included? Should more weight be given to Spooner (2005)? Thanks in advance.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think in general the argument that new science should be ignored until it is cited is used when the source is not strong (unknown author or journal) or when it is "WP:REDFLAG". At the other extreme, well known authors and/or well known journals, should pretty much always be fine because WP policy even allows us to use the blogs of such people. What if the author or journal is not clearly well-known, and not clearly REDFLAG or FRINGE? I would tend to use it if there is no reason not to. At least in genetics, which is fast moving, an over-strict approach could create WP:NPOV problems because articles 3 or 4 years old are sometimes no longer reflecting the mainstream, and can even be quite far from it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew. Right now we are planning to contact David Spooner and hear his explanation on the matter. Specifically, what he means by the term "south Peru". Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Citing sources that exist only on a darknet (Freenet)

While editing on the Freenet, I was wondering how one should add citations that reference a page on the Freenet network. The direct edit I wanted to add was adding sources to statements of existing plugins (their factual description) and the best sources I could find was their official websites, but which is located on the Freenet network. How do I describe the requirement that in order to reach the source you need additional software? Belorn (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a uniform resource locator for these sites, regardless of requiring extension software? Is there a standard address protocol? If so, use that. Then comment in the bibliography or citation that such-and-such capable software is required to access the resource. The sources you're talking about using sound like low reliability primary involved sources though. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I had a quick look at this, what is currently note 11 seems to use the URI schema for Freenet. Is there a public web-gateway to freenet? Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

James Tod

James Tod was an amateur historian who studied & wrote on India-related topics in the period ca. 1800-1835. His principal work was the two volumes of Annals and antiquities of Rajas'han. He has one major biographer - Jason Freitag - who has described that work as being "manifestly biased". Others have noted that it is a "a romantic historical and anecdotal account" (historian, Crispin Bates); "erroneous and misleading at places and they are to be used with caution as a part of sober history" (V. S. Srivastava, Rajasthan's Department of Archaeology and Museums); and that he had a "general reputation for inaccuracy ... among Indologists by late in the nineteenth century" (Michael Meister, an architectural historian and professor of South Asia Studies). William Crooke, who edited the 1920 edition of the Annals and, like Tod, took inspiration for his own studies from folklore etc, said that Tod recorded "the facts, not as they really occurred, but as the writer and his contemporaries supposed that they occurred." Crooke also says that Tod's "knowledge of ethnology was imperfect, and he was unable to reject the local chronicles of the Rajputs." More, his "excursions into philology are the diversions of a clever man, not of a trained scholar, but interested in the subject as an amateur."

Tod is still lauded by those whom he praised in India and his Annals in particular are used as sources across a wide range of our articles, although his name is frequently mis-spelled. Obviously, he will not have got everything that he wrote wrong but the difficulty is that we cannot judge which bits are correct etc. Can we treat him as a reliable source for statements of historical fact etc? Or should the usage of him be restricted. If the latter, what are the limits? - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Use for opinion only given the criticisms his work have received. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

All historians were amateur at that period, so that doesn't count against him. And all historians have to be suspected of bias. Mainly, his work can no longer be authoritative, because so much basic research and discovery hadn't yet happened in his time. I agree with Darkness Shines. His opinion, as a classic author in English on this subject, may well be worth quoting, but always naming and dating him in the text ("James Tod, writing in 1829, believed that ..."). Andrew Dalby 12:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I think that I should make it clear without going into too much detail, examples of which are in the linked bio article, that he was plain wrong about numerous things, including genealogies, because of translation issues. He also relied on people from one caste/community - the Rajputs - for his information & translations that gave rise to his construction of a history of a region that included other communities. He also had a day job for > 20 of those years, which is not necessarily true of other historians, ie: he was not a "gentleman historian", so to speak. It is not a "suspicion" of bias: he is recognised as being very biased. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

James Tod article has sentences such as this: "Tod relied heavily on existing Indian texts for his historical information and most of these are today considered unreliable." Then the article goes on to seek support from Macaulay. David Kopf (University of Minnesota) says this: "In the first place, Macaulay agreed to go to India and remained there as long as he did primarily to accumulate a modest fortune, which would enable him to pursue a literary career in England. Secondly, while in Calcutta, instead of immersing himself in any of the languages,cultures,or regional histories of the Indian subcontinent,he spent most of his time studying the Greek and Roman classics. Thirdly,he admitted repeatedly that he viewed his Indian sojourn as a period of exile.". I don't understand how is Macaulay an authority against Tod's accuracy.

I have found Tod to be more often correct in his historical facts than wrong. As others have mentioned let us not forget this work was completed in early 1800's and sure there must be mistakes but are mistakes larger than correct facts? No. If for some particular detail "A" other sources dis-garee with Tod and the evidence is against him by all means don't use him in corroborating "A".

Muhnot Nainsi represented a tradition of very accurate history writing in India. Richard Saran and Norman Ziegler have used Nainsi's Khyat extensively for their two Volume scholarly tome [98] "The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan Select Translations Bearing on the History of a Rajput Family, 1462-1660, Volumes 1-2, University of Michigan Press".

My questions are:

Since Tod used local historians and historical Khyats, baats, etc (Introduction to Saran and Ziegler have an excellent survey on this and I am willing to take photos and stick them here if any one is interested) as sources, in addition to using Persian and other Mughal histories, why is that a negative against Tod?

If what Tod says is also accepted by other modern historians why is it wrong to use Tod? Ror Is King (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• When crazy Stu shouts the sky is blue, we don't reference him, we reference a paper that's conducted a scientific analysis of the sky's chroma. Tod's methodology is so abominably out of date that he fails to meet any of the criteria of knowledge generation in history. We cite historians, we don't cite 19th century Grand Tourers of the sub-continent. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Tod's methodology is ... out of date" is true, of course. You should be ashamed of the rest of that, Fifelfoo.

This picture of Tod with his research assistant is nice, I think. Andrew Dalby 12:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Would like to point out that some very informed people don't think Tod is crazy Stu. Dr Richard Saran (PhD University of Michigan 1978: Thesis: "Conquest and Colonization: Rajputs and Vasis in middle period Marwar") and Dr. Norman P Ziegler (PhD University of Chicago 1973: Thesis: "Action Power and Service in Rajasthani Culture: A social history of rajputs in middle period Rajasthan") say that : "Tod was among the first British army officers of the early nineteenth century to gain an in-depth view of Rajputs and Rajasthani society. His comprehensive history of Rajasthan and its local kingdoms besepeaks his knowledge, gained through years of association with this area and painstaking work with local documents." (From Page 1, Volume 1: The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan Select Translations Bearing on the History of a Rajput Family, 1462-1660, Volumes 1-2, ISBN:978-0-89148-085-3 Link [99] ).Ror Is King (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ror Is King, the reliability of Macaulay, Nainsi etc is not being questioned here and is a sideshow. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• You have stated on James Tod page "Tod relied heavily on existing Indian texts for his historical information and most of these are today considered unreliable.". Nainsi's text is one such text and there are many more such texts in rajasthani language. You are saying all rajasthani history khyats are unreliable. I just proved to you Nainsi, a rajsthani khyat writer is not unreliable. Furthermore you use Macaulay as an authority to demolish Tod when as David Kopf has shown Macaulay did not even read any historical texts in Indian languages. How can such absurd POV be allowed to root on Wikipedia? Ror Is King (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion is not about the James Tod article; nor does that article make the claim that you suggest, as has already been explained to you on that article's talk page. Read the sentence that you quote again. - Sitush (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Everyone can see on James Tod that you are using Macaulay to discredit Tod and Macaulay did not read a single piece of Indian history written in Rajasthani languages. You say and I quote from James Tod:"Tod relied heavily on existing Indian texts for his historical information and most of these are today considered unreliable". And then you say: "Macaulay, the historian and politician who held high office in India, wrote in 1835 that "a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia,". How on earth is Macaulay a historian? Did you read Kopf's piece given above? Ror Is King (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• For history articles: don't even attribute, burn with fire, quote only critical appreciations of him by Post-Rankean professional historians, per WP:HISTRS. For articles on Tod himself, quote and reference only where secondary sources on Tod quote and reference him, and use the secondary sources colouring and judgement. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• The only Tod quotes that should be used, and sparingly, are ones that are countered or supported by later scholars. Such quotes should have a purpose in the article, to show changing attitudes. Tod should never be used alone to support a supposed fact. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Binksternet's advice is good. Andrew Dalby 10:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Indians in Afghanistan

On this RFC a user is saying that one of the sources is of no use. Here is the source MUSTAFA QADRI [100] ABC/The Drum. The source in question is from a well respected journalist. Profile at ABCProfile at The Guardian He is widly quoted in academic books as an expert on the region such as, Fawaz A. Gerges (2011) The Rise and Fall of Al-Qaeda OUP p175. Debra A. Miller(ed) (2009 Afghanistan Greenhaven p222. Joanne M. Lisosky, Jennifer H. Henrichsen (2011)War on Words: Who Should Protect Journalists? Praeger p252. Is he good for the statement that India has no troops in country.? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems likely he'd get this fact right, but that is an opinion piece. As such, if citing it on this subject, I would do so with an inline attribution. Andrew Dalby 12:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

By inline you mean cited directly after the statement? Or write that he has said such and such? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Either, I guess. It would be better, if possible, to find a source on this that isn't an opinion piece. Andrew Dalby 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is another news piece from Time which is also used to cite the statement, thanks for your input. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That news piece says exactly the opposite of this. I'll verify the newly added one too. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Old Testament as only source

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Early and Later Israelite Campaigns, where several articles are identified that are sourced exclusively to the Old Testament. Comments and suggestions would be most appreciated. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't meet WP:HISTRS. Or anywhere near. And this is something we have a consistent policy on. Many parts of the world have had annals or chronicles; they are primary sources. We can never base articles solely on them. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

While the Old Testament is a lovely literary text that makes claims about what happened in the past, like many texts that are a compendium of oral history redactions, assembled for political and religious purposes separate to the veneration of a God, it does not meet the standards of Wikipedia's history requirements as Itsmejudith notes. Scholars primarily inspired by the religious text could write theological or religious history accounts of the importance in the text of such a battle, which would need to be characterised as devotional approaches to the battle. But for historical claims proper, you would need to seek out scholarly histories of warfare in that region. Just because a battle isn't "history" doesn't necessarily make it unnotable. Compare and consider in relation to another war from a devotional literary text: Kurukshetra war Fifelfoo (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not reliable as a source of historical information without corraboration. The OT was written as a religious document, and not as a historical document in the sense history is understood by modern scholars. A lot of the events portrayed in the OT are innacurate, distorted or simply fabricated. that doesn't make them non-notable, as Fifeloo rightly points out. Just not historical. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Old Testment is a sufficiently well-studied text that I would expect to find a scholarly discussion in the literature for every historical event that it mentions. If so, then those should be used. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, and even when the OT corresponds with other contemporary (with the OT) sources, there is often important scholarship on the relevance of the inclusion of the events in the OT. It should be born in mind, though, that the OT is actually not a single source, but many sources rolled into one. It is the nature of "sourced exclusively to" that is important. If the OT is the only documentation that an event occurred, we should still cover it, but we should be citing commentaries as well as the OT itself. Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Mohamed Al-Fayed

Last July, I rewrote the Mohamed Al-Fayed article, and it was reverted in October, a discussion followed on the BLP [101]

Over half of the 141 references I found were from a single source, a 1998 biography of Fayed by Tom Bower (Fayed: The Unauthorized Biography, Macmillan, 1998, ISBN 9780333745540), I also referenced Maureen Orth's 1995 profile of Fayed for Vanity Fair [102] more than twenty times.

I would like to know if these two sources could be considred reliable for a BLP. Due to the large number of references, is it actually expident for me to list everything I would like to reference by these two sources to see if they could be considered reliable? Here is a link to a revious version of the article, which used these two sources [103] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Books by journalists meet rs. Academic writing is preferable if available. The fact that a source is not neutral is no bar from using it. RS relates to the reliablity of facts not the neutrality of the source. TFD (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Finding more/better sources might be a better way of improving article than trying to question these ones?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The main biographical research on his life was conducted by these two writers. Bower's book is still the only book written on the subject. I am not questioning the reliability of these two sources, but seeking input as the sources were so needlessly attacked in a BLP discussion. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna by Krant M. L. Verma

Krant M. L. Verma, who also edits Wikipedia as Krantmlverma (talk · contribs), has written a 4-volume work titled Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna about Indian revolutionaries. He has been citing this book as a reference in the majority of his contributions Awadhesh.Pandey (talk · contribs), who also maintains the article Krant M. L. Verma, has also been adding this book to several articles (e.g. [104][105]).

I first started doubting the reliability of this book, when the user Krantmlverma added a claim to several articles that Keshab Chakravarthy and K. B. Hedgewar are the same person (e.g. [106]). I find this hard to believe because none of the reliable biographies of Keshab Chakravarthy or KB Hedgewar available on Google books, journals or other online sources (other than Wikipedia mirrors) mention this. (see Talk:K. B. Hedgewar#Keshab_Chakravarthy_and_K._B._Hedgewar)

Can this source be considered reliable? The author (probably) barely passes the threshold of notability. Also, I sense a conflict of interest here: both Krantmlverma and Awadhesh.Pandey have been adding the entire excerpts from ML Varma's books or blog posts to various articles (e.g. [107][108]). Google returns only yellow-page listings for the publisher "Praveen Prakashan". But multiple Wikipedia articles cite it as a source -- all these citations were added by either Krantmlverma or Awadhesh.Pandey.

Is there a guideline on these kind of sources? I mean, books published by Wikipedians who use them as references to back up their contributions? utcursch | talk 06:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that is a self-published source. If it is to be added then it should be done by an uninvolved person. Equally, I have been digging around on and off since you raised this general point elsewhere a while ago - it doesn't look reliable to me, but that is based on searching purely English texts etc. WP:FRINGE seems distinctly possible. - Sitush (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I share a similar view. The user has mentioned some other sources saying that "Previously he was involved in such type of revolutionary activities. This fact has been disclosed by so many writers". It's not clear to me if these sources talk only about his involvement in "such type of revolutionary activities" or directly support the assertion that Keshab Chakravarthy or KB Hedgewar were the same guy. Either way, these sources seem to be RSS-affiliated publications, and at best, this might be a fringe theory. utcursch | talk 07:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to remind editors of the very extensive and broad community sanction placed on sub-continental caste and political party articles and attendant discussions right now. Let's stay civil and work out the reliability of this text. I encourage editors to search deposit libraries, and scholarly libraries with a South Asian collection. I also encourage editors to search Indian university libraries. Good luck, I'll keep an eye on this thread. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Worldcat returns this for the publisher: [109]. The specific author's work is here. After finding this, I'm a little less impressed by the publisher's credentials. Clicking on "shopping", it seems they do general import/export as well as publishing. JanetteDoe (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Heinz Neumeyer

Recently an author named as Heinz Neumeyer was given as source to debated issue from German-Polish relations. Since the author was unknown to me, I checked what are his credentials. It appears that this author is very extremist:

• This publication "Friedrich II. von Preussen: Leistungen und Leben eines grossen Königs, by Gerd Heinrich (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2009

mentions him: and includes works by historians such as Heinz Neumeyer, which follow the well-trodden paths of German inter-war and Nazi Ostforschung.

• East European Quarterly / Fall, 1996 20th century AD by Edmund Spevack has this to say about Heinz Neumeyer

"Some historians formally or loosely associated with the West German Bund der Vertriebenen (League of Expellees) organization, such as Heinz Neumeyer in his recent work on West Prussia, still claim that Polish responsibility for the origins of World War ll was much greater than that of Nazi Germany. Despite Neumeyer's claim to objectivity in the introduction, his work on West Prussia is filled with exclamation marks, heavily biased in its selection of facts, and highly combative in tone. Neumeyer argues that the Polish threat before 1939 was so great that the Germans were bound to counter it militarily" furthermore

"he and his peers seem more like Heimatforscher who are driven by anger and frustration than serious scholars aiming at an objective stance. They represent a continuity of German nationalist writing from the early 1900s into the 1990s, and do not clearly reject the highly aggressive tone of the 1930s described in the sections above. Neumeyer is also arguing very much on the fringes of scholarly German historiography"

• "In La recherche dix-huitiémiste: raison universelle et culture nationale au siècle des Lumières"

by David Avrom Bell, Ludmila Pimenova, Stéphane Pujol, International Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies H. Champion, 1999 We find statement that "This is the simplistic argument of authors like Hans Neumeyer (op. cit.), who relies on outdated and ideological works by Ostforschung-historians such as Paul Simson and Erich Keyser"

Keyser by the way was connected to Nazi movement, a member of NSDAP since 1st May 1933(:German scholars and ethnic cleansing, 1919-1945" by Ingo Haar,Michael Fahlbusch and Neumeyer writes "he actively propagated nationalist ideas within the public sphere") Neumeyer graduated in 1941 under him, he relies heavily on his works.

• Karin Friedrich in book edited by Matthias Weber called "Preußen in Ostmitteleuropa

Geschehensgeschichte und Verstehensgeschichte" names Neumeyer publication as belonging to outdated "Ostforschung" against any source sense reality, with vocabulary influenced by volkisch ideology and "politically motivated" creation of legends(I can provide the quote upon request).

• Zapiski historyczne: : Volume 62 Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu. Wydział Nauk Historycznych - 1997 (Historical briefings, Science Society in Toruń, Historical Sciences Department)-names Neumeyer as known for anti-Polish stance.

• The Other Prussia: Royal Prussia, Poland and Liberty, 1569-1772 Karin Friedrich - 2006 writes following: "for an unscholarly, anti-Polish and anti-Catholic view, see Heinz Neumeyer"

There are more examples, which I could give(such as calling Poles barbaric, or Polish culture non existent etc). But I believe these to be enough.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources

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

Since Neumeyer is widely accepted as presenting extremist views, using outdated terminology and bases his work on Nazi Erich Keyser, I believe that he is not a reliable source for history of Polish-German relations. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The same author cited by Molobo (Karin Friedrich) pointed out in her review (The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 158-161) on Handbuch der Geschichte Ost- und Westpreußens. Von der Teilung bis zum Schwedisch Polnischen Krieg, 1466-1655 that Heinz Neumeyer, one of the book's authors, demonstrated "more emotional involvement than is healthy for a scholar to be taken seriously". She also noted that "apart from many inaccuracies and factual mistakes (for example, contrary to Neumeyer's assertion, the cities of Royal Prussia rejected diplomatic advances from Lutheran Sweden in the two Polish-Swedish wars, p. I63), the language of national prejudice and anachronistic references to 'German Volkstum' do nothing but disservice to the project of Polish-German historical co-operation."

Therefore, although this author is hardly an extremist sensu stricto, he should be treated as fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The review in a highly credible journal for Central and Eastern European history amounts to a demolishment of the purported historian's credibility in any sense. FRINGE beyond any need to address. So tainted that it should not be used. See WP:HISTRS for how to locate appropriate sources, and why FRINGE works of this nature should be excluded. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Neumeyer is off course an outdated source and one might call his theories FRINGE, however Teutonic takeover of Danzig (the origin of this dispute) in its current state uses e.g Jędrzej Giertych, a right-wing politician who was "expelled from the emigre National Party because of his extremism and antisemitism" while living in his London exile. Giertych also believed the "Solidarity to be a disguised communist movement dominated by Jewish Trotskyites". Similarly out of date is Raphael Lemkin's book (Axis rule in Occupied Europe), published in 1944, which deals with WWII not with the medieval history of Gdansk. If we use nationalists like Giertych we should also portray "the other side" in a neutral (clearly attributed) way and which views are modern and which are not. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S.:I won't be able to respond until Sunday and I think the discussion should take place at "Teutonic takeover" talk.

Ummm, the way I recall it, I actually tried to remove Giertych from the article because he IS in fact an unreliable source, but the removal was reverted by another editor who seemed to want to keep the extremist Giertych in there just to discredit a particular view by associating it with extremism (i.e. because extremist person said something similar, the fact that a lot of non-extremist people said it as well, casts doubt on it). By all means, let's dump the Giertych source! (Lemkin on the other hand is fine) Anyway, this is classic WP:OTHERSTUFF.VolunteerMarek 15:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I am the one who introduced Neumeyer as a source to the Teutonic takeover of Danzig article, I want to clarify a few things:

• Neumeyer is used there exclusively in a section of attributed, recently published views on how the knights took control of the town. There is no mainstream view on this, so instead of having a synthesis of the recently published sources (impossible due to widely diverging views) I decided to represent the views published during the last 20 years, under the header "Controversies," and one of these recently published views is Neumeyer (1993).
• Neumeyer's views on certain issues in the Polish-German relations are imho out of line. However, Neumeyer is a much-cited historian, many authors rely on (parts of) his works and reference them in their own books. It's not like he is only known for some strange theses - he has done a lot of solid, scientific work, too.
• Hans Georg Siegler, another author whose works on Danzig are often cited has published a similar account of the take-over, Neumeyer's views on this particular event do not stand isolated (not a WP:FRINGE issue).

As I said in the respective discussion: As much as I would be opposed to representing Neumeyer's version as "the sole truth," I think it is alright to include it, attributed, as one of the many differing views of what happened which were recently published. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As stated Neumeyer is not a reliable source to source anything, besides outdated Ostforschung research or his views in separate article. If you don't see other authors used in the article as reliable than start a suitable thread on Reliable Sources Noticeboard. As to " much-cited historian" thats completely false as your link leads to simple search for his name, including books by himself or simple rejection of him as author for example: Man könnte das Buch von Heinz Neumeyer als ein Mißverständnis, als Anachronismus ansehen, enthielte es nicht die zitierten, tatsächlich skandalösen Stellen. Jahrbücher für Geschichte OsteuropasOsteuropa-Institut München "One could see the Book from Hein Neumeyer as misunderstanding, anachronism, if it didn't contain scandalous cites". So your claim is entirely out of place as the so called cites could be cites showing noreliable, unscholarly research. Which is understandable since Neumeyer uses in his book publications by Nazis from Nazi Germany-which have no place on Wikipedia besides specific articles dedicated to this. "Hans Georg Siegler, another author whose works on Danzig are often cited" that's a poet born in 1920 Gdańsk, who studied in 1942 "Reichsuniversität Posen" established by Nazis, not a historian or historic scholar. Besides, if you have reliable sources, use them, not ones using Nazi publications and attached to Ostforschung. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just in keep in mind that even fringe authors can be used as sources for their own opinions if those opinions are notable and well-known. If this person is frequently cited as being an example of a well-known but extreme position then he could potentially be cited in that way - but obviously not as if he was mainstream. The point is that reliability is context-sensitive.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The only way that Neumeyer could be used in this particular article is if the readers are also given information about the nature of his work - that it is extremist, full of inaccuracies and uses the language of national prejudice, etc. So yes, we could say something like "according to the extremist nationalist German historian Neumeyer, whose work has been criticized for its inaccuracies and emotional use of prejudicial language etc. etc. etc...". But that's about it. Otherwise we'd be purposefully misleading the reader but presenting fringe works as mainstream.VolunteerMarek 15:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with describing fringe views of Neumeyer in article about Ostforschung, Nazi Keyser who influenced him, or him himself. However it is clear that a un-scholarly publication using Nazi sources can't be used as reliable source for events in Polish-German history.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see specific claims that were attributed to the author in question. It seems he is likely biased on issues of Polish-German history. If no other sources provide certain facts, it is possible he may be of some use, as long as all parties agree those facts are neutral (say, for example, a specific date, or the name of a military commander, or such). But overall, I'd strongly advise against using him. Further, for reference and reader-beware, we should likely have an article on Heinz Neumeyer, he may not be reliable, but he seems notable (like any reasonably published author). I'll see if I can stub something. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I can re-state my point in a more extreme way in order to avoid misunderstanding: even Hitler can be quoted in Wikipedia. To cite him as mainstream would be another question.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, citing Hitler's opinions for history would be an abomination against the concept of an appropriate source for an appropriate claim. Discredited historians do not get to have an opinion worth noting, even as FRINGE, in an article on the object of history. Perhaps in "Conspiracy theories regarding object," where we can use the reviews demolishing such a person's claim to make historical claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. That is correct for the extreme example I used. I am not sure if this case is quite so extreme. It seems from the quotes given that this person does get some comments about him as if he at least needs to be addressed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that I removed the sentence about Neumeyer from the article in the afternoon [110] to not waste any more time on this. However, I am concerned that creating an article with the prose consisting only of the worst criticism he received is not the way to go, even if I endorse the criticism. Afaik Neumeyer is still alive and WP:BLP and WP:BLPSTYLE need to be observed so it does not turn into an attack page. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to expand the article. He is notable, but sadly it appears that most of the mentions of his work I am finding are quite critical. Perhaps German language sources are more forgiving of his works. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 06:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Legolas2186 possibly falsifying references

After becoming suspicious of a source used by User:Legolas2186 in a recent GAN entry, I looked further and found some more suspicious references used by Legolas2186 to support other recent GA expansions that he has been undertaking. I have asked Legolas to respond but I have not been satisfied that the sources are not faked. Here are the cites I have a problem with:

• Was used in Madonna: Like an Icon until I removed it:
  • Jansen, Christina (2008-01-05). "Meeting the Woman behind She-Bop". People. 581 (50). Time Inc.: 21–22. ISSN 0093-7673.
• Used in Keep It Together (Madonna song) and Oh Father:
  • Zollo, Paul (May 1989). "Madonna on her turbulence". SongTalk. 10 (5). Mortimer Zuckerman: 21.
• Used in Saqib Saleem:
  • Deb, Anupama (2011-11-09). "Saqib Saleem: From Cricketer to Actor". Starweek Magazine. Bennett & Coleman Ltd: 19–22.

All of the above-listed cites were added by Legolas2186 as part of a drive to bring the article to GAN. If anybody here can help him by verifying one or more of the cites, please do so. Otherwise, it would appear that Legolas2186 has been fabricating references in order to create or expand articles and thereby gain credit for GA. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)A search of People magazine website does not show such an article, nor can I find "Christina Jansen" who is meant to be the author. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering that Legolas lives in India and the time now is ± 00:00, Binksternet hasn't waited to Legolas to reply him and immediately started to research in the articles he mentioned challenging offline sources (just because he can't access to them (Talk:Saqib Saleem/GA2)). I suggest Bink to wait until Legolas explanation before he starts to question the reliablility of an user (WP:AGF). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See also. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not newly discovered today, so it doesn't matter whether it is midnight somewhere. I signaled the serious nature of the unverifiable cite at Talk:Madonna: Like an Icon/GA1 on February 7, eight days ago. Legolas did not respond even though he edited other articles during that time. On February 10, I asked him about a problematic reference at Talk:Saqib_Saleem#Major question about major source and he responded very quickly there on the talk page and also by offering to send me scans of the physical pages, but he has not yet sent me any scans. On February 10, I began looking at other articles he was involved with and found that he had used an unverifiable Becky Johnston article from June 1989 Rolling Stone so I corrected it to the same Becky Johnston in May 1989 writing for Interview under a different title. (This unverifiable source was added by Legolas in August 2011.) This appeared to be sloppy work, not necessarily bad faith, since the writer's name was correct and the quotes were correct. Yesterday and today, I looked for more recent sloppy work in articles that Legolas was involved with and I found the Paul Zollo cites that I cannot verify anywhere online. Legolas has not posted here for three days but I am not willing to wait for him to respond before I ask the community to try and help me find whether the cites listed above can be verified by other means. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It does matter that is midnight, as he is sleeping right now (see his contributions, he rarely edits at this time), and it matters as I told you that is seems like you can't wait until he answers. As you said he offered you the scans, but you never asked to him send them to you, the only thing that you did was start to check all his recent work to see if his offline sources are "falsified". This sounds more like a revenge of something rather than a concerned editor. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I asked him for the scans soon after his offer. He continued editing for two more days but he did not respond yes or no about the scans. This thread is not about whether Legolas is sleeping right now, it is about whether he has been putting sloppy citations into articles since August 2011, or possibly putting knowingly wrong citations into articles more recently to attain GA credit. The first step is a plea to others in the community to see if the cites are verifiable. As such, it does not require Legolas to respond. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I regret to say that I can find no evidence of that People Weekly article in databases that catalog the magazine. That issue doesn't even seem to exist. --Laser brain (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not just the references listed above. [111] - in that edit a vast amount of information was added, including the sentence With SongTalk magazine, Madonna explained that "isolated by fame and shaken by the failure of my marriage, I could only reach out to the stability of my family roots, and 'Keep It Together' is for that only." supposedly sourced by one of the references listed above and page 122 of the book Madonna: Like an Icon by Lucy O'Brien. The book is viewable on 'Look inside' option on Amazon.com, and there is nothing of the kind on page 122. Page 131 does however say There is the sense that Madonna, isolated by fame and shaken by the failure of her marriage, is reaching back to the stability of family roots. but that is written solely by the author, and not a quote from Madonna. I find the suggestion that an editor has fabricated references and a quote from a living person to be very troubling, and would suggest this is moved to another noticeboard. 86.186.68.76 (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A People issue from Jaunary 2008 would one of the following:

• Vol. 69 Issue 3 - 1/28/2008
• Vol. 69 Issue 2 - 1/21/2008
• Vol. 69 Issue 1 - 1/14/2008

not volume 581 issue 50 dated Jaunary 5th. A database search turned up no articles by that title or author. Major US magazines have different overseas versions, so this editor may be using the Indian version of People, if such a thing exists. But that would have a different ISSN, and the ISSN provided is for the US People. Gamaliel (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

[112] According to that book the edition was published in August 1989, several months after the alleged May 1989 publication date. From what I have been able to learn about SongTalk it was published quarterly with "Spring", "Summer", "Fall" and "Winter" names used not months. [113] There is a full transcript of the interview from the summer 1989 edition, it does not contain the quote attributed to Madonna, so neither of the references added are real even if we accept by "May 1989" what was really meant was "Summer 1989". I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the transcript as it matches the excerpt in the book I linked to, I certainly believe it more than Legolas2186 at this point. 86.186.68.76 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the close of this discussion as quite clearly premature, not to say disruptive. There is no consensus for any of the assertions made in the closing statement, and discussion is clearly continuing. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have replied to you on WP:AN. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Two more in The Secret of the Nagas

Another suspicious article that needs to be checked is the following reference added by Legolas2186 in September 2011 to expand the article The Secret of the Nagas toward the GA goal (the edit summary was "Major expansion for GA of the article"):

• Sachdeva, Rana (2010-12-10). "The Immortals of Meluha: Interview with Amish Tripathi". The Times of India. 1452. Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. OCLC 23379369.

I cannot find Rana Sachdeva among the contributors to The Times of India, and I cannot find the specified article. Here's a list of articles that appeared on 10 December 2010, the date indicated on the cite, but none of them are the cited article or a near miss.

The same "expansion for GA" brought a second suspicious cite:

• Sahay, Preetika Mathew (September 2011). "Mythical Magic". Harper's Bazaar. 144 (9). Hearst Corporation: 18.

The cite supports a supposed quote, "Though the story is fictional, its characters and historical descriptions are factual." This quote is not found anywhere online except Wikipedia and its mirrors. Same with the article title. The author, Preetika Mathew Sahay, appears to be an associate editor of the Indian edition of Harper's Bazaar, but I cannot find anything she wrote about The Secret of the Nagas or an article titled "Mythical Magic". Searching the main Harper's Bazaar website turned up nothing. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Two from "Express Yourself"

Here are two Legolas2186 cites that need to be investigated, taken from Express Yourself (Madonna song):

• Jones, Alan (1989-12-26). "Bangles Ride to the Top". Music Week. 25: 45.

Alan Jones certainly composes chart information for Music Week, but I don't know if he wrote an article called "Bangles Ride to the Top" in 1989. The fact that is supported by the Jones cite is that BPI certified 200,000 units sold. However, in this 2008 article by Jones the sales figure reported was 194,102; slightly short of the 200k mark. I cannot find any trace online of a notional article called "Bangles Ride to the Top". Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Rowsdoom, Charlotte (1989-07-23). "Est-ce que Madonna version Express Yourself aux fans français?". Le Parisien. 143. Éditions Philippe Amaury. ISSN 1161-5435.

Le Parisien's website allows the reader to search for past articles, but I was unable to find one with the proper title. Perhaps this is because the 1989 articles are not online. At any rate, I was not able to find, say, a book that cites the article. Moreover, I was not able to confirm the existence of any person named Charlotte Rowsdoom, a very unusual name that should immediately leap out from an online search. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fabricating volumes and violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

In the article Like a Prayer (song), Legolas2186 added a cite to 1989 Advertising Age to support a quote. The quote was about people viewing an advertisement with Madonna drinking Pepsi. The 1989 magazine is not online but the quote can be found online in a book: page 230 of Embodied Voices: Representing Female Vocality in Western Culture. The authors cite Advertising Age volume 76, just like Legolas added on July 4, 2011. I question the volume number, because by 2009 the magazine was in its 80th volume, with new volumes appearing annually. If annual volumes were used back to 1989, then the volume would have been 60, not 76. Anyway, Legolas changed the volume from 76 to 231 on August 13, 2011, completely making up a volume number and changing "76" from volume to page number. In the same edit, Legolas also added a fictional volume number for the Village Voice, volume 1309. If he had looked for the volume number as cited by other works, he might have found "Leslie Savan, "Desperately Selling Soda," Village Voice 34, no. 11, 14 Mar. 1989, 47", cited by Carla Freccero in "Our Lady of MTV: Madonna's 'Like A Prayer'". The Legolas volume of 1309 is ridiculously wrong. The same Savan cite is slightly wrong in Embodied Voices, the online source where Legolas probably saw it. The guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you read it says Legolas should have quoted the Embodied Voices book, not an old magazine issue that he was unable to access. He certainly should not have played around with volumes and page numbers. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fake article from 2010 Rolling Stone

To expand the article The Monster Ball Tour "for GA", Legolas2186 added text and cites including a recent article from a modern magazine:

• Sheffield, Don (2010-08-09). "Lady Gaga: An Intimate Story". Rolling Stone. 1190 (39). Jann Wenner: 73. ISSN 0032-791X. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help)

This article cannot be found on Rolling Stone's website but it should be plainly visible, being from 2010. Legolas used it to support a quote: "a Catholic school girl on the run to discover herself, and on the way she finds the Monster Ball." This quote is not found in any reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of source in GA push - Vijender Singh

• Vijender Singh is (somehow) a GA. Legolas2186 began the push for GA and in that very first edit added a citation for a previously unsourced statement regarding the subject's education. I have just removed it because the source appears to support nothing in that statement. I am also removing other cites/requesting cites in that article. At one point, Legolas2186 has used a pre-marriage interview as support for the guy actually getting married, and it is a bit closely paraphrased also. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• In the initial "GA push" edit, Legolas2186 adds, inter alia, that "In 1990, boxer Raj Kumar Sangwan got the Arjuna Award; a craze for boxing increased then. The sport became one of the main avenues to get a job in India." His source (after I fixed the url) says "After Raj Kumar Sangwan got the Arjuna Award for boxing (in the late 1990s), a craze for the sport increased. Coming from a poor family, it was one of the main avenues to get a job." This, remarkably, seems to be both a close paraphrase and an apparent misrepresentation of the source! I would appreciate a second opinion before I try to do something about it. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have listed this thread not to be archived. Regardless of whether the user logs in again, these issues with verifiability and unreliable sources need to be resolved. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Two FAs

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4 Minutes (Madonna song)/archive3 was promoted before we had routine spotchecks on each nominator (and had a surprising number of supports from editors with colorful sigs not frequently seen at FAC).
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Madonna (entertainer)/archive1 had a good level of support from knowledgeable and competent FA writers and reviewers, but there are two reasons it should be very carefully scrutinized:
  1. It's a highly viewed BLP
  2. I can't decipher why I didn't request a source spotcheck before promoting it-- sometimes that's because the editor's work was checked elsewhere but I can't locate that here.

So, Legolas hasn't logged in since Feb 12; that's alarming. I suggest that one way forward for him (that is to avoid being blocked), is that he tell us which FAs and GAs he falsified sources on, so those can be cleaned up or delisted. If he does that honestly, he could be granted a reprieve from an indefinite block (subject to mentorship perhaps by someone willing to monitor his work). If he doesn't do that-- or gives a response that is later found to be false-- he is blocked indef. Madonna needs to be checked by someone with access. I agree that an editor with a track record like this is likely to continue or to sock, which is why I suggest that we find a way forward involving him coming clean now and being allowed to edit with supervision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Witchhunt"

Too incandescent; be like a LED: more light, less heat.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
how sure are we that this is "falsification" and not something else like for xample "mistakes". Could we wait with the witchhunt and blockthreats untill bad faith is demonstrated?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Are we having yet another "witch hunt"? Funny how often that word gets thrown around in here regardless of the amount of evidence that is presented. Oh well, pardon me for responding to a request to have a look in here. One would think I'da learned by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC) I am sorry I did not mean to single you out (except for the blockthreat which is obviously not warranted by policy)- but to comment on the entire topic - I most certainly didnt mean to call you an asshole - and I am not completely sure why you would think that since we have never really interacted. What I mean is that recently we have lost several good contriutors due to problems with their edits and the way that it was framed as mortal sin instead of a part of a learning process. Are we really sure at this point that we ant to make Legolas into the bad guy - or do we just perhaps ant to ask him what h was doing and tell him that it would be great if he could not do it in the future but that we appreciat his contributions nonetheless. I think we should be carefull not to needlessly pushaway people ith the energy and interest to produce FA and GA articles. Also I dont see that much evidence - I see some refs that cannot be immediately verified online. You would find many of those if you look over my articles as well. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Maunus, did you even read this thread before you commented? "Refs that cannot be immediately verified online"? Several of us have already done library searches and spent significant time on attempting to verify these references, and failed. It's all documented above. I assure you that every effort has been made to contact the author and assume good faith. He has disappeared and failed to respond to all manner of communication. I am also experienced in dealing with editors who make mistakes and helping them fix them. Pardon our frustration, but every time we have an issue like this, someone comes out of the woodwork and impugns work we do to remove these problems from Wikipedia. Read the thread before you comment, because your comments are ignorant. --Laser brain (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC) And every time (lately) that knowledgeable and competent editors spend inordinate amounts of time cleaning up someone else's mess, doing their homework, weighing in responsibly based on factual evidence, an admin comes along and labels-- noticeably-- work done by women as a "witch hunt". Never mind that I was specifically discussing ways to keep Legolas on board, regardless of the significant evidence already presented. I regret having weighed in here again only days after I stopped editing after Bishonen turned in her tools over the witches and bitches incident caused by admins. Amazing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Sandy, it's not about you but about me. A witch hunt was performed by men against women, historically, so you are not implicated as a witch hunter. Furthermore, Legolas is a male. The first reference to my forcing a witch hunt on Legolas was from Tbhotch who said "You've started a witch-hunt with no reason.". Tbhotch's next edit was to move-protect the article Witch-hunt. So Sandy, it is me—a guy—that is being called the witch hunter. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Well Binksternet, there's a bit of a history here. Virtually every time a problem like this crops up, someone drifts in and makes an ignorant comment that vilifies those of us who work to remove these problems from Wikipedia. It's an unfortunate side-effect of this work that the editors frequently disappear instead of helping clean up the mess. Sometimes they do stay and are receptive to coaching, which is the best outcome. (See here for example.) Some of us are a bit sensitive to continuously having our motives and methods questioned, when so few people are willing to step up and deal with these issues. --Laser brain (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the background, Binksternet; I'm not sure it's a good thing that it's not only aimed at women (since it's been aimed my way a lot lately), and I'm sorry to see that there is ongoing hostility towards those who end up cleaning up these situations. I hope Maunus will have a better day tomorrow, and regret this distraction from the significant amount of evidence and problem that needs to be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC) My first priority is to identify and remove false sources and text, to limit the damage done to Wikipedia. My second priority is to tell Legolas that this sort of practice cannot continue, but that an active and intelligent contributor such as himself is still useful to the project, as long as he resolves not to fabricate sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

2006 Icon magazine cite

At Get Together (Madonna song), Legolas2186 performed a "major expansion for GA" way back in July 2009. He added a link to an interview of Nathaniel Howe, a 3D animator and PR/branding artist. The link was to the "Drowned Madonna" fansite which is no longer working: http://www.drownedmadonna.com/modules.php?name=nathaniel_howe. The Wayback Machine has the interview here, archived from July 2007. Legolas misrepresented that Howe was interviewed by Madonna's official website Icon, but the link is to the fansite Drowned World, and the interviewer calls him- or herself "Drowned World", not Icon. Up to this point, the quote is accurate and the text from the website is accurately summarized, but the website is a weak source, arguably not reliable enough.

The next change that Legolas made to the cite is a more serious infraction. In November 2010 he deleted the dead link to Drowned World and instead asserted that the cite came from a print copy of Icon magazine, volume 23, number 11. Icon magazine was not published in volumes but in issues, according to this eBay guide to back issues. The eBay guide implies that the August 2006 issue of Icon would have been issue #45, not 23 or 11. I seriously doubt that the clunky and amateurish Drowned World interview was carried by the glossy print magazine Icon. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Subpage time?

Shall we move all this to a subpage (to avoid archiving)? We need to structure and go through in a methodical way. A bit like copyvios but in reverse in an ironic sort of way. Legolas I hope you read this, if you come and help we can try to clean this up as quickly yet as thoroughly as possible. I have seen good work as well, so let's try to move forward. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've been "tending the garden" at RS/N recently, and I want to keep this on the main page to attract "fixer" attention. I've set it to no-archive (until 2022). Fifelfoo (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

TMZ for info in Celebrity Rehab article

I'm not going to ask if TMZ is generally reliable, since that's been asked and answered here before, and the consensus in the seven past RSN discussions I found (December 2007 May 2009 June 2009 December 2009 August 2010 March 2011 December 2011) seems to be that it generally is, and that even The New York Times called it as such. What was also said was that it should be used cautiously, and on a case-by-case basis. So I want to know if TMZ is reliable for the following three pieces of information that an editor removed from the Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew article, on the basis that TMZ is not reliable:

• [Drew Pinsky] reportedly visited Rachel Uchitel personally in order to convince her to join the fourth season cast. (TMZ citation)

• Carey relapsed and returned to porn, starring in and directing a parody film called Celebrity Pornhab with Dr. Screw, a decision that Pinsky said saddened him. (TMZ citation)

• Michaele Salahi was later removed from the show because, according to TMZ sources, she harbored "no addiction," and thus had "no reason to be there."(TMZ citation)

In the meantime, I will look for other sources, but since I don't know how successful my search will be, I'd like those here to chime in, just to be sure that this is one of the "cases" that they've mentioned in the past. Nightscream (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed much of the past discussions, and thanks for posting them. I agree with editors who say we should use this source, if at all, with the caution mandated by WP:BLP. Some relevant sections on this policy include a link to WP:WELLKNOWN: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Regarding non public figures, the policy says: exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution.. The above in my mind rules out using TMZ when it breaks a story and is the only source reporting it. As for reliability, I am bothered by the number of links provided in the articles that hint they are providing evidence but are in fact advertisement. This was particularly true for the Carey story which said: "in our behind-the-scenes footage, you'll see there's not much difference between the satirical XXX flick and the actual TV show. The word "footage" was a live link, but none was available. This does not increase my confidence in TMZ's accuracy. I think your chosen course of action is wisest, look for more sources.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Names of Loyalist Settlers and Grants of Land which they received from the Bahamian Government while a British Commonwealth!

William Lockhart Granted 160 Acres by the Crown of England in the 1700's.

"The Early Settlers of the Bahama Islands with Account of the American Revolution" by A. TALBOT BETHEL (1039)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.103.8 (talk • contribs)

The above section was by 66.151.103.8 Fifelfoo (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Business Insider

What do you think about this as a source? It's by Henry Blodget, co-founder, CEO and Editor-In Chief of Business Insider. It's this Henry Blodget, who is "a frequent contributor to the magazines Slate, Newsweek and New York." Others are better at evaluating such things. It has a lot of valuable information. B^e——C_ritical 07:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why Henry wouldn't be a reliable source. And those graphs are rather disheartening. Silverseren^C 17:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it's got some things going for it, but I'm not sure how strong Business Insider will be if challenged... You think it is strong? There is a lot of info there which I could use in an article. I can't easily get it somewhere else because to avoid OR I need a source specifically connecting the statistics to the Occupy movement. But I don't want to write it up and have it torn down because of the source. B^e——C_ritical 19:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a concern in regards to the sort of oversight for accuracy this publication might have. I was unable to find references to an editorial board. The articles are interesting, they seem seriously researched, but I could not find a fay to determine whether they are checked for factual accuracy. They carry a very strong point of view: this is not damming, but because of it, they should also be accurate. If this source is used, I would recommend following WP:RSOPINION and using what it says as a statement of opinion, rather than fact. Then, whenever possible, look for additional reliable sources that support the same statements. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Is unknownmisandry.blogspot.com a reliable source?

There is a dispute over whether Vera Renczi was a real person. Recently an IP and an account have been addeding [114] to the article. Another editor and I have reverted but the blog has been reinserted. A very similar IP has also been adding it, but that might be just the same person with a dynamic IP. I can't see how this is a reliable source and in any case how does it source 'dubious' and "No local newspapers featured the case, which is probably because the story was made up.". Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not a reliable source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed. WP does not need non-RS sources for any articles. Collect (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Monachos.net by M.C. Steenberg

Could I please get some opinions on the suitability of the above-mentioned website as a source for Eastern Orthodox history? I notice it is used in some of our articles such as Fifth Council of Constantinople, and I was thinking it could be useful for improving the theological section of Potentiality and actuality which is an article I was working on - theology not being something I know heaps about, but I did want to get that section more up to standards. I have already conducted some basic googles and this author seems to be qualified to some extent and fairly often mentioned by others, but I would like others to comment if possible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't explored enough of the site to comment fully, but Irenaeus (M. C.) Steenberg, who runs it, is a published and accredited scholar in Patristics (brief bio here; book Irenaeus on creation, 2008; article in Vigiliae Christianae (see JSTOR) 2004 which was reviewed in Gnomon). So I guess his own online work would pass our test. It looks a very useful site. Andrew Dalby 10:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Is a library catalog page proof of a PhD?

This is both a BLP issue and a sources issue, and I apologise for raising it at BLPN and then here, but I was sidetracked by the editor's accusations of violating BLP and hadn't focussed on the sourcing. This relates to the biography of Charles R. Pellegrino who does not claim to have a PhD but who evidently claims to have been awarded one and had it stripped from him. Recent sources which appear to be reliable have the University vice-chancellor denying that it was ever awarded, but these have been removed from the article on the basis of a library catalog page about his PhD thesis (which nobody denies was submitted). The catalog page is at [catalog entry ] and if you look at Talk:Charles R. Pellegrino you will see a detailed argument by the editor (who I think has just been editing logged out, I'm sure inadvertently). The editor is using this to remove the university's statement that Pellegrino was never awarded a PhD, saying that the sources used are not reliable. See the revert at [115] to see those sources. The editor went to WP:DRN where xe got no support. Ze added a claim that Pellegrino has a PhD but didn't source this, saying that it doesn't need a source because the articles for Carl Sagan and Isaac Azimov (neither BLPs nor cases where their PhD was disputed) don't have sources. I think before we can settle whether there are BLP violations (and the editor is making very bitter accusations against other editors) we need to settle the RS question. I'll mention this at WP:BLPN where I'd started a discussion. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be a very good source. The library I worked in took great care to distinguish the dissertations that had been awarded a Ph.D. from the ones that hadn't; I'd imagine that all university libraries would take that trouble. The only point of doubt in my mind is, did the designer of the database form (which is what we see when we go to that page) understand that this precise question would be asked?

Can someone else go to the catalogue page and open the dissertation itself? It won't open for me. Did you try that, Doug? I'd expect it to begin with a dated statement that the degree was awarded. If that doesn't help, then I suppose, for absolute certainty, one would do the old-fashioned thing and ask the library. Andrew Dalby 15:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, from your remark, I take it that you also have gained some respect for how libraries handle such documents. Research Archives are even more careful, by some order of magnitude. But I have also seen the other part of the process, the one that gives you hesitation over the design of the database form. My experience, actually sitting in on meetings of graduate affairs committees about the form of the records and the design of the databases, was incredibly boring - it went on and on, through many meetings (for years, though I only attended a few). Every detail, of hardware, software, output, forms, which item preceded which item, ad nauseum...was hashed and rehashed. IT people were there. Library specialists were there in many flavors. Everything from the ethics of shelving (should a dissertation on homemaking and the role of women as family support members, go next to a volume on empowering women, even if the catalog order put them there?), to the font variants on the title covers got the third-degree. Sleeeeeepy time, I tell you. So I think we can put that aside, unless NZ is some how very sloppy. But I see no reason to think so. Redslider (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not a library catalog is an adequate source, it certainly lacks the authority to trump inclusion of a flat statement from the school; the discussion of the matter in the NYT is notable, reliably sourced, and worthy of inclusion. The fault I see here with the catalog citation is that it's a primary source which requires interpretation, thus constituting original research and the synthesis of all these sources into a conclusion about whether the degree is awarded. It seems to me that WP:NOR was constituted to forbid the kind of second-guessing which is taking place here. we are not investigative reporters. Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Mangoe, first place, the catalog, technically, is a secondary source. It can be put together from a dozen or more primary sources (slips of paper with signatures, approvals, signoffs...etc.) that are then put into final form as catalog descriptions by the archivists. More important, is that the secondary source here is the research library archivist (the co-ordinator of that department, in fact) who confirmed that the record indicates "all degrees conferred." And he is the one in the room (not the VC or even the Chancellor) that has the expert credentials to do just that. It's what allows us to employ sourcing at all, that they are knowledgeable and trustworthy providers of accurate information. The archivist is the real source here, and a much better one than the NYT or even tertiary quotes from VC's by reporters who specialize in business economics reporting and Home&Garden features. Contrary to some popular opinions the NYT, AP and other so-called "reliable media" do not vet or fact-check all of their articles, and then they may do so only in pro forma fashion (have we forgotten the 'WMD goose chase' that got us into a war, and the "fact-checking" media that didn't much fact-check anything?). It is always better to keep in mind what a good source really is, than to blindly apply some formula and simply declare something a "reliable source" because it fits into some predefined category. I think some of these discussions tend to forget that. Redslider (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Opened ok for me. It's very short, 24 pages not including references, and all it says is "Submitted for the degree of Ph.D. in Zoology at the Victoria University of wellington. 22 September 1983". And according to the New York Times (but before this catalog entry perhaps) "He submitted a thesis which in the unanimous opinion of the examiners was not of a sufficient standard for a Ph.D. to be awarded,” Mr. Walsh said. “Following complaints from Pellegrino, an investigation was carried out by the University. In 1986, Pellegrino appealed to Her Majesty the Queen. The case was then considered by the Governor-General who disallowed the appeal. Accordingly, Pellegrino was never awarded a Ph.D. from Victoria and therefore could not have had it stripped from him or reinstated at a later date." Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

[Edit conflict -- sorry, Mangoe and Doug, I haven't read your latest yet:] Continuing to think about this ... The conflicting sources -- the library catalogue and the NYT report -- are very high grade reliable sources on this, by our definition. The fact that they disagree is notable, and therefore an editor who wants to delete all evidence of the disagreement would be mistaken. In whatever way the issue of fact may eventually be resolved, there's surely no reason why we shouldn't refer both to the catalogue and to reliable newspaper reports.

But the NYT report is only reliable for the fact that the University claims he doesn't have their Ph.D. It isn't reliable for the story of the appeals etc. That's just stuff in quote marks. Andrew Dalby 16:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just emailed the library, but they've gone to bed and won't get up till Monday. I'll say if I get an answer. What I'm doing is OR, Mangoe, you're quite right, but I'm not going to report it on a Wikipedia page! Actually the library catalogue page is a secondary source: the primary source would be an announcement by the University registry. Andrew Dalby 17:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I see now that Redslider had already done this, and been assured that the database details should be "taken at face value", so I may merely have wasted their time by asking again ... Ah well. Librarians are nice people. Andrew Dalby 19:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A librarian replied at WP:BLPN - must have missed my request to post here. I've asked them to copy it here but you might want to take a look. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A library catalog page is proof that a book (or other medium) has been cataloged at the library at one time. It's not proof of much more. This is a bit like asking "is the telephone directory of Beverly Hills proof that XXX is a millionaire". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless, of course, there is a specific item in the record that says a degree was conferred (not merely that a "thesis was shelved"); and, a reliable and trustworthy second source verifies that, indeed, "all degrees are conferred". And that is what we seem to have. Certainly that is sufficient to immediately remove all material in the BLP that would infer that the person did not have their degree, and to indicate, without qualification, that a degree was conferred. Certainly, you don't believe we should continue to malign Pellegrino by suggesting otherwise in his BLP? Redslider (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are my comments from BLPN:

Librarian here. I don't think this catalog record should be taken as evidence of anything other than that he wrote a doctoral thesis called The Role of Desiccation Pressures. Catalog errors are quite alarmingly frequent and I find it difficult to imagine a cataloger would ever check graduation records or call registrars to verify a student's degree status. All they know is they got a doctoral thesis, so they put it on the shelf. The only exception to using catalog records as sources would be from archives/special collections where they do extensive research on the items they are preserving that are of historical or other value. (Some library special collections also house copies of theses, but that doesn't mean they do this kind of research.) Gamaliel (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: so I shouldn't have taken the TL;DR approach because there's quite a bit more to this than I assumed initially. The New York Times quotes the university as saying there is no doctorate, so there is no doctorate for our purposes, period. A catalog record can not be used to override a gold-standard secondary source getting its information from the best possible primary source. A big "doctoral degree controversy" section like this one is inappropriate, but this can be dealt with in a sentence or two and is appropriate for inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with almost everything Gamaliel says but not with the conclusion :) The controversy "can be dealt with in a sentence or two and is appropriate for inclusion". Andrew Dalby 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)

No, a published thesis is not evidence PhD was awarded.

A published thesis is evidence that someone completed a portion of a PhD program but is not evidence that a PhD was ever awarded. My PhD thesis clearly states "in partial fulfillment...." A PhD program requires a thesis and its defense; it also has other requirements such as course work, an area exam, and (in days past) foreign language proficiency. In the typical case, a PhD candidate completes all the other requirements and the last thing s/he does is the thesis. When only the thesis requirement remains, the candidate is often referred to as AbD -- all but dissertation; many leave grad school in that position. But there are people who do it differently. I know one famous PhD (he has an article on WP) who flew through his dissertation but had ignored some other hoops. He got millions in DARPA funding for his own company related to his thesis work and concentrated on that more interesting work. The university wouldn't give him his degree until he took a couple more courses. He eventually took the courses. So even a completed and successfully defended thesis is not evidence that a PhD was awarded.

The Chancellor's statements suggest that the candidate wrote his thesis but failed the thesis defense. Failing a defense happens.

A failed defense could be consistent with some sourced statements (I'm not happy about a source from "blogs.nytimes...") if "stripped" is viewed as "discarded" rather than "awarded and then revoked". We'd have the case of someone doing substantial work preparing a thesis, only to have that work discarded by the committee. But I'm not familiar with the details, so I won't take a stand on what actually happened.

There are some problems.

I would not expect a university library to publish a thesis that failed its defense, but it might happen. My PhD had to be signed by both my thesis advisor and the chairman of the department committee; I doubt the latter would sign on a failed defense, but I do not know what happens to failed defenses.

The catalog having a the statement "vuwschema.type.vuw Awarded Doctoral Thesis" is not a compelling statement. It's a schema type, so it may refer to a general pattern rather than this specific pattern. It does not say "Awarded Doctoral Degree". The library system is probably independent of the academic system, so it does not carry much authority.

There are some date issues in this case. Perhaps there was a successful appeal to the Crown (or some other action) after the NYT sources in early 2010 reported failure and before the library issue date in late 2011. We don't know until RSs say so.

Girx, If it were only a question of a "published thesis" and no other source of record, you might have a point (at least one to be investigated further). However, an RS more reliable than either the NYT article, or the tertiary VC source, says otherwise - One that the RS (research archivist) specifically stated with reference to the particulars provided him in this case that the record indicates that "all degrees are conferred". That plainly does not say anything about the "published thesis" (although its common sense that you have have that done to have the other state be true). According to the librarian's statement, the record indicates that the subject received their phd. (no matter what else it indicates about the thesis itself). So I think all of your conjecture (and it is only that) falls apart. The very reliable second source - the librarian in charge of the Research Archives collection says you are wrong. Your litany of other things besides a thesis which are required has no standing. Whatever the requirements at VUW, the documentary evidence, according to the librarian, says that all those matters are done, "all degrees conferred". I don't know why you seem to be having trouble with that or are second guessing the expertise of the librarian. Again, when you cite the catalog as not providing a "compelling statement", it is a reliable second source that is making the statement, not simply the document. The second source is telling us what the document means, and that is, "All degrees conferred". You may have a bunch of wild theories (someone broke into the archive and changed that particular record....) but that is of little value here, or anywhere else. We have the record, we have a good second source; one, I argue, that is better than any other we have. Your library, some other library may publish "failed thesis" (I don't know of any; well, one that shelves them in a completely different part of the library and doesn't specify them as 'published' or 'awarded'). But here, we have one in the Research Archives catalog, along with all the others that are there. The doubt rather lies on the side that its cataloging does not represent a true record, or that the subject does not have a "conferred degree".

But there is an issue in this that almost all detractors (save me, so far) have missed. I don't think anyone in these discussions, save someone with a completely different agenda than establishing the validity (or lack thereof) of Pellegrino's degree, would argue that there hasn't been serious doubt cast on the claims by those who suggest he doesn't have a degree. Given that, given even a modicum of doubt that the other sources are incorrect, would you find cause to infer or otherwise include assertions (sourced or not) that would impugn or discredit a man's personal and professional reputation? Would you find that consistent with either Wikipedia policy, or common decency? Even beyond that, I think the matter interesting in that it calls into question Wikipedia's various policies on the matter, regarding cases in which a person's character and reputation may be maligned and serious harm done to them. I know this is a topic for another venue (though I don't know where). I would argue, though, that when it involves such matters as discrediting someone personally and/or professionally, Wikipedia should require a much higher standard than simply RS from newspapers or unsourced claims by editors. An editor may find some unsourced conversation with some unspecified person at a university sufficient reason to broadcast the matter to the media and other places on their own, or to insert discrediting statements into the BLP, or undermine the subject reputation with statements such as "claims to have...". This, however, seems totally inconsistent with WP purposes and avowed interest in avoiding doing harm or maliciously injuring people. Rather, I suggest the standard ought to be, where material that might harm or impugn the character of the subject is concerned, a higher standard and degree of proof needs to be provided than simply conventional second sources; and, that this standard require an editor to consider any legitimate sources of doubt that the disparaging remarks are true, or even partially true. In all the discussions here, the assertion has been that the subject (or those in defense of him) must prove the validity of his degree. That is exactly backwards. Where then is any doubt at all (and the length of these discussions suggest there is considerable doubt) the standard should be that material should be omitted or removed immediately. I know, its an argument for another place. But that is the underlying issue in this case (along with, I suspect, some other one's as well). And, while we comfortably sit here, splitting hairs over source validity, a real person's (a living one at that) is having his personal and professional reputation defamed. I think we all should take a look up from our musty books and catalog entries for a moment, and consider what this whole matter means to the one really being subjected to it. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I would examine the reliability of the earlier sources (the blog issue). I'd keep earlier statements if they were RS. If I kept the earlier statements, I would include a matter-of-fact statement about the PhD thesis existing at VUW and source it with the link, but I would not take a position whether that entry implied the grant of a PhD. If I didn't keep the earlier statements, I'd be silent on the whole issue.

Glrx (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Academic libraries make cataloguing errors all the time. Staff who perform such tasks are not necessarily highly trained professionals. Material will be transferred from written to digitised catalogues and then tranferred again to new systems. In the process nuances will get lost and simple errors made. If there were no argument about the matter the catalogue may have sufficed, but clearly there is, so it doesn't. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is one of the great shames, in my opinion, of librarianship that so many in the field view cataloging as unimportant drugework and pile it on low level employees who couldn't care less (nor do they get paid enough to care) and often have no knowledge or background in the field. So many library catalogs (including my own) are shoddy and nearly useless. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the New York Times source should be seen as a reliable source. Motojo Rich is a reporter for the Times[116], and I doubt very much that the Times doesn't exercise editorial control over its columns and blogs. And it is a fact that Pellegrino's website doesn't claim he has a PhD. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's reliable, too. My point above is that the NYT doesn't say that Pellegrino went through all that appeal process. It says that the University spokesman asserted it. That's what the famed fact-checking will have checked, and we can certainly believe the NYT on that.

As to the thesis, as you and others have said above, we know it was submitted and no one denies it. So we could write and footnote all we need to, right now, and whether we can ever satisfy Redslider I doubt. Andrew Dalby 20:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked a little further, and I'd say that NYT does have control over Rich's blog. Furthermore, Rich wrote earlier about Pellegrino in a conventional NYT article; the blog is a follow up that would reasonably use the same standards; the article just wasn't significant enough for a conventional article.

There are some non-RS sources that have Pellegrino going into more detail about getting his PhD revoked. A fellow author, for example, published some letters from Pellegrino to her on her website. Such sources cannot be trusted.

At http://www.charlespellegrino.com/preface.htm (apparent The Last Train from Hiroshima preface for 2nd ed), Pellegrino (I presume it is his site and is therefore quotable) claims his PhD was restored in April, 2010. (Rich's NYT blog was March 5, 2010, so it would predate this restoration.) Pellegrino gives a lot of detail about the revocation (but does not source the lawsuits or his restoration).

Glrx (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That's very interesting. If it's true, it means there's no conflict between the NYT article (which, as you say, predates the award of the Ph.D.) and the library catalogue (which seems to have a recent date). Andrew Dalby 11:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read that piece now. Nice find, Glrx. I'd be interested to see a New Zealand Wikipedian comment on it, but I'd say, at first reading, it has the ring of truth about it. Andrew Dalby 12:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The only real question here is whether a thesis submitted for PhD can appear on the library shelves even though it is not considered good enough for the PhD to be granted. This will depend on the local procedures in place at each location, as well as on the likelihood of administrative errors. From my experience (decades of handling PhD theses) it is perfectly possible. So to use the presence of the thesis in a catalogue as evidence for a degree being granted is an error. We might allow it in a case where where there is no contrary evidence or reason to doubt, but it certainly does not disprove explicit claims to the contrary in reliable sources. Zero^talk 21:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if one needs to carry out original research in the form of contacting the librarian, followed by synthesis to deduce the claimed assertion from this primary reference. I don't see that as verification by a reliable source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, Cusop and Zero, it is not the catalog entry itself that is the source - but the research archivist (in fact the person in charge of these particular archives) that is the source; a very reliable secondary source, given his expertise as a research librarian responsible for the records in question (who likely knows more than anyone else what the records are about and what they mean than anyone else, including the VC or the Chancellor, for that matter). Others are re-verifying his statement (see below) now, so we should wait for those results, too. For that matter, the catalog entry is also a secondary source as, in fact, it is the reflection of primary records (permission slips, faculty and advisor signoffs, and other primary sources from which the librarian creates the record.) You might also note, that this particular record is held in the Research Archives at VUW and the people who handle and are responsible for these documents are research archivists. Now research archives are a very special breed of librarian. You might say they are to library records, what basoonists are to symphonies - very finicky, very precise. When it comes to the written record, academics are best advised not to argue with research archivists. One is almost always certain to lose the argument. So too, with the archives themselves. These are special collections which preserve important historical information. Despite Gamiel's suggestion that the Phd catalogs are some how "less important" and subject to less care than other historical records, on the contrary, they are the repository of one of the most important parts of a universities collections. Those records underlie a university's reputation as well as its history. The Phd catalogs are the place where a university's record of success and achievement are reposited. I think it would also be a losing argument to try to call the handling of such records, let alone the regard for them, into question or suggest they are somehow handled with less care. I certainly wouldn't want to try. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the pdf copy available through the library's website lacks the signature plate. Now, granted, I don't know what the norms are in NZ, but in most US universities I'd expect to see the signed plate, especially if you're talking about a scanned version of a hardcopy (like this one is). Guettarda (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Copying to posts from BLPN here:Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I don't doubt your experiences with the matter of data entry errors. However, in the interpretation of the record in the VUW Research Archives, I directly asked the librarian in charge of processing those records if the entries (which I copied directly from Pellegrino's published record) indicated if the student had actually received their degree. Here is the part of the Talk discussion describing that communication:

the following communication from the Digital Initiatives Coordinator of Technological Services at the Wellington Library, should be helpful

In response to my question, "That is, given the follow catalog descriptors and information,

       "vuwschema.type.vuw Awarded Doctoral Thesis en_NZ
       thesis.degree.discipline Zoology en_NZ
       thesis.degree.grantor Victoria University of Wellington en_NZ
       thesis.degree.level Doctoral en_NZ
       thesis.degree.name Doctor of Philosophy en_NZ

       along with VUW publication designation, accession dates, etc.
       can one presume the student has gotten their degree?

The Co-ordinator replied with the following statement,

       In answer no Thesis is included in the Research Archive that has not already been awarded.
       All degrees are conferred. Some recent ones may be in before actual graduation, but they have
       all been passed. The process is that after a Thesis is passed the student must deposit a copy
       with the library before graduation.
       You can accept the Awarded Doctoral Thesis at face value."

       Michael Parry
       Digital Initiatives Co-ordinator
       Technology Services
       The Library
       Victoria University of Wellington
       PO Box 3438, Wellington, New Zealand"

I call your attention to Mr. Parry's statement: All degrees are conferred.

That's how it works at VUW. I think that is a rather unequivocal statement of the meaning of those entries from the person most in a position to know. I would also find it a bit of a stretch, while data entry errors do occur, that in the 30 years of records (from the copyright date of 1983 on Pellegrino's record) this particular one, and those particular descriptors were mis-entered. That's really playing the odds, yes? As for your accepting words quoted by a columnist of a VC on a phone call as more reliable than the written record itself seems less than prudent. Phd accession records as you know, are not like 3x5 cards in k-12 libraries. They are legal documents surrounded by a number of protection and compliance processes. It's like the difference between have the mortgage in your hand or the real estate broker telling you what the status of your home is, yes? That little catalog item is a record of a process, a completed process. (btw: i included the contact info on the librarian, so that anyone could also verify the same information (that is, I sourced it). Redslider (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OR - this isn't a court of law. We go by sources, rather than by 'evidence' acquired through our own investigations. And an e-mailed answer by a 'Digital Initiatives Co-ordinator' to an abstract question isn't a 'legal document' in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, AndytheGrump, it's just a direct communication from a reliable second source. And certainly more reliable than an NYT columnist, or a tertiary-sourced VC, who has no expertise in such matters and is not responsible for the management of student records, in any case, even if the VC may speak for the university on a variety of matters. On the other hand, The librarian is a solid second source, and his email is quite good for our purposes - we are trying to establish a credible fact, not creating an entry for the BLP. Btw, I notice that you are a stickler for being precise, but that you frequently use "We" in your posts as though speaking for everyone else (I'm presuming you don't intend to use the royal "We"). I think it much better to say "I go by sources" and such when referring to your own practices. Just observing. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that it doesn't appear that the librarian was told about the statement in the NYT. Any query to the library needs to be specific and to ask about the discrepancy. And my guess is that there must be someone at the University in a better position to confirm Pellegrino's status than anyone in the library. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In my query to the library yesterday (which I sent without realising that Redslider had already sent one -- apologies, but there's been a lot of discussion around here!) I did mention the report in the NYT and pointed out the contradiction. So, if someone at the Library replies to me, we may yet get a comment on that matter. Andrew Dalby 09:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That's ok Andrew, Doug sent a query too, and I sent a follow-up query as well. I hope others will hold off an not inundate the poor librarian with endless repeats of the same query! Let's see what the replies tell us. Btw. I would suggest that mentioning the NYT article or any other matter to a second source, tends to prejudice the matter some and make the second source a little less reliable. when the information you wish is simply a statement of fact within their expertise; not to apply that expertise to an extraneous element (which may be important to us, but not relevant to the request being made of the second source.) Purer if one just asks the source the question that is within their province to answer, and let that answer serve as it does. Otherwise, in effect, you are asking the second sources to do original research on a conflict that is outside their scope of practice. Still may be useful information, but less reliable. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I differ from you there, Redslider. Reference librarians often like to know why you're asking and it may help them to give a more useful answer. Anyway, we'll see. Andrew Dalby 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of things I might disagree with in Doug's opening statement, but I think we're entirely on the same page about one thing; the issues involved cut across a lot of lines - sources, BLPs, and a bunch of others. Interesting, and instructive as source arguments can be, I'm electing to sit this dance out. Maybe later, I'll come back for the sheer fun of wrapping my head around the issues. But for now, I've elected to take this thing to mediation, which I've done, and see if their isn't a neutral position in this dog pile.

Like I say, source-fights are interesting. For those of you that wish to pursue this one, there's a lot of material to wade through. My take was to examine the sources given in the original BPL and ask, 1) what is the original source (and it's unsourced companion) from which all the secondary sources began? What was going on there, and why did the initiator take effort to do what they did (and describe it in the BPL as well? Then I looked at the secondary sources and asked how/why did this emerge from the initiator? How much were the secondary's contribution? I also looked at other inconsistencies and conflicts within the sources. It was an interesting tour, I hope you find it equally intriguing. Next, I went to the library record. And, of course, recognized that many entries applied to the thesis itself, true. But some others puzzled me (though, some I was familiar with from other universities). I knew what the initiator's unsourced source said (it was quoted in the BLP). And what the VC said. But there were other items in the record that didn't quite add up. So I got in touch with the librarian closest to the matter for an interpretation of the descriptors and keys (NZ being down-under, who knew for sure?). And there are other puzzles. No one has yet talked about the strange dates that appear - a 'copyright' of 1983 (that descriptor used to be called 'publication date' in the NZ catalog. I think they changed it). Then notice the accession and issue dates - a gap of 30 years. Now the VC says nothing happened "after 1986" - but something happened with that record and degree, didn't it? And then you might wish to go digging in to the NZ VUW doings between 1983-1986 that we can guess the VC was excluding for some reason. Well, let me know if you find anything interesting. I'm sure there is, but very difficult to find. And you might wish to ask why that is so? That's about it, and I figure there are some source detectives and researchers here way better at sleuthing than I am. Have fun. Redslider (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"you might wish to go digging in to the NZ VUW doings between 1983-1986". Nope. We're too busy compiling an encyclopaedia based on published sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Venturing into OR, any dissertation that contains ~30 pages of typewritten text (i.e. at most half that if properly typeset) is a red flag in itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Stephen, The subject of Pellegrino's thesis, its size or quality, is not at question here. Everybody seems to agree (I've seen no one disagreeing the thesis was officially accepted and filed by the university. Any questions regarding its quality or content are way off topic and not germane. For your own information, there are a plenty of Phd. dissertations much shorter than that (length has nothing to do with qualifying a dissertation). I suggest you google 'shortest Phd' or some such and see for yourself. In any case, it is not a matter for discussion here, nor relevant to his BLP. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen nobody agreeing, and the university itself seems to strongly disagree that the thesis was accepted. Indeed, PhD theses can be quite short. But at a reputable university, a thesis this length is very unusual, hence the red flag. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Length is not a relevant issue (per WP:OR). But indeed no-one is agreeing that the thesis was officially accepted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DRN is not an appropriate venue for issues about sources and that discussion is closed (an attempt to reopen it was reverted). I've read his foreward to the second edition again (an edition apparently not published by his original publisher but as of August 2010 "will be published in four foreign countries as of this writing"[117] although I can't find evidence that happened. He says that certain publications of his had 'Dr.' restored but he doesn't seem to be saying that he officially has PhD, nor does he claim one elsewhere on his website so far as I can see. A bit odd. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

yes, doug. I think, before this is all done, "A bit odd." will prove to be an understatement. But there's a ways to go yet. Meanwhile, the question remains, can we continue to malign the man's character in the BLP, given the degree of doubt and new material coming to light? That does real harm. Should I continue to be charged with "vandalism" or "edit war" for trying to correct the record in favor of avoiding an egregious error? Does it now seem like the prudent thing to do, consistent with WP policy, to protect the subject from harm, unless/until proof certain that he does not have is degree is offered? 71.193.56.126 (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I just want to draw attention to Pellegrino's April 2010 "preface", linked (far above) by Glrx. Here's the link again. It doesn't answer all our questions, and since I'm still hoping the Library will respond to my enquiry, I would really rather not have commented yet. But, since Doug asks me to do so, I'll just say that with what's before us it seems possible that the following happened:

1. because of deep disputes with his examiners (and possible political ramifications) Pellegrino's thesis, although initially passed, was not awarded a Ph.D. (This has been known.)
2. His thesis was stored in the library, but not made accessible because it was a failed thesis. (Some libraries do exactly this, including the one where I used to work.)
3. he appealed and got nowhere. (This usually happens.)
4. his book published in the first weeks of 2010 claimed that he had gained a Victoria University Ph.D. (It was technically false, but ...)
5. the university, continuing to regard him as an alien species, denied his claim publicly and helped to kill his 2010 book. (This certainly did happen, on or about 2 March 2010; it's in the NYT and all over the web.)
6. Meanwhile, a very slow legal process of rehabilitating and compensating students who had been disadvantaged during the upheavals of the 80s was taking place. He, as an alien (a US citizen) would be the last to benefit. (This is from his preface: I don't have other evidence.)
7. He published his revised preface in April 2010. By this time some of those qualifications unfairly removed had been restored, but not yet his.
8. In November 2010, his qualification, last of all of them, was restored (as he would see it) or generously granted (as the University would see it). The University felt a bit silly and said nothing about it. (This is normal.)
9. The Library made his thesis available. (This seems to be true to judge by the Library catalogue, which definitely shows this date -- i.e. later than the NYT report.)

If this happens to be correct, it means that our two best sources (the NYT and the Library catalogue) are both true after all ... Anyway, if I get a reply from the Library, I'll report it. Andrew Dalby 21:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, it actually undermines the NYT version where the VC denies the claim that Pellegrino was stripped of his degree. The secondary sources are getting considerably weaker in their contention. (Incidentally, you might wish to try to find out if/how the NYT article was actually vetted. That's very difficult to do. But I think there are some interesting things to be found there. Btw Rich's specialty is economics, and before that, Home&Garden. Not very specialized in the subject of the article.

And, thank you for this piece of work you did. I knew if some of you researchers kept digging you'd begin to find some interesting pieces in this puzzle. I can say, I've known these things (and somewhat more) for some time. Actually, from before I began questioning the Wikipedia article. But, for unrelated reasons, I have not been at liberty to use a good deal of material I have at hand. So, its been like fighting with one hand tied behind my back. Yes, the case about Charles Pellegrino's degree is "a bit odd" as Doug says. It's what happens when we become so lost in the intricacies of sourcing that we lose sight of why we source things in the first place. Maybe a lesson it that for all. Redslider (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, it is possible you were right, I was thinking of that when I should have been sleeping. I will note that whatever we do, we can only cite his website, not a second edition of a book as there may never have been a second edition. His website dates the preface to April 2010 but we know that as of August it still had not been published.

But that does not leave us with usable evidence that he has a PhD. And as I've told Redslider, the article cannot claim he was a PhD without a reliable source. He is still ignoring this and deleting anything about the controversy and making the article state he has a PhD. Redslider, this is a BLP violation and your argument that some dead people whose PhDs aren't controversial prove you don't need a source is simply wrong.

Thus without a reliable source (the link to the library needs interpretation, so can't be used) we either leave the whole thing out (which is not a good ideas as it is relevant to his biography and in itself not a BLP violation) or we can perhaps mention briefly the NYT, his claim on his website, and perhaps just a link to the library after a statement such as "his submitted dissertation was filed in the library on date". But I still feel uneasy about this as I still can't find where he's claiming to have a PhD or using the title 'Dr.'. So I'm on the fence at the moment. I really hope we can find out the status of his PhD this coming week from someone at the University outside the library. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

All of this is quite interesting -- but I assume that in the end we would not add to the article "he earned his PhD at ..." based on personal communication from the university. What would we put for a reference? It would be rather ironic for this result to come via WP:RSN, no less. If Andrew's speculations prove correct, I can see that they would throw doubt on the published sources (NYT, etc.) so that we might then leave out the section with claims and counterclaims. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely that we can't give him a PhD in his article without something better than a link to the library page or personal communications. Without some firm evidence from a reliable source we can't do that which is why I'm annoyed at Redslider's insistence that his article can assert that he has a PhD. The issue then is whether this controversy should be in the article, and that's probably a BLP issue, not an RSN one. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My reason for setting out that possible history, and the reason why it was a good idea to bring the question to this board, is this. A university library catalogue that enumerates the Ph.D. dissertations of its own university is, in all university systems known to me, a top-class reliable source, and if this board rules otherwise on weak grounds, I think the less of this board. The NYT is worshipped as the God of reliable sources, and even I, an atheist, think it's a top-class reliable source too. So, in my view, we are going to be able to deal with this story properly on the Pellegrino page, in two/three sentences, citing two reliable sources, and get it right as well!

But, as we know, all sources make mistakes, and the apparent contradiction between sources is very striking, and that's why I've asked the Library if they've made a mistake here or if their interface is misleading. It's a reasonable question, I think. Andrew Dalby 09:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the contradiction is not, in the end, between the university's library catalogue and the NYT -- the contradiction is between the the university's library catalogue and the university's own VC (per statement reported in the NYT). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors here need to be aware of the thread I've started at WP:ANI#Possible legal threat by User:Redslider after Redslider posted on xe's talk page ", Wikipedia is protected by law from suits arising out of defamation or malicious intent to harm the reputation of a person, as I understand it, individuals are not so protected. It would, of course be up to the subject to decide if and how to pursue such matters. But I think some of your "several editors" ought to consider the matter. We're not just talking about "blocking" somebody from Wikipedia, anymore." Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably regret stepping into the middle of this, but as an academic with a PhD, I've looked at the relevant "thesis" and the library record and it's not a reliable source for claiming that Mr. Pelligrino has (or had) a PhD. 1) There is no signature page on the thesis. Signature pages are required for accepted theses and dissertations and are always bound up with the official copies. At every defense I've participated in, we had to sign at least two copies of the signature page--one for the official copy and one for the library copy. 2) At most universities, the official copy of a dissertation or thesis is not housed in the library, but in the Graduate School Office or other official archive of the central administration. The library copy is a circulating copy (and could be subject to loss), therefore the official copy is registered and archived in a safe, noncirculating place. 3) The central administration confers the degree after the successful defense of the dissertation. There are certainly occasions when the defense of the dissertation is not successful and a degree is not conferred, even though there may be an extant dissertation or thesis. This is why the signature page is critical, even on the library's copy. 4) The official records repository for any university is not the library, but the central administration. If we are interested in hiring a new faculty member, we do not contact the library to see if they have been conferred a degree, nor do we check the card catalog. We call the office of the central administration that confers graduate degrees. Their records are the final (and only) authority. 5) 24 pages? That in itself is highly suspicious. It looks more like a term paper. 6) Finally, the library card itself shows the history of this document. It was not submitted to the library until 2011, 28 years after the supposed conferral of the degree in 1983. Library copies are submitted at the same time as the official copy is submitted to the Graduate School office, and there is usually a 6-week deadline following the successful defense. In other words, the library card is by no means sufficient documentation to demonstrate the conferral of a PhD. on Mr. Pelligrino and the statement by the Vice Chancellor to the New York Times trumps it in spades. The Vice Chancellor, speaking for the central administration and its official records, is the definitive source here. --Taivo (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Tavio, I'm glad you did step in. Particularly since, as a holder of a doctorate, I think you appreciate how serious a matter it is when the validity of a persons degree is called into question. I think you might agree, where their is the slightest doubt the allegations are true, error should certainly fall on the side of the one whose personal and professional reputation is at stake. In fairness, I will say that there are some here who seem to feel that error should fall on the other side and that technical argument about WP's sourcing rules should entirely decide the matter (without saying their interpretations of those rules are correct). To your questions and thoughts:

1. On the thesis itself. I think the main point is that the thesis, its length, its format, attachments or lack thereof, etc. is of no relevance to the question we are examining, the presence or absence of a awarded degree. All you say may be true, but it is not for us to judge the thesis. That was for the University and the particular advisors and committees at VUW to do, which they apparently did. I will say that I notice the thesis was also published in "Crustaceana" Volume 47, Number 3, 1984 , pp. 251-268(18); which i understand is the leading, peer-reviewed journal in the field (though it is not in my discipline so you may wish to check on that). Yes, this is not the thesis itself, only a reprint in a journal, but its there, and of sufficient quality evidently to get such publication. Ok, hope that puts to rest your first concerns. I can speculatively account for your observations on the library copy, but its not germane, so let's put that aside;

2. On the physical location: The record we have been examining is the one in the Research Archives at VUW. If you drill down the VUW home site, you will notice there are a number of separate libraries and differently located libraries, of which the Research Archives are but one. I have seen records of Pellegrino's thesis in both the Main catalogs of the central library (likely the place where people can handle it, check it out, etc.) and, the one we are looking at in the Research Archives (and, I think, the one that would be most closely scrutinized, carefully handled and protected, given the functions and traditions of a research archive; as well as the specialization of research archivists). I think it is generally agreed by all that we are examining the record which is in the most dependable and reliable collection, so far as its accuracy and security is concerned;

3. I have no knowledge, precisely, what VUWs procedures are with respect to conferring degrees (do you?). Your observations are consistent with my own experience of universities here in the states. But for them, I just can't say. But, let us assume you are correct in the particulars. We can call the graduate registrar, or central administration and get a confirmation or denial from someone. And it is probably likely they got it from the catalog record as well. If they said they couldn't find it, and we said "are you sure? We've got good reason to believe this person was an alumnus and has their degree, could you please check again," they might well go to the special collection to double-check the matter (in this case, that might well be the Research Archive, where the more reliable record might be held, and one that is less disputable.) In the matter of sourcing, the statements of central administration are of little use (though some here have made an exception for statements quoted by a third-party in some newspaper). But the printed, published record is the source that most researches would tend to trust and use. And that appears to be the record we are looking at - the record we've seen in the Research Library catalog. Some have suggested the record is a "primary source" and, therefore, using it would constitute 'original research' or a lessor source by WP rules. Actually, the RA reccord is a secondary source as well. The primary source is actually the various documents from the School, the Department, the faculty, and various other offices of the university (perhaps the comptrollers signoff as well to insure the student had paid all fees and tuitions), which the archivist then examines to create the record (much the same as if some expert had published a book or journal article and we used that as a gold-standard second source.) So that "signature page" and other documents you speculate upon, are part of the primary source record and may not even need appear by VUW processes, and may not even be publicly accessible for all we know. Perhaps they value the signature page more, and tuck it away somewhere else. We have no way of knowing and, as I said, the format of the thesis is of no concern to our purposes;

4. Again, the primary sources may be in the central administration (or scattered in various departments and offices). They may be digitized (presumably they are, with the written documents stored somewhere else entirely). But it is still the secondary sources we are concerned with here, and those are more reliably found in the catalog (and in the Research Archive catalog in particular). When we call someone in central administration, we can't be sure if they are looking at the primary sources, secondary sources or whatever. We have know way of knowing even if they are a valid secondary source (do they really have the expertise to interpret the record and tell us what it means? Very doubtful that they do.) So here, I would disagree with your assessment that "Their [central administration's] records are the final (and only) authority." At least in so far as sourcing goes. In a dispute over the matter the written record is the final authority as provided by a reliable, trustworthy second source (at least by WPs standards). In that, I would also say that the library research archivist would trump all other second sources on the basis of expertise, professional obligation, stewardship of the record, itself, and any other measure we might apply to the reliability of the source. A university might have all kinds of reasons and motives for inaccurately reflecting the actual state of affairs (lack of expertise/training on the part of the person reporting, political or other matters of overriding concern, even distraction and other side issues might come into play). But, when the archivist in charge of the matter tells you the state of affairs, you can pretty much depend that that is the state of affairs. And that is what sourcing is about, is it not?

5. Again, the length or quality of the thesis itself is not at issues and is not relevant, no matter what it looks like to you are me (we're just doing original, speculative research ourselves in that case.) But, in addition, I've provided the source (above) of its subsequent publication in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal of some repute. So I hardly think we have a term paper on our hands. As for length (a non-issue too) you may wish to google "shortest Phd" sometime.

6. The dates are, as I have said elsewhere, a puzzle. They concern the thesis itself and it's receipt. As I also stated before, they are not really of concern in the matter of whether the degree was awarded or not; though I will assume, safely I think, that the receipt and acceptance of the thesis had to precede the award of the degree; was a requirement. I will also note that I have viewed an older catalog of the same library in which the "date" descriptor was called "date published" and assume the research library has recently updated its descriptor nomenclature. The dates on both the old form and the new one were both 1983 in Pellegrino's record. The puzzle, of course, is why the discrepancy between that, and the accession and issue dates exists? A gap of thirty years! My first thought was to rule out the possibility that Pellegrino just happened to wander back onto the VUW campus thirty years after the fact and completed some missing requirement. As far as I can tell he left NZ not long after that period, came to the states and has resided here ever since. So, it's a mystery at the moment, but I don't think has any bearing on our sourcing questions. Well, one bearing. Presuming it made it to the library when he was still a student there, it kind of shoots a hole in the VC claim that "nothing happened after 1986" Something happened, sometime. Unless we are to believe the accession, degree award and everything else simply materialized in 2011. Some kind of Twilight Zone hypotheses, wouldn't you agree? So its a puzzle. But for another day. Outside of this discussion, certainly. I would add that the record, and its second-sourced verification, "all degrees conferred" of the archivist, entirely trumps the VC's statement. We don't know what the VC was up to and what his reasons for making the flat 'no-degree' statement he did. But that it conflicts with the record and a confirmation from a reliable second source is evident. I'll go with the second source (not to mention that the VC came to us as a tertiary source via a news report). So, double reason to exercise much caution in taking the VC's statement at face-value as reliable or trustworthy. The remainder of your observations in item 6 I believe are university-specific ones, and we have no idea of how VUW handles such things. It would take considerable original research to find out. I can't see where the answers would change anything about the question before us. I'll leave your first set of questions at that.

My conclusion, then, is that we have pretty good credibility on one side of the matter, and very weak or questionable credibility on all the sources of the other side (as well as some serious questions yet to be examined there.) The main question that remains is, do we wish to continue to risk ruining a man's personal and professional reputation on doubtful materials, especially when there is far less doubtful material, in the record and from a good second source, that the degree is perfectly valid? In that, I would maintain, that Pellegrino's degree should be accepted at face-value until/unless there is hard evidence otherwise, and that he should be treated as any other Phd on Wikipedia. Would you agree?

So, Dr. Tavio, I hope that I have successfully met and exceeded the challenge you presented. Thanks for your taking the time to think about the matter. I hope neither of us regret taking a look at it. Provided there is no thesis required, could I have my degree now? Redslider (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There's so much discussion above that confusions of detail are bound to happen. This isn't the general library catalogue or [apparently] a circulating copy; it's the Ph.D. catalogue of the Research Archive. [Yes, we see it as part of the Library interface, but that would be the case at many other institutions too.] If the Vice-Chancellor spoke after the catalogue, she would probably trump it (though she would be a fool not to ensure that it agreed with her); but in this case the VC spoke earlier and the catalogue later, and that could be evidence that something changed (like the awarding of the Ph.D.) in between. The brevity is certainly very surprising, but I have seen scientific Ph.D. theses as brief as this. As you know, Taivo, we can't cite a call to the central administration on an encyclopedia page, but we can cite the catalogue, which is a secondary source.

I'm glad to see no legal threat now exists. Andrew Dalby 12:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

While a call to the central administration is not a reliable source, we do have two sources: 1) a library record and 2) a statement by the Vice Chancellor quoted in the New York Times. The library record, unless the university considers that to be the official repository of the central administration, is still not definitive, especially since the approval signatures are not affixed to the document, which is standard practice. It is certainly not "weighty" enough to overrule the Vice Chancellor. While it may be suggestive (as your above scenario outlines), it is simply not definitive evidence. If degrees were, indeed, being awarded 28 years after the fact in New Zealand, there should be some public record of that and a listing of the degrees thus awarded. --Taivo (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Unfortunately we don't have a date for the "awarded doctoral thesis". The "copyright" (formerly "publication") date, the accession and issue dates, all apply to the thesis itself. So what's the chance that the doctorate was awarded 28 years after the fact? Near zero, I'd say. And the record definitely contradicts the VCs statement as quoted in the press. I couldn't find any record concerning post-hoc awards of degrees; and a gap that long certainly should raise some flags. So the VC is shaky and the record? I'd go with that, and the archivist (don't forget them). In fact, since the VCs statement that "nothing happened after 1986" is so clearly wrong, I'd bet the degree was awarded at the same time the thesis was issued, 1983, which is the normal procedure, give or take the few days for record keeping and updates. I think one of the things we are missing here is the difference between 'authority' and 'fact'. The VC (I presume) has the authority to speak for the university. They can say anything they like, but that doesn't make what they say factual or trustworthy (though, as you point out, they'd be a fool to contradict their own records). But university presidents do that all the time (politically, its part of their job). So, while their authority may permit them the license to speak for the university, does conscientious sourcing permit us to ignore the potential unreliability of the source? Is sourcing to be attached to "authority", or to actual expertise, practice, peer-review, records fidelity and other indicators of the accuracy of the information, not simply the title and authority of the informant? What does 'trustworthy and reliable' mean?

but I am really more concerned with the other matter. And I am puzzled why no one in any of the lengthy discussions has mentioned it except me, not even when I ask directly as I have. Where sources leave serious questions, or even a modicum of doubt, is it permissible to permit those sources to be used to continue to ruin a person's reputation? Do we permit sources to be used in such fashion, under such circumstances as this? That is a fair sourcing question, too. But so far no one seems to want to address it. Some kind of hot-potato? A taboo subject? Because if that is true, that we sit on our hands and wrestle over the minutiae of sourcing evidence, and leave someone to suffer the consequences in the light of serious doubt (our own discussion is proof enough that there is considerable doubt), then I'm out of this discussion. I am only concerned with preventing what appears to be unjustifiable harm to someone. That's why I took this matter up in the first place. If we're not moving on to that, to what ought not be permissible in the application of reasonably doubted sources, I'm out of here. Redslider (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point [I add, to retain clarity in this complex conversation, that I was responding to Taivo here!]. Why the scandalous non-existence of the Ph.D. is the last relevant incident in the New Zealand press, if in fact the Ph.D. was granted soon afterwards, I can't suggest. Andrew Dalby 13:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I see now that the copy that's catalogued is a circulating copy; however, the pdf that we can download would not have the signature page or record of approval that several of us were hoping to see. This page explains. Andrew Dalby 13:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that link Andrew. Apparently this New Zealand university only requires the submission of one copy, unlike most American universities, which require the submission of (at least) two copies. I would still have to stress, however, that the records of the central administration will always trump the library collection, as Mangoe noted below. --Taivo (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My thanks too. Although I think it's of limited value. It was updated last December and I expect these processes undergo revisions frequently, perhaps several times a year. No idea what their handbook specified in 1983. Nothing like this one, I expect. We're still left with conjecture. Redslider (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I did find an xls data sheet that appears to be his research summary (no personal identifier but I'm fairly certain it's his.) dates are interesting - research project seems to start 20 years before, in the '60s with latest dates in 1983 at wellington. call letters AS741 VUW PhD TZ 81 1983 . OOPS - the link seems to come up on the "WP Blacklisted sites list" don't see why, came up for me fine, xls file, no viruses. google the call letters and you should find it. Its the MarineBioblitz site. I pulled up the copy. I'm not to swift on these technical things. There seems to be a copy of the thesis in the biological science library, too. Redslider (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You waste your time thinking that people will actually read all that stuff that you post. It's repetitive and isn't convincing. It's very simple, Redslider--the central administration of every university is the repository of official student records. The only statement that has been published by the central administration of that university is the statement by the Vice Chancellor in the New York Times, a reliable source quoting the only official source of university information. That's the end of the story until the central administration publishes further information. A library card catalogue entry is not definitive--only a statement from central administration is definitive. When the two sources have conflicting information, the central administration always trumps the library. --Taivo (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And, Redslider, your whole notion that Wikipedia will "ruin a man's career" is completely laughable. In order to be on Wikipedia in the first place, a person must have a reputable, established career to begin with. He or she must already be notable outside Wikipedia or else we need to delete their entry. The notion that Wikipedia will somehow have an effect on their reputation is completely and totally wrong. If Wikipedia might have that affect on a person's career, then they should not be listed here. Mr. Pellegrino needs to fix the public record himself if it is that important to his career and reputation. It is not our job at Wikipedia to do the work. There is a single reliable published source concerning his PhD--it is the statement in the New York Times by the Vice Chancellor. Indeed, the card catalog entry in New Zealand is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition. It is a primary source only and making assumptions from it is original research. Primary sources never override secondary sources in Wikipedia. All that primary source says is that there exists a document that at one time was submitted for a PhD; it does not verify that the PhD was ever conferred. --Taivo (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Belaboring the matter

This discussion seems to me to have passed beyond any reasonable response to the original question. The university says flatly, No, he doesn't get a degree from us. No other source could trump that; even presentation of a diploma, under the circumstances, would lead to the suspicion that the latter was faked. The only thing an entry in a library catalog can ever be strong evidence for is that the work in question once did exist. Realistically, if you got the head librarian and the registrar in the same room and presented them with these facts, nobody can seriously doubt that the former would defer to the latter. This is exactly the kind of eccentric conclusion-drawing that WP:NOR is supposed to block. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Mangoe. "belaboring" matters is exactly how questions on sourcing should be handled. You would certainly want a source you were using to have belabored the material you were using, over and over again. The more times, the more valuable the source. So too with discussions on sourcing itself. It's a very finicky subject and needs to be handled meticulously. If you get tired of the discussion, you are welcome to leave it. Nothing stopping you from doing that.

Actually, your little thought experiment has it backwards. In a matter concerning the records, the Registrar would defer to the librarian, especially if they were a research archivist, more especially if they were the person in charge of the particular records collection in question. It is the archivist who has the expertise in the matter, not the Registrar. The Registrar might head out to the front-desk to inform the person asking the question, but it is the archivist who had the information and could properly interpret it and relay it. But, let me put another thought-experiment back at you. If you were at a meeting of the graduate committee in charge of overseeing matters of procedures and records and you were discussing matters concerning the handling of those records, their forms, the meanings the processes of creating them and so forth, who do you think would be more likely to be at that meeting, the archivist from the research library, or the Registrar or Vice Chancellor of the university? Actually this isn't a thought-experiment, its an actuality. I've been at such meetings. Regestrars and VCs weren't there, nor were their representatives. But a whole lot of specialized librarians were. Very boring meetings, too. Belabored? You ain't seen nothing. Redslider (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Redslider, you are wrong. The central administration is the only official source for official records and the librarian would always defer to the central administration. --Taivo (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with trying to figure out the details. Some of the discussion above is admittedly "merely academic", but it's still interesting to us academics. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

One person at the university, albeit the VC, said "No.", (the other university 'spokesperson', the one that initiated all the other sources, was unsourced and tertiary. There may also be a conflict of interest in the person who sourced them and was referenced in the BLP), and that source is both tertiary and has been called into question by several others here. A gold-standard source, on the other hand, expert in the matters, trustworthy and reliable and with senior responsibility for handling the records in question, has said, "In answer no Thesis is included in the Research Archive that has not already been awarded. All degrees are conferred." - M. Parry, Co-ordinator of VUW Research Archives Digital Initiatives - (that's "all degrees conferred", not just a thesis). If you wish to argue about the source as an email communication or something else, that's a separate issue. For now, it should be more than enough reliable and trustworthy source to stop ruining a man's reputation. Redslider (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia uses published sources - which the e-mail isn't. And as has been pointed out to you umpteen times already, this isn't a source for a statement about whether a particular doctorate was awarded or not, since the question wasn't asked. As for the rest, your opinion on which source is more reliable is just that - opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I promised I'd report back. I got the following answer:

Hi there Andrew,

The Research Archive url in your e-mail doesn’t work for me: however, I’ve searched the Research Archive, and our library catalogue, and there’s no record of a PhD for Charles Pellegrino.

[signed]

So there we go, and if I ever said I thought this library catalogue was reliable, I now deny it and eat (h)umble pie (I like game pie, actually.) It was a good thing the librarian couldn't access the catalogue entry I sent him, because he has done an independent search instead. I now agree with all those who say we would need to cite an independent source (e.g. issued by the University Registry) before claiming Pellegrino has a Ph.D. Without that, our presumption must be that the NYT report is still the latest news, he still hasn't; and we should certainly mention the controversy on the Pellegrino page because (a) it was very notable at the time, (b) it affected the republication of his major book. I consider that we should give a link to his revised preface under external links, but I never thought we could treat it as a reliable source until it's reliably published, and, so far as we know, it isn't. Andrew Dalby 09:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand that the thesis was in the collection and had been since 1983, however it should never have been accepted. The catalogue entry and the research archive entry have been removed by admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.179.116 (talk • contribs) , 18:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the entry appears to now be inaccessible. I've previously been able to access the record and examine the pdf of the thesis, but now it appears to be inaccessible. If the record no longer exists, then this whole discussion becomes moot and the only reliable source is the Vice Chancellor's comment in the New York Times that Mr. Pellegrino never received a PhD. --Taivo (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. Though it has no bearing on how to edit the article, I'm now curious to know how the PDF copy of the document ended up on their system -- this being a file format that did not exist in 1983. I suppose the library was probably just scanning old dissertations -- which might explain how a catalogue record was created late last year (thus a misimpression leading to the comment "all degrees are awarded"). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that this type of issue can be so problematic on WP. Such cases were discussed a few times during recent long discussions about the wording of WP:V. A lot of people commented. I believe I am right in saying that there was broad consensus that common sense and reasonable doubts, if there is some reasonable consensus about them, even if they come from synthesis and original thinking, CAN BE a valid basis for raising doubts about what NOT to include in an article, especially if that article is about a living person. So for example by my understanding the letter can be discussed as relevant, but only in the negative sense that it might perhaps raise enough doubts to suggest that Wikipedia should not try to explain too much due to lack of sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary/secondary source questions

When a medical/health/science-related study is done and it is available in the scientific journal PLoS ONE, is PLoS ONE considered a secondary source? Also, when the EPA gets a request from a pesticide manufacturer to make a new product available the manufacturer must present studies re its safety to the EPA. The EPA then evaluates the studies to make a decision re the safety of the new chemical. When one quotes the EPA, are they considered a secondary source? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The primary source is the source that produces the research and the findings. If a study presents tests and results in a journal then it is a primary source. However, another study in the same journal could discuss the results presented in another paper (published in a previous volume of the journal) and that would then be a secondary source. In the second example, the EPA study would be a secondary source for the results they are reviewing, but a primary source for their own conclusions regarding the safety of the chemical. I think that's roughly right; if it isn't someone will be along to correct me. Betty Logan (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is far from clear. Wikipedia uses somewhat non-standard and none-too-clear definitions of primary and secondary sources. If a source is primary or secondary also depends on its use. In standard terminology, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies would be a primary source on Einstein, but a secondary source on physics. Lab notes, experimental recordings, and direct observations would be primary sources on physics, but a properly written and reviewed paper is a secondary source. Wikipedia does not universally agree with this, so caveat emptor. That said, PLoS ONE is a non-standard journal that - intentionally and publicly - employs somewhat different review criteria than conventional journals. In particular, a PLoS ONE publication should not be taken as evidence of noteworthiness, as "importance" is one thing PLoS ONE does not assess. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks so far but I still don't understand the situation with the EPA. If I would use a Cochrane Collaboration reveiew to back a claim I made here, that would be a secondary source, correct? In the same situation would the EPA be considered a secondary source, or would they be a primary source? Also, many medical and chemical articles, for instance the phthalates article, have a large number of studies that have not been reviewed that are used as sources in the article. I understand that Wikipedia has guidelines that urge editors to try to use reviews rather than studies since small studies may produce outlandish claims that may greatly differ from the majority of outcomes of most studies, and thus be out of place here. However, when a large two-year study done by university scientists and funded by the FDA is released, would it be considered to be appropriate to include here? I'm speaking of this study [118] Also, would this university news release be considered a secondary source of the study itself? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Cochrane reviews are considered secondary sources about the topic in question. If the EPA reviews multiple studies, then their analysis is a secondary source; if the EPA conducts and publishes original research, then it is primary. All content regarding medical claims are governed by the guideline WP:MEDRS which encourages secondary sources, however most people are not aware of this, and many, many articles are littered with primary studies that go against this guideline. In general, we should use secondary reviews, unlike the primary study you suggest, as we don't know how much weight to give it until it is reviewed in the scientific literature. Yobol (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If all of the chemical articles toxicity sections are to be wiped clean of all primary research, much, perhaps most, of the untoward effects of chemicals would need to be removed. For example, see this section from the Bisphenol A article from the "Health effects" section:

In 2011, the chief scientist of the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency commented on a study on dietary exposure of adult humans to BPA performed by the EPA, saying, "This corroborates other independent studies and adds to the evidence that BPA is rapidly absorbed, detoxified, and eliminated from humans – therefore is not a health concern." In the study 20 subjects were tested for BPA every hour for twenty-four hours while consuming three meals consisting of canned food.

In 2012 a paper was written in response to this study, however, criticizing the study as lacking data and having flawed assumptions.

In this example perhaps the EPA primary study could be included because it was mentioned by the Food Standards Agency, but the primary study which criticized the EPA study and published in PubMed could not be included, correct? Since, unlike medical studies, there are not numerous journals that comment on studies, or reviews such as Cochrane's reviews, the numerous suggestions that many chemicals may have dangers not yet acknowledged by government agencies such as the FDA, CDC, or EPA, will go unreported by Wikipedia under present policy rules, is that correct?

Would this study [119] published in an on-line journal still be considered a primary source (I'm guessing the answer is "yes").

Thank you all so much for your help - it means a lot to me and my continuing editing at Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the Vom Saal, Prins, & Welshons paper is analyzing another paper, rather than conducting new laboratory or clinical experiments, wouldn't it be secondary? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Another primary source question

I've been challenged on this text by Amadascientist:

Adbuster's July 13 blog post was titled with the hashtag "#OccupyWallStreet" The tag slowly started seeing use on social networks, beginning with Twitter.

What's being challenged is the use of the Original 13 Jul 2011 Adbusters blog post which started Occupy Wall Street to reference the claim that said blog post was titled with the hashtag. The secondary source points to the primary source, and says it is in fact the original blog post. B^e——C_ritical 04:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Are you asking if you can use the original blog post instead of the secondary source? If that's the case the answer is no, because the claim is about the hashtag and the primary source doesn't make any claim about the hashtag. If you are asking if you can include the primary source along with the secondary source, then I think that should be ok provided the secondary source clearly identifies the primary source. Betty Logan (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the situation this: look at the primary source [[120]. Note the headline. Look at the two words in the article text "titled with." Those two words are sourced only to the primary source. Amadascientist's challenge is actually that no secondary source says it was included in the title. I am using the primary source to say titled with. B^e——C_ritical 05:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The secondary source doesn't explicitly make the claim that the post was actually titled #OccupyWallStreet, even though the primary source indicates it was. It clearly has that title now but at the same time there is nothing to say the original post wasn't edited at a later point, so technically you shouldn't use the post as it is now as a primary for what it was then. Why not just emulate the secondary source you currently have and state Adbuster's July 13 blog post carried the hashtag "#OccupyWallStreet"? Betty Logan (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You're saying they might have changed it and not changed the date? Then this is actually about the medium, not whether or not it's a primary source. I would understand the need in that case. B^e——C_ritical 05:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Baylor paper

A paper, published by Baylor University, called "Dissecting Darwinism" appears to be disputed at the Irreducible complexity article. I think the paper is a reliable source for its author's, Dr. Joseph Allen Kuhn's, opinion, but would like other opinions to be sure. I will notify the other editors at that article's talk page, and I'm sure they will feel free to give their opinions in this discussion, but I'm more interested in the opinions of the regulars at this board. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It might well be a reliable source for Kuhn's opinions, but that's hardly the only thing we would want to know about a scientific issue -- it's odd to think in terms of an "opinion" in this context. If it's only a matter of his opinion, it might be "undue" to include it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the publication it was published in, the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings is apparently a peer-reviewed, academic, medical journal. Does this give the doctor's opinion any credibility for using in that article? Cla68 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

At issue isn't whether the source is usable, but rather how Cla wants to use it. Kuhn simply reiterates what Behe and others have said before, but Cla chose to dedicate an entire section to it. No one said it's not a reliable source for Kuhn's view. It's an editorial question of why one would want to add an entire section on Kuhn's view.

(As an aside, it's also worth noting that the author of the article sits on the journal's editorial board and is a former editor of the journal, and that it's an article about evolutionary theory in a medical journal. Oh, and the journal published not one, but two replies to Kuhn's article. All of which suggest that this should be taken with a slightly larger-than-average grain of salt). Guettarda (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that (the relationship with the journal & and the rebuttals) reinforces the notion that "opinion" is the right word, then; I'm still stuck on the notion that one would want an opinion in an encyclopedia article on this sort of issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece by a non-expert in a journal with no competence in the area of evolutionary biology. The journal does publish peer reviewed medical papers, but this is not one of them (there is nothing to peer review, as it is not a research paper or review). There is no reason to believe that Dr. Kuhn's opinion had made any impact outside of the creationist community. Even as a creationist, Kuhn appears to be not notable except for this very paper. In short, Dr. Kuhn's opinion is not significant. Mentioning it would grossly violate WP:WEIGHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Have to echo the concerns above: while it would be reliable for Kuhn's opinion, there are numerous red flags about why we shouldn't give this any weight: 1) author is not an expert in the field 2) article topic is completely outside the stated scope of the journal, namely "The journal offers a mix of articles and features for a general medical audience, including original research, reviews, and historical, ethical, and editorial pieces. Regular features focus on oncology, electrocardiography, radiology, pharmacology, and medicolegal issues." (emphasis mine) 3) even among medical journals, the journal appears to be a minor publication (of a smaller medical center - can't even find an impact factor - never a good sign) 4) author sits on the editorial board of the journal 5) Google scholar shows exactly zero citations in the scientific literature to this article (therefore it's being ignored by the scientific community). Taken together, it's pretty clear that we shouldn't be giving this source any weight. Yobol (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with most of Yobol's points, and I fully endorse his conclusion regarding the amount of weight we ought to grant it in our coverage of evolutionary biology. That said, I will note that the article has a 2012 publication date and appears in the most-recent issue of the journal, so the absence of citations of this paper should not be considered particularly surprising or troubling; there isn't any comment on this paper because there hasn't been any time for comment to take place, not (necessarily) because it has been ignored. The short time since publication raises a different problem, however, in that there has been no time for the scholarly community to comment on or evaluate the relevance and importance of this paper. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer Cla68's question above, the fact that it was published in a medical journal that also publishes peer-reviewed medical papers adds nothing to the credibility or significance of Kuhn's opinion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This case underlines the fact that many academic journals publish material other than peer-reviewed research papers. Any decent journal will make it very clear what is and isn't peer-reviewed, and we need to respect that. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any indication in this case of whether the paper is peer-reviewed? Prioryman (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the review process is a tad opaque. I had a quick look at some of the other articles from the current issue, and it does not appear that BUMC Proc follows the common practice of printing Received on, Received with revisions on, or Accepted for publication on dates on its articles. There's no obvious way to determine how extensively papers were reviewed or which required revision prior to acceptance. The description of the journal's review process on their website is minimal. It tells us that "All manuscripts are subject to peer review by editorial board members or other selected reviewers; however, the final decision as to which articles are published will be made by the editor in chief.", which may be somewhat problematic given Kuhn's role as current editorial board member and (recently) past editor-in-chief of the journal. (Individuals with the ability to fast-track certain papers or hand-pick sympathetic reviewers have affected much better known journals than BUMC Proc; one of the worst papers I've ever encountered in a mainstream journal – this disaster in PNAS – was published in that way.)

Not all papers are sent out for peer review by BUMC Proc, either. Their guidelines further state "If a manuscript was previously reviewed by another journal, authors should submit those reviews and indicate any revisions that have been made. Such manuscripts will receive expedited processing, since they will not be sent out for re-review." The BUMC Proc editors would in most cases not know the identity of the reviewers, and would therefore be unable to follow up with them, even if they wanted to. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments made. Based on the comments by the regulars here, I'm not really seeing a consensus either way, for or against the source. Looks like me and the other editors in the ID articles will need to hash it out on the talk page. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Book source

I made an article for the book Reason in the Balance, but the sources were not considered reliable or not enough to justify an article.1234567 Portillo (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Since there isn't currently an article on the book, how are we supposed to comment on whether the sources are reliable for whatever they are being cited for? Judging by past history, [121] and without going into the details, it seems that there was a consensus (back in December last year) to redirect 'Reason in the Balance' to the author's biography - and nothing seems to have changed since. To justify an independent article, we'd have to establish notability for the book - and as was pointed out on Talk:Phillip E. Johnson, you don't seem to have done so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You can see the original article by going here and checking the history. Portillo (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We can. Looking at this, I can see no reason whatsoever to suggest that a merge wasn't appropriate. The sources cited show that (a) the book exists, and (b) that Christianity Today liked it. This appears to me not to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books), by any reasonable interpretation. Can you explain why you think it does? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to get someone elses opinion. Thank you for your help. Portillo (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Andy. There is scant information on this book in reliable sources except that it exists and that Christianity Today likes it. Not very much here to build an article on, nevermind establish notability. The merge to the author's bio is well justified. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of Celsius and Fahrenheit temperatures in Jamaica.

At the moment the article Metrication in Jamaica says: ‘’ In 2007, Jamaica still employed the Fahrenheit scale.’’

This information is based on this passage from Ian Whitelaw’s book, ‘’ A Measure of All Things’’ “ It [Fahrenheit] was to remain the temperature standard in most English-speaking countries until the 1960s, when the Celsius scale was phased in as part of the process of metrication. The Fahrenheit system is still in use in the U.S. and Jamaica.”

I believe that the information about Jamaica is incomplete at best and could fairly be described as misleading.

• Meterological Service, Jamaica gives temperatures just in Celsius. See [122]
• The Facts and Figures page of the Visit Jamaica gives first place to Imperial measures, except for temperatures, which are only in Celsius. [123]
• A report from Lennox Salmon from the Metrication Department of the Jamaica Bureau of Standards, published by the US Metric Association [124] points out that in 1977-8, ‘’The Office of the Metrication Board’’ had introduced metric units in the reporting of weather information.
• A veteran reporter, Dennie Quill, in ‘’The Gleaner’’ [125] says: ‘’ Although there is growing compliance, truth is many of us continue to talk and think in the traditional way. For example, even though the meteorologist tells us that the temperature is going to be 30 plus Celsius today, don't we continue to say: Man what a heat? Today was in the 90s!’’
• The web pages of ‘’The Gleaner’’ give the weather forecast with Fahrenheit first and Celsius second. [126] The weather forecast appears in the masthead of the paper, and this is reproduced on subsidiary pages. For example: [127] [128]
• The web pages of ‘’The Jamaica Observer’’ gives the weather forecast just in Celsius. [129] As with the Gleaner, The weather forecast appears in the masthead of the paper, and this is reproduced on subsidiary pages. For example: [130] [131]

I believe that it is not safe to rely only on Ian Whitelaw’s book alone, as its statement that Fahrenheit system is still in use in Jamaica understates the use of Celsius. I seek guidance as to what would be reliable sources for revising the present wording. The matter has not been resolved on the article's talk page [132] Michael Glass (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We do not use WP:PRIMARY sources like this to carry out original research and try to work it out for ourselves: we go by independent reliable sources. What do they say about the system used in Jamaica? If such sources cannot be found then we don't say anything. Cusop Dingle (talk)

How about [133]? That seems to make it clear that Jamaica is on the metric system. The CIA World Factbook says only 3 countries aren't metric (and they aren't Jamaica)[134]. The Jamaica Met services doesn't even define Fahrenheit. I take your point, Cusop, but why should we use Whitelaw? Fahrenheit is 'used' in a lot of countries that are officially metric. You could say it's 'used' in the UK, but it isn't official and our Met Office doesn't use it. It's misleading at best to use Whitelaw that way as it implies that Fahrenheit is official when clearly it isn't. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that an official Jamaican government source is reliable for what ought to be used. It might not be for what is actually used, which is what the OP seems to be asking for. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I Like Dougweller's source and I believe it to be reliable. However, it is a governmental ministry discussing the mandate of an agency which is part of that ministry itself. This would make it an insider account, thus a primary source. Since WP:PRIMARY states that ... primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia....to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts I think it can be used for what it says, but to prove what is actually going on in Jamaica, a secondary source would be preferable per Wikipedia policies. The primary vs secondary source debate is an interesting one, personally I believe under the proper circumstances certain primary sources may be more accurate and reliable that some secondary ones, but the policy does favor finding an interpretation from a secondary source. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone think, however, that we should keep the statement "In 2007, Jamaica still employed the Fahrenheit scale." Among other things, it's not 2007. As in the UK, some unofficial sources use Fahrenheit, but what's the point of saying that? The official source, the met office, uses centigrade. But our article makes it look as though that's not the case. Dougweller (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a question for RS, more for POV. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It is curious that Michael, the OP, has not actually asked the question that I suggested be brought here. Indeed, Michael's question does not actually ask anything that is particularly disputed. The dispute here has hinged on a few specific points:

• Several of the above sources make no reference to use of units or metrication at all. They just happen to measure stuff. Is it OR to use such sources to make points - explicitly or implicitly - about metrication or use of units?
• If so, is it relevant to the article to list individual instances of usage on given web pages, without using this to make any form of point?
• It is argued that Whitelaw makes errors when discussing metrication in other countries. Is Whitelaw reliable?
• It is argued that the USMA source makes errors when discussing metrication in other countries. Is the USMA source reliable?
• It is argued that Quill's article is an editorial. Is it reliable?

Pfainuk talk 20:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to recast the questions above and add a couple:

• Is the present text (based on Whitelaw) satisfactory?
• Several of the above sources make no reference to the use of units or to metrication. However, they use either Celsius or both Fahrenheit and Celsius to record temperatures. is it OR to use information from these sources to illustrate the usage of Celsius and Fahrenheit in Jamaica?
• When two newspapers put the weather forecasts into their mastheads and this data appears in multiple web pages, should this be regarded as random instances of usage or be taken as reflecting newspaper practice?
• It is argued that Whitelaw makes errors when discussing the use of Celsius in both Jamaica and other countries. Is Whitelaw a reliable source of information on the use of Celsius?
• It has been alleged that the USMA web page made errors when discussing metrication in other countries, though no errors were pointed out, and the section on Jamaica, written by Lennox Salmon from the Metrication Department of the Jamaica Bureau of Standards was not criticised. Should the test of reliability be applied to the website as a whole, or to individual writers such as Lennox Salmon?
• It has been alleged that Quill's article may be an editorial. Is it reliable as the opinion of a veteran reporter? Can it be regarded as reliable when it refers to facts about the usage of Fahrenheit and Celsius in Jamaica?

I am interested in finding and using reliable information for the article. Michael Glass (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Worth noting that the "error" in Whitelaw is the claim that most English-speaking countries switched from Fahrenheit in the 1960s. This is claimed to be false on the basis that Australia and Canada switched in the 1970s. Evidently, as there are more than three English-speaking countries, the two points are not mutually exclusive.

Whether it's accurate or misleading with respect to Jamaica is the point of our discussion. The reason I suggested this be brought here was because I was unconvinced by the reliability of the USMA source and of Quill's editorial and wanted an outside view. The suggestion that the editorial be used to cite Quill's opinion as opposed to fact has not been raised, but I'd question its relevance in this case. Naturally, I do not give any value to sources that do not discuss metrication due to WP:NOR.

But the relevant questions were not asked, and I do wonder whether we have already shot our bolt on getting answers here. Pfainuk talk 21:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Flag Institute && Template:Flag Institute

It appears some editors are using these above organisations as arbiters of what is or is not the valid flag of counties. However as The conditions for inclusion in the Institute's UK Flag Registry are as follows: ""In the case of county flags, the flag must normally apply to a historical county rather than a modern administrative area"[4], thus excluding the Metropolitan Counties, and that the Registry includes several flags for historic counties, which were nominated after they ceased to exist and have no official status" shows it to be more akin to the Association of British Counties than anything else. The institute is being used to give credence to the the flag of Westmorland, despite the fact that Westmorland no longer exists and the group proposing it is a pressure group. While at the same time the non appearance of Merseyside in the registry is uses as justification for removing a flag which, which is used in several places in the real world, from the article Merseyside. Some of the people supporting this use have previously been involved in try to alter Wikipedia to reflect the views of the Association of British Counties as fact, within the county articles. That the Flag Institute has no legal status and actively discriminates against some extant counties, while creating flags for Counties that have long ceased to be makes it an inappropriate reference and to use it is just to swallow it's propaganda and lend it undue support.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Viewspaper

The Viewspaper is an Indian publication that claims to be a platform for youth, written by youth - see this about page. It has some big-name supporters - NDTV, World Bank, IMF etc - but when I see writing such as this I really do wonder about the editorial oversight. Phrases such as "He worked sidewise" (apparently meaning that he supported himself with a part-time job) and "His coach, Jagdish Singh, was always hopeful of Vijender making the cut at the Olympics against all oddity" are distinctly, erm, oddity even with my experience of Indian English. That particular article has been used in a GA - is this source of decent enough quality? - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm far less familiar with Indian English than Sitush; but, I'm fairly familiar with shamefully promotional advertorials, such as "Vijender Singh from Bhiwani to Beijing". Treat like a gutter tabloid from the UK? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)